Family Man

For purposes of this thread, the fact that heliocentric systems had been proposed before isn't very relevant. Bede wants us to believe that Christianity caused Copernicus to do his scientific work. He found a quote from Copernicus to that effect. But there are several problems with that.

First, the biases of the reporter has to be considered. Copernicus was a very religious man, and he might be crediting his religion out of habit. We simply can't assume that, had he belonged to another religion, he wouldn't have done the same research and come to the same conclusions. Bede would have us take the statement at face-value, but that uncritical approach is decidedly not how history is usually done. At best, Bede's theory can't be accepted on the evidence he presents.

Worse yet, a check of the interactions between Christianity and science reveals a institution that was, at best, neutral and, at times, mildly antagonistic to scientific endeavors. All Bede can do is to present lame counter-arguments, ignore the refutations, and attempt to slander those who disagree with him. Personally, I find it a little annoying and disappointing when someone tries to dismiss me by slapping a label on me.

In short, there is no reason to believe that Christianity was a necessary condition for modern science to develop. There are plenty of reasons to believe that this wasn't Bede's best effort.

lpetrich

The only surviving work of Aristarchus of Samos is Treatise on the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon, in which he used geometrical methods to find the distances and sizes of the Sun and the Moon relative to the Earth's size. He found that the Sun is larger than the Earth; he may also have thought that it is unnatural for a big object to move around a small object, thus being led to consider heliocentrism.

Copernicus mentioned Aristarchus in his manuscript of his magnum opus, but then decided against mentioning him in that book's published version. One can imagine what a present-day journal editor would say about him about that.

I don't know of Copernicus ever mentioned the relative-size argument, however.

lpetrich

Family Man:
First, the biases of the reporter has to be considered. Copernicus was a very religious man, and he might be crediting his religion out of habit. ...

Like some professional athlete or entertainer who credits Ol' Mr. G, as if that entity was in the business of fixing sports matches and stuff like that.

Bede would have us take the statement at face-value, but that uncritical approach is decidedly not how history is usually done. At best, Bede's theory can't be accepted on the evidence he presents.

It would be amusing to use Bedian methodology on 17th-cy. political thinker Thomas Hobbes, who would say things like how pagan religions are caused by not distinguishing dreams from awakeness, that pagan deities are created by human fear, while our god is the Prime Mover, that happiness consists of prospering, not in having prospered, except, of course, for the joys of Heaven.

By such methods, one would conclude that Thomas Hobbes had had exemplary piety, while the most straightforward conclusion is that he was less-than-sincere and trying to cover his rear end in a time when atheism was considered very dangerous. In fact, Parliament performed an investigation of "atheistic writings", specifically mentioning Hobbes's.

I think that it was Hobbes's rationalist temperament that set them off. Though they might have liked his advocacy of authoritarian government, he preferred to argue on pragmatic grounds rather than argue the Divine Right of Kings.

Bede

Wade,

My insult was intended to be explicit, not backhanded. It's just my experience, but I have found intelligent conversation impossible on GRD.

Familyman,

I accept that 17th/18th century France was not the most repressive place in the world. That was probably Japan at the time. But it was very catholic, considered an enormous success by the counter reformers and quite incapable of reform from absolute god-appointed monarchy without a conflagration (which duly happened). I simply deny that France was more 'free' than Italy. I also deny that England was a haven for freethought as you point on Hobbes demonstrates.

But my original reply was not intended to be this. Rather I was trying to explain that countrys with a powerful political role for the church does not counter my argument on Christianity and science. All it shows is that in Spain (which is the only good example) certain reactionary forces controlled the universities and didn't approve of new learning. Likewise, Poland, viewed as being exceptionally liberal in matters of religion in the period under review (before becoming oppressive later on) produced no notable scientists after Copernicus (who was educated in Italy anyway). You might as well ask why England has never produced a world class painter or composer.

On Mesmer, I believe he started his career in Bologna and moved to Vienna and Paris to be close to the riches of the Habsburg and Boubon courts rather than for any religious reason.

