Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 09-01-2003, 01:27 PM

Recently, Bede posted a boatload of poorly-formed strawmen about 10 "myths" that atheists hold. In that exchange, he claimed that Christianity did not oppose dissection, but actually was the first place in which it was practiced.

Nonsense.

Quote:

originally posted by Bede
Sauron, I note your source does not say human disection took place in Islam.

Wrong, Bede. It does indicate that. In two places:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/is...slamic_10.html

Quote:

Systematic human anatomical dissection was no more a pursuit of medieval Islamic society than it was of medieval Christendom. It seems clear from the available evidence, however, that there were no explicit legal or religious strictures banning it. Indeed, many scholars in Islam lauded the study of anatomy, primarily as a way of demonstrating the design and wisdom of God, and there are some references in medical writings to dissection, though to what extent these reflect actual practice is problematic.

And the second source:

Quote:

Arabic medicine and nephrology
Eknoyan G.
Am J Nephrol 1994;:270-8

During the Dark Ages following the fall of the Roman Empire, the Arabic world was instrumental in fostering the development of the sciences, including medicine. The quest for original manuscripts and their translation into Arabic reached its climax in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, and the dissemination of the compiled texts was facilitated by the introduction of paper from the East. Foremost among the Arabic physicians were Rhazes, Avicenna, Haly Abbas and Albucasis, who lived during the period 950-1050 AD. Their writings not only followed Hippocrates and Galen, but also greatly extended the analytical approach of these earlier writers. The urine was studied and the function and diseases of the kidneys described. Despite the fact that experimentation on the human body was prohibited by religion, some anatomic dissection and observation seems to have been undertaken, and the pulmonary circulation was described by Ibn Nafis. Anatomic illustrations began to appear in Arabic texts, though they did not have the detail and artistic merit of those of Vesalius.

Next time read more carefully.

Quote:

However, even if it did this further undermines the claim that religion hindered science.

Bait-and-switch. Your original bogus strawman was about Christianity. You don't get any points for your argument by pointing to how Islam behaved differently.

The fact that Islam embraced science, instead of being afraid of it, is a well-known fact; indeed, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was set up specifically as a collection center for all kinds of knowledge - engineering, medical, astronomical, optical, etc.

My evidence does not help your argument, since you were discussing christianity, not islam. Unless you can show where any "atheists" around here have claimed that medieval islam was a hindrance to scientific discovery?

Quote:

We already know Christianity did not prevent disssections.

Huh? We don't "know" that at all. What we know is what Evolutionist said earlier:

on the topic of the human cadaver though, for centuries, members of the Church forbade the dissection of a human cadaver, calling it "a desecration of the temple of the holy ghost."

You've failed to prove anything else.

Quote:

This was my original point and stands unrefuted.

Clue phone - it's been refuted. Christianity did prevent dissections. Here's another source for it:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitem09.html

Quote:

From the outset Vesalius proved himself a master. In the search for real knowledge he risked the most terrible dangers, and especially the charge of sacrilege, founded upon the teachings of the Church for ages. As we have seen, even such men in the early Church as Tertullian and St. Augustine held anatomy in abhorrence, and the decretal of Pope Boniface VIII was universally construed as forbidding all dissection, and as threatening excommunication against those practising it. Through this sacred conventionalism Vesalius broke without fear; despite ecclesiastical censure, great opposition in his own profession, and popular fury, he studied his science by the only method that could give useful results. No peril daunted him. To secure material for his investigations, he haunted gibbets and charnel-houses, braving the fires of the Inquisition and the virus of the plague. First of all men he began to place the science of human anatomy on its solid modern foundations--on careful examination and observation of the human body: this was his first great sin, and it was soon aggravated by one considered even greater.

Moreover, your secondary claim (about dissections at the request of the Bologna school) is likewise bogus:
Needless to say, the church didn't try and stop it although, as always, there were dissenters.

"Needless to say"? I'm afraid that there is great need to say, Bede. You have presented zero evidence to support this statement. The fact that the practice endured doesn't prove that the Church at that time didn't try to stop it.

Quote:

However, you have presented evidence that Islam didn't hinder medical science in this way either! Thanks for taking the theist side for once.

My evidence does not help your argument, since you were discussing christianity, not islam. Unless you can show where any "atheists" around here have claimed that medieval islam was a hindrance to scientific discovery? I'd be interested in seeing such a claim - so be my guest.

