FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-26-2006, 03:31 PM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
I was stating that the Church was the authority (undeniably true) and that it kept natural philosophy within bounds that excluded the occult, magic and theology (also rather hard to deny).
I wonder where Bede gets his rewrites of history from; his idea of a super-rationalist medieval Church is simply too much for me to swallow.

Quote:
Science is not about freedom, it is about following the rules whosoever has laid them down. RC is also seeing modern science through rose tinted spectacles, of course, but that is only worth pursuing once he has had a chance to read the likes of Mary Midgley, Imre Lakaitos et al.
That reminds me of a favorite argument of pseudoscientsts and crackpots, that mainstream scientists ignore their views because those scientists are "orthodox oxen", as physics crackpot George Francis Gillette put it (I note in passing that he's one of the more entertaining physics crackpots, with his "spiral universe" that "out-Newton's Newton").

But there are good reasons for many of the rules -- quality control, to ensure that one's results are meaningful, for instance.

Quote:
Of course, the dirty secret of those who claim that science was held back by the church is that no natural philosopher was ever executed for scientific beliefs. I can’t find any, aside from Galileo, who was even imprisoned.
The Church didn't need to, because they were reluctant to challenge it. They had the habit of stating anything potentially controversial as purely hypothetical; consider Buridan's discussion of the possibility of a vacuum.

Saying that all of one's theorizing was purely hypothetical doesn't really help very much in testing that theorizing; it's not surprising that Galileo got impatient with that. If he had done what his predecessors had often done, and what Osiander had done for Copernicus, he would have presented heliocentrism and other controversial subjects as purely hypothetical -- and that would have been OK with the Church.

And Protestantism inadvertently helped the growth of science by splintering the Church. Martin Luther noted that in Joshua 10:13,
Quote:
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. (NIV)
Joshua told the Sun and not the Earth to stop moving, and John Calvin noted Psalm 93:1,
Quote:
... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
and asked "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" But despite such sentiments, science got farther in Protestant areas than in Catholic ones.

Quote:
And given no one now accepts that Galileo’s trial was more than Pope Urban getting his own back for the humiliation of seeing his argument on the lips of Simplicius, we have remarkable few examples.
However, Galileo had made lots of other enemies with his sarcastic manner -- even enemies in the church, like Tommaso Caccini, who referred to Acts 1:11,
Quote:
Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?"
-- what some angels said to some people who were watching Jesus Christ ascend into Heaven. Caccini's implication was that Galileo was much like them.

Quote:
Intellectual heresy rarely led to anything except a mild reprimand.
Which they'd meekly go along with; they knew what would happen to them if they were more stubborn.

Consider what happened to the Jesuits after the Church's crackdown on Copernicanism; they avoided theorizing altogether, preferring to concentrate on telescope construction, observations, and the like.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 07:08 AM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 86
Default

Several years ago I was in Barnes and Noble flipping through a book on scientific history. I remember getting to a timeline of scientific inventions/advancement. I dont really remember any of the specifics, but I remember noting that there was noticeably less advancements/inventions from like 500 CE to 1500 CE or something like that. True?
Knife is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 01:24 PM   #43
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 86
Default

Anybody?
Knife is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 01:34 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knife
Anybody?
My impression is that there wasn't much from 500-1000 but there was quite a bit from 1000-1500.

In Western Europe at least, 500-1000 is a period in which civilization on the whole mostly deteriorated, compared to the advances of the high middle ages from roughly 1000 to 1500

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 04:37 PM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
My impression is that there wasn't much from 500-1000 but there was quite a bit from 1000-1500.

In Western Europe at least, 500-1000 is a period in which civilization on the whole mostly deteriorated, compared to the advances of the high middle ages from roughly 1000 to 1500

Andrew Criddle

My impression, too.

I guess I need to do a little research for myself...try to get a better understanding of what is meant by a "period of deterioration". Then, look into what caused it in the begginning, what kept it going for 500 or so years, and then what changed to stop it.