We have looked enough at Copernicus. You claim that if he was not a Christian he would have come up with the same ideas. But what about Kepler who was explicit that the reason he came up with the eliptical orbit was because he refused to accept that God could create a system which was not entirely uniform. The error in the orbit of Mars by Ptolemy was just eight minutes. But Kepler knew that God created a perfect system (and not one with eight minute variations in it) and hence set, successfully, out to find it.

Descartes, in his method, strips down only to his own existence. Next he invents God and a lawful God that allows him to believe 'he is not decieved' and that the world runs according to laws. Moslem occasionalism would have no time for this idea.

Newton didn't like Cartesianism as he felt it was a deistic rather than theistic worldview. His own system was intended to give God a permenant role in maintaining gravity which had no inate cause. He makes this clear in the General Scholium where he says that "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world (ala Platonism), but as Lord over all".

Then there is Boyle who was convinced that the best way to avoid atheism was to do science. And Vesalius who saw one of the major points of anatomy was to glorify God's creation.

Enough for now.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Steven Carr

Purcell. Constable. Haendel (OK, bad example). Turner. Hockney.

Bede

Purcell just about world class but hardly top ten material. Most people haven't even heard of him. Constable and Hockney - absolutely no way. Turner - well the best we have but would be lucky to make the world cup squad let alone the first team. Handel of course was German.

Let's not get bogged down except to note that the English write, the Germans make music, the Spanish paint and the Italians do everything, as do the French but not quite as well.

B

jonatha

I suspect your argument here would apply equally as well to Islamic astronomers during the Islamic enlightenment, i.e., it's not the Christianity that's important, it's the tendency to see physics as a reflection of God's will...

Perhaps someone who's more familiar with Islamic writings of that period could comment...

Family Man

Bede --

What exactly is it that you're denying? That Italy didn't have an inquisition? That they did, but so did France? That Italy did have an inquisition but it was really just a fun social club that held square dances every Friday night?

The fact is that your analysis isn't based on any sound historical principles. Here's a more standard analysis, by William Ashcroft and found in the Lindberg/Numbers book that you tried to tell me would show no conflict between the Church and Science.

This is the standard analysis of science after Galileo in Italy, and it is one where church intimidation greatly harmed -- though did not kill off -- science in Italy. France suffered no comparable intimidation, and science flourished. This demonstrates the point I've been making on this thread: the Church was either indifferent or mildly hostile to science, and where it maintained control, science was harmed. The Church had no control in France -- on the contrary, it was the State that controlled the Church -- and science did very well. Your empty assertions have no weight, Bede.

As for your examples of other scientists invoking their religious beliefs to motivate their scientific research, they fall to the same analysis I applied to Copernicus: we simply don't know if they were conforming their scientific research goals to their beliefs. You haven't shown how my analysis fails, nor have you shown me a single scholar that argues the point the way you do. And in all my research and reading, I haven't seen one either. And I don't think there is one, because taking statements about the effect of one's beliefs on their secular activities at face value is terrible means of doing history. I see no reason to take your analysis seriously.

mike_decock

The first was to obey the laws and customs of my own country, holding firmly to the religion in which, by the grace of God, I had been instructed from my infancy, and guiding myself in everything else by the most moderate and least excessive views that are generally accepted in practice by the most sensible people among those with whom I was to live.

Descartes - Discourse on Method, Part Three

He stripped down to his local customs and his religion before questioning everything else. How could he not invent God if he didn't question his religion?

-Mike...

joedad

It goes without saying that nothing comes between Bede and his apologetics. Are you stating, however, that you believe Bede knew about Aristarchus before he ever brought up the subject of Copernicus and motivations for Heliocentrism? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? If not, simply stating that we are not catching Bede at his best appears the acme of understatement.

For the record:and in the original threadSo what am I missing? Doesn't it appear that Bede is clueless wrt Aristarchus? Or is there something about Aristarchus's idea of heliocentrism that distinguishes it from that of Copernicus, a morsel that makes Bede's statements sensical? The original thread ended with my post on Aristarchus and now Bede wants to change the subject after I bring it up again.

Sorry if I'm being overly curious, but either Bede is the ignoramus or it's me.