09-01-2003, 04:19 PM

Let's clear this up. We have two contentions.

On Islam:

Sauron has indeed supplied us with a source (on the internet) that implies that there were human dissections until Islam. But they do not actually say so (as I correctly stated). This is important because an interest in anatomy does not mean you are actually cutting up humans. Galen wrote extensively on anatmoy but based his work on pigs and monkeys which he assumed were the same as humans. It seems the Arabs did likewise as I quoted Toby Huff on another thread to Sauron:

Quote:

In the meantime from Toby Huff "The Rise of Early Modern Science" CUP 1993 page 178:

Experts on the history of Arabic medicene assert that the dissection of human beings was strictly forbibben by religious law. As Professor Burgel puts it "Our sources do not contain the slightest indication of anybody having dared to trespass this custom. Yuhana Ibn Masawaih, a great physician of the earlier period who was a Christian and a freethinking rationalist in demeanor, dissected apes."

So we have Sauron's internet site implying Arabs allowed dissection (but not actually saying so) and my scholarly monograph denying it point blank. Perhaps Sauron could find a book or article by his source which states the case clearly. By the way, Burgel's work that Huff quotes from is called "Secualr and Religious Features of Medeival Arabic Medicene so hardly non-specialist. But it is quite old (1976) and if Sauron has explicit newer evidence I am very interested. But it must be explicit and not just say they were interested - I am interested in dissection and assure everyone that I have never done it.

On Christianity:

Sauron quotes Andrew Dickson White - a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

The Bull of Boniface VIII was issued in 1300 (dated 1298) and starts:

[quote]Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead barbarously boiling them in order that the bones, being separated from the flesh, may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very act, excommunicated.[quote]

It goes on in a similar vein for another couple of pages making it quite clear it applies only to treating bodies so they can be shipped home for burial. Now White claims that this was 'universally construed' to forbid dissection which is odd as we have not a single case of anyone being prosecuted under this bull by the inquisition or anyone else. And they were dissecting in Italy right under the inquisition's nose.

As David Lindberg writes (beginning or Western Science (Chicago University Press, 1992): "By 1316, Mondino dei Luzzi who taught at Bologna, had become sufficiently had become sufficiently skilled in human dissection to write a dissection manual entitled Anatomia which became the standard guide to human dissection in the next two centuries. In the course of the fourteenth century dissection became a regular part of medical instruction at Padua, Bolgna and a few other universities." Lindberg then treats us to a first hand description of a human dissection around 1350.

I know from my own research that one of the inquisitors in Bologna about this time, Lambertus de Cingulo, was quite happy to go after university staff and convicted and fined Cecco d'Ascoli, an astrologer, of heresy in 1324. Lambertus was an expert on Aristotle and knew the intellectual climate but did nothing to stop the dissections in Bologna or Padua. We find White was making up the idea that Boniface's bull, or any other church action, prevented human dissections. The actual historical resord records they got going just at the time he claims the church stopped them.

So, we await conclusive evidence about Islam to balance the clear statement of Huff that they forbade human dissection. And we have seen that, contrary to nineteenth century stuff culled from the net, that the Christian church did not prevent human dissections when they started.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sauron · 09-01-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Let's clear this up. We have two contentions.

On Islam:

Sauron has indeed supplied us with a source (on the internet) that implies that there were human dissections until Islam.

Incorrect as usual. I provided two sources, that are quotations from professional sources, that such dissections did occur.

In addition to that, I also pointed to the Empire of Faith production (and the accompanying book) from PBS.

Finally, I also pointed you to "Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel" by the Gies.

Quote:

But they do not actually say so (as I correctly stated).

Actually, they do say so - that is the area I included in bold red font. Your statement is incorrect - and given the number of times I've had to correct it, your statement amounts to lying.

Quote:

This is important because an interest in anatomy does not mean you are actually cutting up humans. Galen wrote extensively on anatmoy but based his work on pigs and monkeys which he assumed were the same as humans.

It seems the Arabs did likewise as I quoted Toby Huff on another thread to Sauron:

The fact that they may have also dissected other animals does not refute the fact that the Muslims also dissected people. The two are not exclusive.

As for Huff - already responded to this.

Huff and Burgel are clearly deficient in their research. The NIH quotation I provided earlier, as well as the other citations, demonstrate a knowledge of dissection in Islamic science. Since Huff & Bergel's claim is formulated as an absolute, the claim is easily falsifiable.