In the meantime, I would enjoy reading other's thoughts on it.
Knife is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 11:28 PM   #46
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede

Of course, the dirty secret of those who claim that science was held back by the church is that no natural philosopher was ever executed for scientific beliefs. I can’t find any, aside from Galileo, who was even imprisoned. And given no one now accepts that Galileo’s trial was more than Pope Urban getting his own back for the humiliation of seeing his argument on the lips of Simplicius, we have remarkable few examples. Intellectual heresy rarely led to anything except a mild reprimand. That is probably why RC mentions Hypatia when he knows perfectly well that:
Isn't the matter much more complex than this? I'm not really up on the history of medieval and renaissance natural philosophers, but I can think of one instance offhand that shows the complexity of the matter.

In the disputes between Symphorien Champier and Leonard Fuchs, over the value of Arab additions to the works of Hippocrates and Galen. Champier has Fuchs book, Paradoxa Medicinae, because he felt it had "Lutheran tendencies", brought to the attention of the Sorbonne(the gaurdian of Catholic orthodoxy, that controlled pronouncements of heresy in France) in Paris, where it was pronounced heretical and burned. While such proceedings could not affect Fuchs physically, because he lived in Lutheran Tübingen at the time, as well as the benefit of this occuring during Francis I reign. It certainly dampened intellectual exchange of ideas considerably.

What's telling is that since Champier was friends with Michael Severtus( a whole other complex story in itself), who even wrote a defence of Champier against Fuchs, we can certainly believe that Champier's motive was not really concern about heresy, as much as him using the know mindsets of his time, to stifle the arguments of his adversary.

This seems to me to be similar to having some scientist's book banned because it had "communist tendencies" in it, with the addition of the person sending it to some banning commitee being a scientist with rival ideas, that he doesn't want to win by argument, but by force.

Also while there was no real threat to Fuchs over this proceeding, because he lived outside of the Sorbonnes control, this was not always the case, and I think many persons, for example Francois Rabelais, had to flee occasionally, despite their extremely important and powerfull patrons. They also expurgated their own works, and probably often where pressured by their patrons to tone down public works that could cause problems. This was all during a time that one could use the Reformations disputes to flee to areas that might protect you, as well.
yummyfur is offline  
Old 06-01-2006, 06:20 AM   #47
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi yummyfur,

Of course it isn't that simple!

I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that there was no straightforward science/religion dichotomy. We moderns also tend to forget how brutal academic argument was in those days. Fuchs was involved in a good few arguments. Mattioli had it in for him too (and anyone else who dared try to be a rival) and was quite happy to call on cardinals to stomp on the competition. No one would mistake this for a science/religion dispute even though Mattioli was happy to use religion as a weapon.

When you say the environment was not entirely condusive to intellectual exchange, of course you are right, although it had less effect than you might think. The libraries of insular Protestant England were stuffed full of books from Catholic Italy, Paris and Antwerp. They even used Catholic natural philosophy and maths textbooks. This when Walsingham was chasing Jesuits around the country! Likewise, the famous banning of Copernicus actually lasted about four years (when a few lines were censored instead).

But the vital point is, not condusive compared to when? Compared to now? Well of course not. Compared to pagan Greece and Rome? Well, that is the moot point. For Rabelais, read Ovid. For the Inquisition, read Ptolemy VII Psychon who chased every last Greek intellectual from Alexandria. For Servetus read Socrates. For the Index, read Augustus's destruction of all magical and prophetic books (apart from his one 'official' version). For Bruno, Campanella and the rest, read the astrologers purged by Tiberius.

So yes, the sixteenth century was not a triumph for liberalism. But that is not the point. My target is the contention of Carrier and plenty of others (some of whom should know better) that Christiantiy was in any way worse for intellectual development than paganism. As I have tried to explain, in many ways it was considerably better.

