Family Man

I don't think either of you are ignoramuses. I think you're looking at things from a different perspectives.

In the 16th century, heliocentrism was a wacky idea. I'm sure that Copernicus was aware that heliocentrism was proposed before -- so no, it wasn't a totally novel idea at the time. But it still took intellectual courage to champion the idea (even if he waited until he was on his deathbed to give permission to publish.) The fact that heliocentrism was proposed before does not detract from his argument. The fact there there is no logical reason why Christianity needs to be a requirement for science, and the fact that the evidence is contradictory and extremely weak are better reasons for dismissing the argument.

Heliocentrism in ancient Greece was very much a minority opinion, and it remained so after Copernicus revived the idea. Yeah, Bede will take positions that appear to be dictated by his religious views (like assuming that the intellectual climate in Italy and France must have been the same because both countries were Catholic), but he's generally fairly knowledgable and I don't think we should read things into his comments that aren't necessarily there.

NOGO

What is intelligent conversation to a believer who holds in every argument the premise that the Bible is inspired by God?

Bill Snedden

At the risk of hijacking this thread...

*Sputter, gasp!* Bede, I'm shocked, absolutely shocked! Purcell wasn't known as Orpheous Britannicus for nothing! The ignorance of a few Philistines is no excuse to denigrate one of the greatest of English composers.

In truth, Purcell's place in music history is well-secured. It could be argued, and has I believe, that his musical dramas like Dido and Aeneas and The Fairy Queen set the stage for the oratorio and opera that later (not that much later!) made Handel so famous and wealthy.

*Side note: although Handel certainly was German, his later, and best known, compositional style was heavily influenced by earlier Italian composers*

As for world-class composers, how about Benjamin Britten? Arguably one of the most brilliant and popular composers in the twentieth-century canon. And the English renaissance period (Tallis and Byrd, for example) has no equal for absolute beauty and clarity of texture...

I might also mention Sir Arthur Sullivan, who with W.S. Gilbert produced some of the world's best-known and well-loved examples of comedic musical theater...

Oh, Bede, you make me very sad...

Can't say I disagree with you on the painters, though. I'm rather partial to Hogarth, but I wouldn't say he's world-class. I would say that Waterhouse and Sargent were both truly world-class, but of course both exhibit heavy Italian influence (and were actually born in Rome). I think Sargent was actually born to American parents, but he's so closely identified with the British art scene that I count him British. I suppose one could say the same for all the pre-Raphaelites; heavy Italian influence, but British by association.

Regards,

Bill "the anglophile" Snedden

P.S. So as not to be completely off-topic, I don't think Bede's thesis is *at base* all that controversial (although I don't agree completely). It appears to me that what's actually happening is a lot of talking past one another in this thread. And a lot of that aimed at Bede has become somewhat nasty and for no good reason...

Bede

Bill,

I think Purcell is the greatest British composer by miles. Trouble, most Brits haven't got a clue. Was in King's College chapel for Evensong last night for an all Purcell line up including his anthem I Was Glad.

I'll be back to deal with the substansive parts of this thread in a few days.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Family Man

Actually, Bill, Bede and I are far more in agreement than we are in disagreement on many historical issues. I simply think that he hasn't presented a strong case for some of his more extreme views -- that the was "no conflict" between church and science, and that Christianity was a "necessary precondition" for the rise of science. If he can make a strong case, I'll happily change my mind. Even if Christianity was a "necessary precondition" for science, it still wouldn't provide evidence that Christianity is true, which is why I have trouble understanding why Bede appears to be so emotionally committed to his position.

In addition, I do agree that Bede has taken some unnecessary abuse, though I don't think by me. But on the other hand, he has tried to slap a label on me and declare by methods "ahistorical" in an obvious attempt to dismiss what I have to say. However, the label didn't stick and the charge was unfounded. We have talked at length about historical events in the past; he knows I understand how historical research and analysis is done; and his comments were downright insulting. Nor has he apologized. Bede sometimes talks past his detractors just as much as some of them talk past him. He has certainly talked past my position many times on this thread. He's not exactly Mr. Innocent here, certainly not in my eyes.