As for Huff and Bergel - they're generalists studying the transmission of science to Western civilization. However, Savage-Smith's 40+ page article exploring the topic in detail -- written by an expert who specializes in the precise narrow area of the history of Islamic medicine - obviously trumps a one-paragraph citation. Here is Savage-Smith's bio information:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/arabic/about.html

Quote:

The text for this Website was written by Emilie Savage-Smith, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, The Oriental Institute, University of Oxford, Pusey Lane, Oxford OX1 2LE, England. As one of the leading historians of medieval Islamic medicine, Dr. Savage-Smith has written extensively about the history of anatomy, surgery, dissection, pharmacy and ophthalmology. She has also published books and articles on Islamic cartography, technology, astronomical instruments, divinatory equipment, and magical techniques. At the present time she is preparing a descriptive historical catalogue of the numerous Islamic medical manuscripts held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, as well as a catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts, mostly astronomical, in St. John's College, Oxford.

Quote:

So we have Sauron's internet site implying Arabs allowed dissection (but not actually saying so) and my scholarly monograph denying it point blank.

1. Both sources explicitly stated it.
2. Your monograph is wrong. The NIH quotation I provided above, as well as the other citations, demonstrate a knowledge of dissection in Islamic science. Since Huff & Bergel's claim is formulated as an absolute, the claim is easily falsifiable.

Quote:

Perhaps Sauron could find a book or article by his source which states the case clearly.

Why would that be necessary? Sauron has already provided two such sources.

Quote:

By the way, Burgel's work that Huff quotes from is called "Secualr and Religious Features of Medeival Arabic Medicene so hardly on-specialist. But it is quite old (1976) and if Sauron has explicit newer evidence I am very interested.

Savage-Smith's work is from 1995.
Eknoyan's work is from 1994.
Both sources I provided are newer as well as explicit.

Quote:

But it must be explicit and not just say they were interested - I am interested in dissection and assure everyone that I have never done it.

Stop ignoring the bold red text I provided.

Sauron · 09-01-2003, 06:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede

Quote:

On Christianity:

Sauron quotes Andrew Dickson White - a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today.

Yawn. More ad hominems because you don't like the man's conclusions, but in reality, it's just your tired and desperate viewpoint. You know the rules - it's your claim that he's a "joke", so you need to provide proof that historians of science agree with your biased view of White's research. It's far more likely that you simply find his research uncomfortable and inconvenient.

Quote:

His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

1. Not interested in your personal biases. Got facts?
2. You doubt White's honesty? That's OK; I started doubting your honesty long ago.
3. By the way - here is Britannica on White:

Quote:

After graduation from Yale in 1853, White studied in Europe for the next three years, serving also as attach� at the U.S. legation at St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1854-55. He returned to the United States to become professor of history and English literature at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. In 1865 White's dream of a state university for New York--based on liberal principles with reference to religion, coeducation, race, and the teaching of science unhampered by religious dogma--was realized when Cornell University, Ithaca, was chartered. As Cornell's first president, White devoted his energies and much of his wealth to assure its success and future growth.

White served on numerous government commissions and was U.S. minister to Germany (1879-81) and Russia (1892-94) and ambassador to Germany (1897-1902). In 1899 he was president of the U.S. delegation at the Hague Peace Conference. The most outstanding of his works are A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) and Seven Great Statesmen in the Warfare of Humanity with Unreason (1910).

It's unlikely that Britannica would have referred to White's work as outsanding if it were as error-riddled and biased as you claim. No, my friends, this is just another example of Bede trying to poison the well by doing a character assassination on the individual.

Oh, and by the way - it's not just White who says that there was no dissection in medieval Christianity, and ties it to Boniface's decree. It's also part of the course work at Harvard:
http://icg.harvard.edu/~hsci161/lect...n_Vesalius.doc

Quote:

AS IN THE ROMAN WORLD, THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MIDDLE AGES POSSESSED AN ATTITUDE TOWARD THE DEAD THAT DID LITTLE TO ENCOURAGE HUMAN DISSECTION.
THERE ARE SCATTER REPORTS OF BRIEF EPISODES OF ANATOMICAL ACTIVITY DURING THIS PERIOD, BUT THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO SUSTAINED TRADITION IN HUMAN DISSECTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PHYSICIANS OF THE MEDICAL SCHOOL IN SALERNO IN THE 13TH CENTURY OPENLY DECLARED THAT THE DISSECTION OF THEHUMAN BODY WAS TO BE LOOKED UPON AS A HORRIBLE ACTION.
[b]THE CLOSEST THINGS TO DISSECTION WERE THE PRACTICES OF EMBALMING, LEGALLY MOTIVATED AUTOPSIES (TO DETERMINE CAUSE OFDEATH), AND THE DISMEMBERMENT, BOILING, AND REMOVAL OF BONESOF CRUSADERS WHO HAD DIED IN DISTANT LANDS.
THIS LAST PRACTICE MADE IT EASIER TO TRANSPORT THE REMAINS BACKTO THE CRUSADERS' HOMELAND FOR A PROPER CHRISTIAN BURIAL.
YET EVEN THIS PRACTICE WAS FROWNED UPON BY CHURCH AUTHORITIES, AND THERE WAS EVENTUALLY A PAPAL BULL (IN 1299 BY POPE BONIFACE VIII) PROHIBITING IT.

Your move, Bede.

Quote:

The Bull of Boniface VIII was issued in 1300 (dated 1298) and starts:

Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead barbarously boiling them in order that the bones, being separated from the flesh, may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very act, excommunicated.

It goes on in a similar vein for another couple of pages making it quite clear it applies only to treating bodies so they can be shipped home for burial. Now White claims that this was 'universally construed' to forbid dissection which is odd as we have not a single case of anyone being prosecuted under this bull by the inquisition or anyone else. And they were dissecting in Italy right under the inquisition's nose.

Nonsense. Univ of Pennsylvania:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch...s/dissect.html
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch.../vesalius.html

Quote:

The Renaissance saw a resurgence in interest in anatomy, in part urged by the studies of such artists as Leonardo da Vinci, who (in 1510) demonstrated the homology of muscular structures in humans and animals -- Leonardo, however, did not publish these drawings in his lifetime. The taboo against dissecting human cadavers continued well past the Middle Ages; Andreas Vesalius, for instance, one of the founders of modern anatomy, received death sentence under the Inquisition for his dissections (1564). His experience, gained by performing dissections himself rather than relying on assistants, led him to question classical medical authorities; recognizing that such figures as Galen had been forbidden by Greek and Roman religious law from studying human anatomy directly, he discovered that their work was a pastiche of guesswork and analogy from animal anatomy. In 1543 he published his masterpiece, De corporis humani fabrica, in seven volumes, providing the first accurate drawings of human anatomy.

Vesalius's dissection of human bodies -- and not merely by students, as was common practice, but by himself -- was condemned by the authorities, still subservient to the authority of Galen, and brought upon him the death sentence for grave-robbing under the Inquisition, a penalty commuted only upon his pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

Vesalius served as physician to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and to Spain's Philip II. His pupil, Realdo Columbus, continued his work and made important discoveries about the circulation of the blood and respiration.

Another claim, framed as an absolute, easily shot down.

Quote:

As David Lindberg writes (beginning or Western Science (Chicago University Press, 1992): "By 1316, Mondino dei Luzzi who taught at Bologna, had become sufficiently had become sufficiently skilled in human dissection to write a dissection manual entitled Anatomia which became the standard guide to human dissection in the next two centuries.

Well, in actuality, Modino's work appears to be totally derivative of Galen. Harvard again:

Quote:

THE FIRST WESTERN MONOGRAPH ON ANATOMY WAS WRITTEN IN 1316 BY MODINO DA LUZZI, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA IN ITALY.
IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT MODINO HIMSELF ENGAGED IN DISSECTION OF HUMAN BODIES, THOUGH IT APPEARS ONLY TO EXPERIENCE FOR HIMSELF WHAT HE WAS READING IN GALEN.
INDEED, THE ENTIRE WORK IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON GALEN AND MODINO'S RECOURSE TO DISSECTION WAS CERTAINLY NOT INTENDED AS A CHALLENGE TO GALEN'S AUTHORITY IN ANATOMY.

Apparently you were making more out of Modino than he really contributed to the science. And the fact that he supported Galen may have gotten him off the hook with the Church; who knows?

Quote:

In the course of the fourteenth century dissection became a regular part of medical instruction at Padua, Bolgna and a few other universities." Lindberg then treats us to a first hand description of a human dissection around 1350.