Best wishes

James
 
Old 06-01-2006, 09:28 AM   #48
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Richard Carrier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Hi yummyfur,

Of course it isn't that simple!
Including the Bible, right? It ought to be simple, but it isn't. That is quite suspcious. It easily could have been simple if the God of the Bible exists and is loving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
So yes, the sixteenth century was not a triumph for liberalism. But that is not the point. My target is the contention of Carrier and plenty of others (some of whom should know better) that Christiantiy was in any way worse for intellectual development than paganism. As I have tried to explain, in many ways it was considerably better.
Better need not necessarily be truthful. You should know better than to trust the Bible. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" If a human made someone blind, deaf, or dumb, he would be sent to prison, he would be sent to prison, and with your approval. I do not find your double standard to be appealing. I also do not find it to be appealing that God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans.

In your opinion, why must God's judgments be right? Do you believe that might makes right? If God's nature is questionable, what difference does it make if he is powerful and has the ability to predict the future?

Are personal tangible experiences important to your religious beliefs? If so, I challenge you to debate that issue with me at the General Religious Discussions Forum. Your scholarship will avail you naught in a debate on the nature of God.

Are you the same Bede who has given James Holding compliments? If so, there is no accounting for taste. I debated him a lot at the Theology Web.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 07:17 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

There was a heck of a lot more freedom of thought, at least among the more literate people, in the ancient Greco-Roman world than in all of Xianity until the last few centuries. They didn't have to tiptoe around the official dogmas of their society's religions; Plato even suggested that his society's religion be banned from his Republic because (to him) it is full of bad examples. Aside from that, allegorical interpretations of their society's religions were more popular among educated people, like considering the official gods to originally human heroes (euhemerism). Or claiming that accounts of the gods' activities are allegorical and not literal, as Plutarch had claimed about Isis and Osiris. The closest Xian counterpart might be to claim that, according to True Xianity, the Gospels are allegories rather than documentaries.

And Socrates wasn't accused of believing that Zeus had different lovers than the authories had decided Zeus had had.

I don't know where Bede got his other examples from, so I can't evaluate them. But my understanding is that while the ancient Romans opposed hostile magic, they considered beneficient magic OK. Thus, it was OK to use sorcery to try to heal someone, but not to try to make someone sick.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 02:22 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Hi yummyfur,

So yes, the sixteenth century was not a triumph for liberalism. But that is not the point. My target is the contention of Carrier and plenty of others (some of whom should know better) that Christiantiy was in any way worse for intellectual development than paganism. As I have tried to explain, in many ways it was considerably better.
Absolute nonsense:

Quote:
HAP. XXVIII.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRUTH.

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different principles, however, of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to form His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He compounded from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed of one substance were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, or three, or four substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also are they named mortal. For this has been denominated death; namely, the dissolution of substances connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently answered those endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances of these things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become acquainted with these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised (under the title), Concerning the Substance of the Universe. I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies.

...

Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O ye men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and ye Latins, who lead armies, and all ye that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya. And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know thyself;" i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him."
- Refutation of All Heresies; Hippolytus (3rd century CE)
Quote:
"And as he is in error who alleges that the superintendents of the markets make provision in no greater degree for men than for dogs, because dogs also get their share of the goods; so in a far greater degree are Celsus and they who think with him guilty of impiety towards the God who makes provision for rational beings, in asserting that His arrangements are made in no greater degree for the sustenance of human beings than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns.

