Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 08-28-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Clearly some people haven't been on these boards as long as I have!

Why should that matter? Either you can support your argument, or you can't.

A rank amateur can read this thread for the first time, and see that you haven't offered any evidence.

Tenure as a board member is irrelevant to the question of how much support you've been able to show (or, *not* show) for your claims.

Sauron · 08-28-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Interestingly enough, according to Alan Debus, it seems that the desire for post mortems from the Bologna law school in the 13th century had an effect in starting human dissection (which had previously hardly ever been permitted - Christian Europe was the first time it became an official part of the medical curriculum).

Nonsense. This was practiced in Islamic Baghdad centuries earlier. And it was from Baghdad that Western European doctors learned about the discoveries and texts of Galen and Hippocrates, as well as the Canon of Avicenna.

Quote:

Needless to say, the church didn't try and stop it although, as always, there were dissenters.

"Needless to say"? Why?

The fact that the practice endured doesn't prove that the church at that time didn't try to stop it. Your conclusion is unfounded.

smugg · 08-28-2003, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
...

1) That there has been a historical conflict between science and religion.

...

Tell Giordano Bruno. Or was he a myth, too?

08-29-2003, 02:32 AM

Sauron,

One post will do....

You are wrong about human dissection being allowed by the Arabs. Have a look at Lindberg's Beginnings of Western Science.

Smugg,

Bruno was not a scientist but a magus trying to found a new neo-Platonic religion. He was only made into a martyr for science due to the lack of real ones when the conflict myth got going. This is covered by Edward Peters in Inquisition and of course, Frances Yates in GB and the Hermetic Tradition.

Family Man,

Hitler was not a Christian. As you actually seem to believe one of my myths you can hardly accuse me of trolling. Besides it is not necessary for an OP to go into enormous detail but simply stimulate discussion - as I have not cut and run I am clearly not a troll and would be grateful for a retraction of that remark.

Yours

Bede

PS: Sorry for the lack of page numbers. I am at work. Specific requests for references should be emailed to me.

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Steven Carr · 08-29-2003, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Smugg,

Bruno was not a scientist but a magus trying to found a new neo-Platonic religion. He was only made into a martyr for science due to the lack of real ones when the conflict myth got going. This is covered by Edward Peters in Inquisition and of course, Frances Yates in GB and the Hermetic Tradition.

Indeed, Newton was not a scientist either, but the last magician, as John Maynard Keynes said.

08-29-2003, 03:38 AM

Steven, read the Principia and then read the Ash Wednesday Supper. After that you may have a good idea who was a magus and who was a natural philosopher.

B

Steven Carr · 08-29-2003, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Steven, read the Principia and then read the Ash Wednesday Supper. After that you may have a good idea who was a magus and who was a natural philosopher.

And read some of Newton's works on theology and alchemy. Calling Newton a mystic is hardly new.

From Whites 'Newton - the Last Sorcerer'.

'Science writer Michael White's subtitle, The Last Sorcerer, echoes John Maynard Keynes's assertion in 1942 that Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was not the Olympian rationalist portrayed by his worshipful early biographers. Newton was a great scientist, the author acknowledges; he was also an "obsessive, driven mystic," deeply involved in the pseudoscience of alchemy, subscriber to a heretical sect of Christianity.....',

Sounds a little like Bruno, at least enough to make dichotomies of scientist/mystic a little oversimplistic.

I wonder if Bruno's unorthodox religious beliefs helped or hindered him in his move away from geocentrism.

Perhaps if he had stayed a faithful Catholic he would have become a true scientist.

GakuseiDon · 08-29-2003, 04:53 AM

"Hitler was a Christian" is usually the response to the claim that Christians supposedly make, "Christians are more moral", which may or may not be a strawman in its own right.

Supergirl · 08-29-2003, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede

1) That there has been a historical conflict between science and religion.

Evolution v Creationism is not a conflict between science and religion??

demoninho · 08-29-2003, 05:15 AM

Here's what AiG has got to say about Hitler:

Quote:

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin?s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler?s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler?s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ?superior race?. This required at the very least preventing the ?inferior races? from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter?s gene pool. The ?superior race? belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin?s original ?survival of the fittest? theory. This philosophy culminated in the ?final solution?, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ?inferior races?.

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

08-29-2003, 02:32 AM	#54
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Sauron, One post will do.... You are wrong about human dissection being allowed by the Arabs. Have a look at Lindberg's Beginnings of Western Science. Smugg, Bruno was not a scientist but a magus trying to found a new neo-Platonic religion. He was only made into a martyr for science due to the lack of real ones when the conflict myth got going. This is covered by Edward Peters in Inquisition and of course, Frances Yates in GB and the Hermetic Tradition. Family Man, Hitler was not a Christian. As you actually seem to believe one of my myths you can hardly accuse me of trolling. Besides it is not necessary for an OP to go into enormous detail but simply stimulate discussion - as I have not cut and run I am clearly not a troll and would be grateful for a retraction of that remark. Yours Bede PS: Sorry for the lack of page numbers. I am at work. Specific requests for references should be emailed to me. Bede's Library - faith and reason

08-29-2003, 03:38 AM	#56
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Steven, read the Principia and then read the Ash Wednesday Supper. After that you may have a good idea who was a magus and who was a natural philosopher. B

08-29-2003, 04:53 AM	#58
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	"Hitler was a Christian" is usually the response to the claim that Christians supposedly make, "Christians are more moral", which may or may not be a strawman in its own right.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.