None of which is relevant. The statement is that the Church opposed dissection. No one is surprised to find that some people ignored the Church and did it anyhow. But the fact that it may have been practiced by a few open-minded and brave souls doesn't change the Church's opposition to the practice.

Quote:

So, we await conclusive evidence about Islam to balance the clear statement of Huff that they forbade human dissection.

You're awaiting something you already have - in red bold font, which you've ignored three times now.

Huff is simply incorrect, as I've pointed out before. Since his claim (and his source's) is an absolute, all it takes is a single example. I've provided two.

Quote:

And we have seen that, contrary to nineteenth century stuff culled from the net, that the Christian church did not prevent human dissections when they started.

No, what we saw is that some dissections occurred, but we also saw that the Church remained opposed to them. The fact that such dissections occurred is not proof that the Church approved of the practice.

Moreover, the fact that they took SO LONG TO START in the first place is something attributable to the Church.

09-02-2003, 02:34 AM

I have stated the facts with references. I am not interested in arguing with someone who only give me unattributed internet quotes, TV programmes(!) and cannot read. When refencing book, give a quote and page number.

On Islam, I may be wrong but Sauron's source doesn't say so. His allegation of lying has been reported to the Mods. On Christianity, I have shot down the myth and simply finding more instances of it on the net won't help. As for Whilte, here is a link from two distinguished contemporary professors whose book Family Man, even now, is reading: Beyond War and Peace and my own effort.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan · 09-02-2003, 02:54 AM

Bede, you've been soundly spanked. Soundly. Sauron has one cite from a recognized expert, and another from a peer reviewed journal.

What, by the way, is Toby Huff's religious stance?

Vorkosigan

09-02-2003, 04:14 AM

Vork,

Sorry you think I have been spanked. No idea what Huff's religious stance is - he betrays none in his book. He may be wrong but we need something explicit. Note Sauron hasn't actually read the peer reviewed journal and his expert source says that human dissection was not part of Islamic culture. I will look up Savage Smith's article and I would be pleased to find that Islam didn't prevent science in this way either.

On Christianity, here's another quote:

"From all avaliable evidence, Boniface's bull and letter were taken as irrelevent by generations of by of Italian medical professors, private doctors, judges, city councils, and even by later popes, several of whom were emblamed." Katharine Park "The Criminal and Saintly Body - autopsy and dissection in renaissance Italy" Renaissance Quarterly 47:1 (1994) page 11

Earlier she said "The myth of the medieval resistance to dissection is an old one and like the falt earth myth with which it is often associated, has provn protean and difficult to kill." ibid page 4. How true this! The only exception she found was boiling heads to show the small bones of the inner eye which Mordino considered sinful. You know White is not to be trusted. Why not be honest and say so?

By the way, the unversity of Pen cite of Saurons comes from an old annotated edition of Frankenstein which hardly counts as up to date scholarship!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Family Man · 09-02-2003, 07:42 AM

Just a couple of notes.

Any historical work is going to undergo critical review, and White's is no exception. It has been criticized, particularly by Lindberg, though with how much justification I'm not prepared to say as I'm not familiar with White's book. I am a little disturbed that, after the introduction and the first essay by Lindberg, criticism of White has virtually disappeared. After reading the Lindberg/Numbers book, I intend to read White's so I can compare the two works and come to my own conclusion.

Bede, just because something comes from the internet does not necessarily mean it is a bad source. If that was the case, you'd have to disparage your own internet essay. And, in fact, I'm finding things in Lindberg/Numbers that isn't exactly jibing with some of the claims you make your essay.

Bede, are there other authors that directly criticize White?

09-02-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
Bede, are there other authors that directly criticize White?

Colin Russell, in "The Conflict of Science and Religion" in Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion (New York 2000) deals with him (with Draper) and concludes: �Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship�

You will find modern scholars don't usually both spend much time refuting 19th century mistakes if no other scholars actually believe them any more. Look forward to your comments on Lindberg/Numbers. I can anticipate claims that I could nuance my work more but if you are still holding out that there is a historical conflict between science and religion after reading it, I'll be very surprised.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sauron · 09-02-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
I have stated the facts with references.

No, you've stated some opinions. Which I've dealt with.