For, in the first place, he is of opinion that 'thunders, and lightnings, and rains are not the works of God,'--thus showing more clearly at last his Epicurean leanings; and in the second place, that 'even if one were to grant that these were the works of God, they are brought into existence not more for the support of us who are human beings, than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns,'--maintaining, like a true Epicurean, that these things are the product of chance, and not the work of Providence. For if these things are of no more use to us than to plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns, it is evident either that they do not proceed from Providence at all, or from a providence which does not provide for us in a greater degree than for trees, and herbs, and thorns. Now, either of these suppositions is impious in itself, and it would be foolish to refute such statements by answering any one who brought against us the charge of impiety; for it is manifest to every one, from what has been said, who is the person guilty of impiety. In the next place, he adds: 'Although you may say that these things, viz., plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns, grow for the use of men, why will you maintain that they grow for the use of men rather than for that of the most savage of irrational animals?' Let Celsus then say distinctly that the great diversity among the products of the earth is not the work of Providence, but that a certain fortuitous concurrence of atoms gave birth to qualities so diverse, and that it was owing to chance that so many kinds of plants, and trees, and herbs resemble one another, and that no disposing reason gave existence to them, and that they do not derive their origin from an understanding that is beyond all admiration. We Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these things, feel grateful for them to Him who made them, because not only for us, but also (on our account) for the animals which are subject to us, He has prepared such a home, seeing 'He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that He may bring forth food out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.' But that He should have provided food even for the most savage animals is not matter of surprise, for these very animals are said by some who have philosophized (upon the subject) to have been created for the purpose of affording exercise to the rational creature. And one of our own wise men says somewhere: 'Do not say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for all things have been made for their uses. And do not say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for everything shall be sought out in its season.'"
- Contra Celsus, Book IV; Origen of Alexandria (185-232 CE)
Quote:
"But with reference to man, whom He formed an eternal and immortal being, He did not arm him, as the others, without, but within; nor did He place his protection in the body, but in the soul: since it would have been superfluous, when He had given him that which was of the greatest value, to cover him with bodily defences, especially when they hindered the beauty of the human body. On which account I am accustomed to wonder at the senselessness of the philosophers who follow Epicurus, who blame the works of nature, that they may show that the world is prepared and governed by no providence; but they ascribe the origin of all things to indivisible and solid bodies, from the fortuitous meetings of which they say that all things are and were produced. I pass by the things relating to the work itself with which they find fault, in which matter they are ridiculously mad; I assume that which belongs to the subject of which we are now treating."
- On the Workmanship of God; Lucius Lactantius (~250-325 CE)
Quote:
""These," [Lucretius] says, "flutter about with restless motions through empty space, and are carried hither and thither, just as we see little particles of dust in the sun when it has introduced its rays and light through a window. From these there arise trees and herbs, and all fruits of the earth; from these, animals, and water, and fire, and all things are produced, and are again resolved into the same elements." This can be borne as long as the inquiry is respecting small matters. Even the world itself was made up of these.

He has reached to the full extent of perfect madness: it seems impossible that anything further should be said, and yet he found something to add. "Since everything," he says, "is infinite, and nothing can be empty, it follows of necessity that there are innumerable worlds."

...

Why should I speak of animals, in whose bodies we see nothing formed without plan, without arrangement, without utility, without beauty, so that the most skilful and careful marking out of all the parts and members repels the idea of accident and chance? But let us suppose it possible that the limbs, and bones, and nerves, and blood should be made up of atoms. What of the senses, the reflection, the memory, the mind, the natural capacity: from what seeds can they be compacted? He says, From the most minute. There are therefore others of greater size. How, then, are they indivisible?

In the next place, if the things which are not seen are formed from invisible seeds, it follows that those which are seen are from visible seeds. Why, then, does no one see them? But whether any one regards the invisible parts which are in man, or the parts which can be touched, and which are visible, who does not see that both parts exist in accordance with design? How, then, can bodies which meet together without design effect anything reasonable? For we see that there is nothing in the whole world which has not in itself very great and wonderful design. And since this is above the sense and capacity of man, to what can it be more rightly attributed than to the divine providence?"
- On the Anger of God; Lucius Lactantius (~250-325 CE)
Quote:
"Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these things, induced as it were by the injustice of these matters (for thus it appeared to him in his ignorance of the cause and subject), he thought that there was no providence. And having persuaded himself of this, he undertook also to defend it, and thus he entangled himself in inextricable errors. For if there is no providence, how is it that the world was made with such order and arrangement? He says: There is no arrangement, for many things are made in a different manner from that in which they ought to have been made. And the divine man found subjects of censure.

Now, if I had leisure to refute these things separately, I could easily show that this man was neither wise nor of sound mind. Also, if there is no providence, how is it that the bodies of animals are arranged with such foresight, that the various members, being disposed in a wonderful manner, discharge their own offices individually? The system of providence, he says, contrived nothing in the production of animals; for neither were the eyes made for seeing, nor the ears for hearing, nor the tongue for speaking, nor the feet for walking; inasmuch as these were produced before it was possible to speak, to hear, to see, and to walk. Therefore these were not produced for use; but use was produced from them.

