Celsus

Sauron, in the context of this thread, your last post is a red herring. Let's debate in good faith and grant the benefit of the doubt occasionally.

Joel

Bede

Actually, in the interested of fairness I do want to make clear that I have learnt something from Sauron's interventions. I was unaware that there was no specific injunction against human dissection in Islam and based my errronous view on various published works. I quoted Toby Huff above and the second edition of his book was published on Friday and in it he quotes Savage Smith against his previously stated views! We still have no evidence that human dissection actually took place (I expect it didn't but would be pleased to find solid evidence that it did) but Suaron has drawn our attention to a small extra point against the conflict hypothesis for which I am grateful. If he could now admit he was wrong about Christian opposition to human dissection we would have a genuine two way exchange of increased knowledge!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

mike_decock

Hi Bede, I'm a little skeptical of the conclusions you draw in some of your examples. I'll just address one of them:

I don't think it's that simple because the "official" reason for prosecution does not necessarily reflect the "real" reason:

1) We do not like him supporting heliocentricity.
2) We cannot charge him for that.
3) We can charge him for heresy.
4) We accuse him of being a sun-worshipper who is trying to establish a new religion and charge him for that instead.

I'm not trying to argue that your conclusions or necessarily wrong, but that they simply may not be that "conclusive".

-Mike....

Bede

Hi Mike,

Could I see the evidence for the 'official' reason the Church acted against Bruno. I assume you have access to previously unknown papers or at least have read scholars who do. But perhaps you are just whistling in the wind. If so, please review the thread on Copernicus down below where I quote Bruno and his mystical reasons for supporting heliocentricism. You might also note the good atheist Familyman's dismissal of Bruno. I can understand you wanting to hang onto the myth of Bruno as a martyr of science but I am afraid, as scholars all accept, it simply isn't true.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

mike_decock

Perhaps. Even so, there's no need to instantly characterize me as an ignorant wind-whistler when all I have done is state my skepticism. I have made no comment about your knowledge or character.

I think you forgot the link to the thread. If you post it, I'll read it. I personally don't care if his reasons for supporting heliocentricism were scientific or mystical. As I see it, there was much less of a distinction between science and mysticism in the Middle Ages anyway. Then again, I'm just an ignorant guy whisling in the wind, right?

Whether or not Bruno was a martyr for science is a myth or historically true is of no consequence to me or my beliefs. I'm agnostic on the issue. Characterizing me as "wanting to hang onto the myth" is simply false.

-Mike...

Sauron

Then perhaps you should read the text from ibn Nafis again:

It should also be noted that the social milieu of the times meant that the practice of dissection would have been frowned upon - a point that Savage-Smith makes clear, and that all parties in this debate stipulate to. So any doctor would have been careful not to indict himself by admitting to having performed a dissection, or recording that event in writing. But that means that the absence of written records isn't conclusive, since an absence is what we would expect, given the social environment. "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" - I'm sure you're familiar with that maxim.

How bizarre. When the recognized expert on this very specialized topic says quite clearly that:

The evidence as to its actual practice, however, is conflicting and insufficient to allow one to draw definite conclusions.

and then goes on to point out that the majority of texts haven't even been translated or examined yet -- then by what stroke of arrogance do you think that you - a mere dilettante - can approach certainty on the question?

Physician, heal thyself. You have made all the following errors:

1. stating that a religious injunction existed in Islam against dissection;

2. (via Toby Huff), making an absolute statement that no dissections ever took place, when (as pointed out above) the recognized specialty expert on that particular topic says that no firm conclusions can be drawn either way;

3. You characterized my evidence as an "internet paraphrase", when in actuality, it was a direct quote from Savage-Smith herself;

4. You wrongly described my argument as being solely that "internet paraphrase", ignoring the second quotation from the American Journal of Nephrology - indeed, you ducked it and failed to address it at all;

5. You misrepresented Savage-Smith by quoting the following excerpt out of context: "If indeed any medieval Islamic physician did undertake dissection, he must have felt the need to remain quiet about the details". In your version, you used this excerpt to support your claim: "Hence, my original assertion that no human dissections took place under Islam hence remains very well grounded". However, you deliberately ignored Savage-Smith's two comments which utterly undercut your claim:

a. Savage-Smith points out that the evidence is not conclusive for a definite statement:

The evidence as to its actual practice, however, is conflicting and insufficient to allow one to draw definite conclusions.

b. Savage-Smith reminds the reader that the majority of the evidence has not even been analyzed:

At this point I must, however, insert a caveat. The medieval Arabic medical literature, not to mention the Persian and Turkish material, is vast, and no claims can be made for having examined even the majority of the texts, most of which still lie in manuscripts unedited and unpublished. Vaster still must be the legal/theological literature and the fatwa treatises containing legal responses to question of law, of which even less have been published or examined by scholars. Many lifetimes of scholarship will be required to survey all the potentially pertinent material.

You tried to use Savage-Smith's words, but you selectively excerpted them and ignored the surrounding text that was inconvenient. The context of that paragraph - which I provided - demonstrates that you claim:

"Hence, my original assertion that no human dissections took place under Islam hence remains very well grounded"

is nothing but wishful hand-waving.


Of all these five errors, you have admitted to only the first one.

Bede

Mike,

If I offended you I apologise. However, it does get rather frustrating to find people making a virute of their 'scepticism' without supplying evidence. Certainly, if Bruno is no issue to you, I would not expect you to go to the trouble of posting. Still, as you are not giving us any further information beyond your unsubstantiated musings, we can drop the issue.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: Here's the Copernicus thread:http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=63586

PPS: You'll find that mystics like St Bernard and rationalists like Peter Abelard were actually opponents through the Middle Ages, although they were all devout Christians.

Bede

Sauron,

Grow up. I offered an olive branch and your are still ranting.

Ibn N's observation is true of all mamals and he was correcting Galen who never dissected humans either. It is not evidence on human dissections.

B

Sauron

I am not convinced about the Christian opposition (or lack thereof) to dissection. That is not to say that I am unwilling to be convinced either way. I personally don't see it as a major point for either side, so there is little personally at stake for me in debating that point. Provide links to what you think are your best arguments or posts on this topic, and I'll review them. Note that I'm not asking you to create brand new posts; just point me to existing posts that you think encapsulate the best evidence. I'll review them again and let you know what I think.

As for the "olive branch" - Bede, you made a *minimum* of five errors here. You admitted only one, and you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that one. Your olive branch is looking rather dry and brittle.

mike_decock

Apology accepted. I can understand your frustration and I tried to voice my musings in a manner that would not add to it (I'll try harder next time ).

Thanks.

-Mike...