Quote:

I am not interested in arguing with someone who only give me unattributed internet quotes,

The quotes are attributed. I gave the author, the journals they appeared in, the dates, the pages, and in one case, I even provided a bio of the person.

Your criticism is nonsense. As is most of your writing.

Quote:

TV programmes(!) and cannot read.

The "TV Program" also has a companion book. And the individual scholars who contributed to the "TV program" are all experts in Islamic history and theology.

Again - your criticism is baseless.

Quote:

When refencing book, give a quote and page number.

Good advice - I'm still waiting on your quote from Lindberg.

Quote:

On Islam, I may be wrong but Sauron's source doesn't say so.

Yes, BOTH my sources say so. That was the point of putting the statements in bold red font - which you're wiggling and handwaving away, as usual.

Quote:

His allegation of lying has been reported to the Mods.

Yawn. No problem. Since you questioned White's honesty, I'm sure the mods will take appropriate action as well. In addition, given your past behavior here, I'm not sure that appealing to the mods will help. Your claims of being mistreated lack the necessary credibility.

Quote:

On Christianity, I have shot down the myth and simply finding more instances of it on the net won't help.

Actually, you have not shot the myth down at all - the sources I found weren't simply "on the net"; they were published course material from Harvard University and the Univ of Pennsylvania. The fact that professors publish their material on the net for their students doesn't impact the reliability of the material.

Your attempt to denigrate the material based upon its presence on the web (as opposed to printed) only demonstrates your ignorance of how colleges and universities are applying technology in their classrooms.

As for your claim to Vork that the UPenn citation is "hardly up to date" - well, age is irrelevant. Only accuracy is. A 50 year old citation can be just as accurate (or inaccurate) as one from yesterday. Your red herring isn't going anywhere.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2003, 02:34 AM	#5
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	I have stated the facts with references. I am not interested in arguing with someone who only give me unattributed internet quotes, TV programmes(!) and cannot read. When refencing book, give a quote and page number. On Islam, I may be wrong but Sauron's source doesn't say so. His allegation of lying has been reported to the Mods. On Christianity, I have shot down the myth and simply finding more instances of it on the net won't help. As for Whilte, here is a link from two distinguished contemporary professors whose book Family Man, even now, is reading: Beyond War and Peace and my own effort. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

09-02-2003, 02:54 AM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bede, you've been soundly spanked. Soundly. Sauron has one cite from a recognized expert, and another from a peer reviewed journal. What, by the way, is Toby Huff's religious stance? Vorkosigan

09-02-2003, 04:14 AM	#7
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Vork, Sorry you think I have been spanked. No idea what Huff's religious stance is - he betrays none in his book. He may be wrong but we need something explicit. Note Sauron hasn't actually read the peer reviewed journal and his expert source says that human dissection was not part of Islamic culture. I will look up Savage Smith's article and I would be pleased to find that Islam didn't prevent science in this way either. On Christianity, here's another quote: "From all avaliable evidence, Boniface's bull and letter were taken as irrelevent by generations of by of Italian medical professors, private doctors, judges, city councils, and even by later popes, several of whom were emblamed." Katharine Park "The Criminal and Saintly Body - autopsy and dissection in renaissance Italy" Renaissance Quarterly 47:1 (1994) page 11 Earlier she said "The myth of the medieval resistance to dissection is an old one and like the falt earth myth with which it is often associated, has provn protean and difficult to kill." ibid page 4. How true this! The only exception she found was boiling heads to show the small bones of the inner eye which Mordino considered sinful. You know White is not to be trusted. Why not be honest and say so? By the way, the unversity of Pen cite of Saurons comes from an old annotated edition of Frankenstein which hardly counts as up to date scholarship! Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

09-02-2003, 07:42 AM	#8
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Just a couple of notes. Any historical work is going to undergo critical review, and White's is no exception. It has been criticized, particularly by Lindberg, though with how much justification I'm not prepared to say as I'm not familiar with White's book. I am a little disturbed that, after the introduction and the first essay by Lindberg, criticism of White has virtually disappeared. After reading the Lindberg/Numbers book, I intend to read White's so I can compare the two works and come to my own conclusion. Bede, just because something comes from the internet does not necessarily mean it is a bad source. If that was the case, you'd have to disparage your own internet essay. And, in fact, I'm finding things in Lindberg/Numbers that isn't exactly jibing with some of the claims you make your essay. Bede, are there other authors that directly criticize White?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.