...

Does wisdom therefore nowhere exist? Yes, indeed, it was amongst them, but no one saw it. Some thought that all things could be known: these were manifestly not wise. Others thought that nothing could be known; nor indeed were these wise: the former, because they attributed too much to man; the latter, because they attributed too little. A limit was wanting to each on either side. Where, then, is wisdom? It consists in thinking neither that you know all things, which is the property of God; nor that you are ignorant of all things, which is the part of a beast. For it is something of a middle character which belongs to man, that is, knowledge united and combined with ignorance. Knowledge in us is from the soul, which has its origin from heaven; ignorance from the body, which is from the earth: whence we have something in common with God, and with the animal creation.

...

What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the others may be understood.

...

Wherefore there is nothing else in life on which our plan and condition can depend but the knowledge of God who created us, and the religious and pious worship of Him; and since the philosophers have wandered from this, it is plain that they were not wise. They sought wis-dom, indeed; but because they did not seek it in a right manner, they sunk down to a greater distance, and fell into such great errors, that they did not even possess common wisdom. For they were not only unwilling to maintain religion, but they even took it away; while, led on by the appearance of false virtue, they endeavour to free the mind from all fear: and this overturning of religion gains the name of nature. For they, either being ignorant by whom the world was made, or wishing to persuade men that nothing was completed by divine intelligence, said that nature was the mother of all things, as though they should say that all things were produced of their own accord: by which word they altogether confess their own ignorance. For nature, apart from divine providence and power, is absolutely nothing. But if they call God nature, what perverseness is it, to use the name of nature rather than of God! But if nature is the plan, or necessity, or condition of birth, it is not by itself capable of sensation; but there must necessarily be a divine mind, which by its foresight furnishes the beginning of their existence to all things. Or if nature is heaven and earth. and everything which is created. nature is not God, but the work of God."
- Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius (~250-325 CE)
Quote:
"I will therefore set forth the system of the world, that it may easily be understood both when and how it was made by God; which Plato, who discoursed about the making of the world, could neither know nor explain, inasmuch as he was ignorant of the heavenly mystery, which is not learned except by the teaching of prophets and God;... But since God has revealed this to us, and we do not arrive at it by conjectures, but by instruction from heaven, we will carefully teach it, that it may at length be evident to those who are desirous of the truth, that the philosophers did not see nor comprehend the truth; but that they had so slight a knowledge of it, that they by no means perceived from what source that fragrance of wisdom, which was so pleasant and agreeable, breathed upon them.

...

Therefore that is more correct which they derived from Plato, that the world was made by God, and is also governed by His providence. It was therefore befitting that Plato, and those who held the same opinion, should teach and explain what was the cause, what the reason, for the contriving of so great a work; why or for the sake of whom He made it.

But the Stoics also say the world was made for the sake of men I hear, but Epicurus is ignorant on what account or who made men themselves. For Lucretius, when he said that the world was not made by the gods, thus spoke:

'To say, again, that for the sake of men they have willed to set in order the glorious nature of the world'

then he introduced:

'Is sheer folly. For what advantage can our gratitude bestow on immortal and blessed beings, that for our sake they should take in hand to administer aught?'

And with good reason. For they brought forward no reason why the human race was created or established by God. It is our business to set forth the mystery of the world and man, of which they, being destitute, were able neither to reach nor see the shrine of truth. Therefore, as I said a little before, when they had assumed that which was true, that is, that the world was made by God, and was made for the sake of men, yet, since their argument failed them in the consequences, they were unable to defend that which they had assumed.


...

