LogicandReason

Just a question concerning critical thinking in general...is the Enlightenment the logical byproduct of the Reformation and a growing field of scientific/inductive/deductive thinking? Is church domination responsible for retarding scientific reasoning? Do we have examples of this level of critical thinking before the rise of science and the Enlightenment?

As mentioned, Lucian called Jesus a 'sophist,' but did not question his existence. When Martyr writes of Zeus he does not question the deity's existence either.

It is very difficult for a person of modernity to appreciate the level of superstitious belief people of the ancient.world were oriented to.

aa5874

It is NOT true that Justin Martyr did not question the existence of Zeus. He questioned every god except Jesus and the Father of Jesus.

Please read Justin Martyr's "Hortatory Address to the Greeks" where he expounds on the "true religion" of the true God, the father of Jesus, and declares or implies that other gods are myths and have no existence.

Hortatory Address to the Greeks 21

LogicandReason

Yes, I forget that Justin seems to be the father of 'The Devil made me do it.'

But how many people questioned the gods or science before the Enlightenment? Maybe we need to define the Enlightenment with dates? Does it begin with Hobbes or is he only an antecedent? Do we date it to Newton? There seem to be many subjects that alluded question before the Enlightenment. With the church in power and claiming divine creation, we don't see much work being done on:

1. Astronomy (does anyone really need a refresher course on the church and Copernicus or Galileo?)
2. Atomic Theory (did the church not try to suppress this idea that dates back to Ancient Greece?)
3. Physics
4. Evolution or Origin
5. Microbiology
6. Medicine (Sin was the known contaigium)

Perhaps the existence of Jesus was just not a question because that level of critical thinking was yet to be developed...simple as that.

Does the Reformation schism become part of the antecedent that facilitates the Enlightenment?

I think Martin Luther speaks for most Christian thinkers before the Enlightenment when he calls Reason the whore of the Devil.

Jeffrey Gibson

It is the product of the Renaissance.

Leaving aside the fact that you beg the question when you speak of "the church" as if it were a monolithic entity that was always the same from the 5th through the 16th centuries, the answer is no -- at least according to "the "sage of Science (or via: amazon.co.uk)" J.D. Bernal. As he notes on p. 262 of Vol 1 of his highly regarded Science in History, "If science advanced slowly in Christendom until the time of the Renaissance, it was not because of the Church [emphasis mime], but because of the economic conditions [emphasis mine] that maintained it so long in its obscurantist role. Under feudal conditions advance could not have been faster". (For more on this, see his discussions of "Science in the Age of Faith" in chapters 5 & 6, pp. 247-342 of Vol 1.)

I'm not certain what your idea of "this level of critical thinking" is, but for examples of pre enlightenment critical thinking that stands up as "good" on on any scale of measurement, have a look at what Strabo has to say in his Geography 1.2.15 about Eratosthenes claims regarding the voyages of Odysseus or, perhaps more pertinint, the critique by Gaunilo of Anselm's Ontological argument.

May I ask again what it is that informs your knowledge of the history of "the Church" and the history of science in the so called "age of faith"? What actually have you read on these matters?

Carl Sagan and others seem to have had no difficulty in doing so. But is this level really that much more than what exists today? Have you actually looked at the recent surveys of what it is that, e.g., American believe about the way the world works and the forces that are behind and give rise to their everyday experiences?


Jeffrey

bacht

Great questions. The Reformation also coincided with increasing literacy through the printing press and increased knowledge of the world through exploration and colonization. New technology like telescopes and microscopes amplified our sense organ data-gathering by the 17th C.

LogicandReason

And the Renaissance?

That is a fair criticism and excellent point...I certainly would not compare the Catholic Churches of Italy and Spain during the 15th century. My statement is too generalist. Do you think behaviors, like those practiced by the Spanish church during the Spanish Inquisition, discouraged any scientific challenges to Christian dogma on creation, astronomy, or the cause of illness? One has to openly wonder, as this time period seriously depleted Jewish populations (the progenitors of many of the best minds of history) if pogroms and segregation thwarted earlier thinkers like Spinoza...

Another excellent point...which would quickly draw a link to industrialization/economics/growth in science. Let me ask you, if we are to assume the feudal system was a great impediment to scientific growth, is the church or religion (in general) also complicit? I think Hobbes, Descartes and other Enlightenment philosophers were the first Europeans since the Greeks to question the Attilla/medicine man or holy man alliance as a means for governance.

Anselm's thinking looks much clearer when mastered by Aquinas...that said, it still demonstrates the presumptive conclusion that all believed in the existence of God when the Ontological argument is posited...please show me the debates Anselm faced from a strong secular counterpoint...we can easily judge the political power of the church in Europe during Anselm's life by its little expedition to the Holy Lands towards the end of the 11th century (note St Anselm was openly opposed to the Crusades).

I have a library...but the most revealing is none other than Eusebius. In book 3 of his "History" he openly admits to questionable books in the Canon...very candid. I will admit that most of my reading, beside the NT, is biased on the secular side. But I do read apologist from Aquinas to Strobels. It would be helpful if we had more histories from the 4th century to the 15th written by intellectuals who questioned the church...any guess why we don't find any?

Frightening...and probably true. I recently read Phil Zuckerman's new book, Societies without God. I found it interesting that the peoples of Sweden and Norway are very secular, and yet they hang on to the vestiges of religious ritual culturally (without belief). One can only hope...

LogicandReason

Good points....

LogicandReason

The 'Cordoba' question deserves repeating. After suffering forced-conversions and persecution under the 'Christian' Visigoths, The Jews joined invading Muslim forces and in 711 to defeat the Visigoths and established great wealth in Cordoba, Granada, Toledo and Seville. Under the rule of the liberal Ummayid caliphate, Southern Spain was the model for eccumenical coexistence...but in 1013 the Berber Muslims swept power away from the Ummayids and the party was over (eventually driving Maimonides to Egypt). Living in coexistence, did the scholars of these three religions openly challenge each other? I've seen no reference to that but am certainly not a scholar. Is it ironic that this 'Utopia' existed under a caliph?

aa5874

It is not true that that such a level of critical thinking was not yet developped.

Jesus believers of antiquity were called ATHEISTS.

See "The Plea for the Christians" chapter 4 by Athenagoras. The critical thinking of the ancients surpassed even those of today. Who today could ever dream to call a Jesus believer an atheist?

I think it is true. Jesus was not a God. Jesus believers are really atheists.

LogicandReason

Justin Martyr reports the same in his first Apology.

Question: When antagonist used the label 'Atheist' for Christians, does this infer any thought process as to an actual existence or validity claim of Jesus...or does it simply infer they, like Christians, assume their myths are the truth while all others are not?