Bede

Familyman,

I certainly apologise if I overstepped the bounds. However, I will be saying some hard things later and I pray I can do so in a civil fashion.

Note I am not saying there was never a conflict between science and religion/church/christianity although it is often stated that I am saying this. What I am saying is that, as a theory of history, the conflict hypothesis is utter rubbish. As you know, many of the so called conflicts turn out to be very different from the cariacature. But there were occasions when the church ended up opposing science - not because it was anti-science but because of a wide variety of particular conditions.

I do think that Christianity was a necessary pre-condition for science. I do not think this either shows Christianity is true or that another philosophy/religion could not have done the job just as well. However, it does take the wind from the sails of some of the cheaper atheist arguments (which is no bad thing IMHO).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Family Man

First, thank you for the apology. Nomad used to do that label and dismiss routine on me all the time, and it kind of sticks in my craw.

Second, I see no reason why anything you say needs to be "hard". We both agree that this issue has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity. And I don't disagree with you that there aren't some cheap arguments out there that derive from this debate, though there are some cheap arguments out there on the Christian side also. The fact is, however, that I frequently have to revise my opinions on historical topics when I encounter new information and argumentation. Sometimes, those changes are favorable to Christianity. If you can put together a persuasive argument, I don't see why I wouldn't do the same here.

Third, after reviewing the most infamous thread you've ever started on this forum, I can understand where you're coming from on the "no conflict" thing. However, if you'd read that thread yourself I think you can understand where we might have gotten that impression. Your statements were very broad on the topic, not nearly as nuanced as the one you've made above (which I, for the most part, agree with). You also never corrected the misunderstanding when it immediately popped up. I think Bill's comment about talking past each other was very apropos, and while I'm certainly guilty of it at times myself, I feel you are frequently talking past what I'm trying to say.

Fourth, when conflict does occur between science and religion, I think it's because science steps on the toes of some cherished religious belief. To use the two most famous examples, the Catholic Church (and if you've read Shapin, many individual Christians) resisted the idea of heliocentric system because it evicted man from his central role in the universe. Creationists resist evolution because they don't like the implication that God didn't specially and specifically make us directly. When you say things like it was caused by "a wide variety of particular conditions", that strikes me as a whitewash.

Finally, remember what I posted about critical realism. When I read historians, I find that they take the biases of their subjects into account and they look for multiple strands of evidence to support their conclusions. That is what critical realism advocates. The problem I have with your "necessary precondition" analysis is that it is dependent of a single strand of evidence (the self-reports of the scientists themselves) that doesn't consider the effect that their religiousity might have had on their statements. You also haven't considered the counter arguments.

At any rate, I really do enjoy these discussions and I look forward to seeing what you come up with next.

NOGO

You mean substantive.

NOGO

When you want an opinion on science you ask a scientist. The opinion of a student of history with a religious axe to grind matters little.

Ancient Greeks invented geometry and algebra. They also came up with the revolutionary idea that you can model the world using mathematic.
This to me is the cornerstone of modern science. Copernicus, Kepler and others simply copied the idea.

I do not see anything (and Bede has not demonstrated any) that Christianity may have contributed which even comes close to what ancient Greeks have done.

Bede asks why in Christian Europe and not elsewhere?

I ask why in ancient Greece and not in ancient Israel?

If the Jews had done, in the field of science, what the Greeks have done we would simply be unable to shut Bede up. But as it stands all that he can do is look foolish.

Bede wants to link the laws of science with the laws of Yahweh.
But Ptolemy showed that the movements of the planets can be modeled with mathematic making their movements predictable. Ptolemy did this without the benefit of Yahweh. And it should be obvious to everyone, except Bede, that Copernicus and Kepler were inspired by Ptolemy's work much more so than the Bible.

This is beginning to bore me.

Bede

NOGO,

I majored in physics and have a masters in history. My on going PhD is in Renaissance science. That kinda makes my qualified to talk about history of science, don't ya think? My spelling, on the other hand....

Anyway, if you are bored, there are plenty of other threads that could do with the benefit of your wisdom.

Familyman,

Which is the most infamous thread? I thought it was the inquisition one but I imagine competition for the title is quite fierce.

B