Let us now assign the reason why He made man himself. For if the philosophers had known this, they would either have maintained those things which they had found to be true, or would not have fallen into the greatest errors. For this is the chief thing; this is the point on which everything turns. And if any one does not possess this, the truth altogether glides away from him. It is this, in short, which causes them to be inconsistent with reason; for if this had shone upon them, if they had known all the mystery of man, the Academy would never have been in entire opposition to their disputations, and to all philosophy. As, therefore, God did not make the world for His own sake, because He does not stand in need of its advantages, but for the sake of man, who has the use of it, so also He made man himself for His own sake.

...

Therefore the opinion entertained by Democritus, and Epicurus, and Dicaearchus concerning the dissolution of the soul is false; and they would not venture to speak concerning the destruction of souls, in the presence of any magician, who knew that souls are called forth from the lower regions by certain incantations, and that they are at hand, and afford themselves to be seen by human eyes, and speak, and foretell future events; and if they should thus venture, they would be overpowered by the fact itself, and by proofs presented to them. But because they did not comprehend the nature of the soul, which is so subtle that it escapes the eyes of the human mind, they said that it perishes."
- Divine Institutes, Book VII; Lucius Lactantius (~250-325 CE)
Quote:
"CHAPTER 24 -- OF THE ANTIPODES, THE HEAVEN, AND THE STARS.

How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or false.

What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is. that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the others may be understood."
- Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius (~250-325 CE)
Quote:
"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man."
- The City of God; Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE)
Quote:

"1. Introductory.--The subject of this treatise: the humiliation and incarnation of the Word. Presupposes the doctrine of Creation, and that by the Word. The Father has saved the world by Him through Whom He first made it.

...

2. Erroneous views of Creation rejected.(1) Epicurean (fortuitous generation). But diversity of bodies and parts argues a creating intellect.

...

Of the making of the universe and the creation of all things many have taken different views, and each man has laid down the law just as he pleased. For some say that all things have come into being of themselves, and in a chance fashion; as, for example, the Epicureans, who tell us in their self-contempt, that universal providence does not exist speaking right in the face of obvious fact and experience. 2. For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct."
- On the Incarnation of the Word; Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 CE)
Quote:
"For even granting that there are atoms, and that these strike and shake each other by clashing together as chance may guide them, is it lawful for us to grant also that atoms thus meeting in fortuitous concourse can so make anything as to fashion its distinctive forms, determine its figure, polish its surface, enliven it with color, or quicken it by imparting to it a spirit? -- all which things every one sees to be accomplished in no other way than by the providence of God, if only he loves to see with the mind rather than with the eye alone, and asks this faculty of intelligent perception from the Author of his being. Nay, more; we are not at liberty even to grant the existence of atoms themselves, for, without discussing the subtle theories of the learned as to the divisibility of matter, observe how easily the absurdity of atoms may be proved from their own opinions. For they, as is well known, affirm that there is nothing else in nature but bodies and empty space, and the accidents of these, by which I believe that they mean motion and striking, and the forms which result from these. Let them tell us, then, under which category they reckon the images which they suppose to flow from the more solid bodies, but which, if indeed they are bodies, possess so little solidity that they are not discernible except by their contact with the eyes when we see them, and with the mind when we think of them. For the opinion of these philosophers is, that these images can proceed from the material object and, come to the eyes or to the mind, which, nevertheless, they affirm to be material. Now, I ask, How these images flow from atoms themselves? If they do, how can these be atoms from which some bodily particles are in this process separated? If they do not, either something can be the object of thought without such images, which they vehemently deny, or we ask, whence have they acquired a knowledge of atoms, seeing that they can in nowise become objects of thought to us? But I blush to have even thus far refuted these opinions, although they did not blush to hold them. When, however, I consider that they have even dared to defend them, I blush not on their account, but for the race of mankind itself whose ears could tolerate such nonsense."
- Saint Augustine to Dioscorus (410 CE)
Quote:
"In the Beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth.

1. IT is right that any one beginning to narrate the formation of the world should begin with the good order which reigns in visible things. I am about to speak of the creation of heaven and earth, which was not spontaneous, as some have imagined, but drew its origin from God.

...

Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; "In the beginning God created." What a glorious order!"
- Hexaemeron Homily I; Basil of Caesrea (4th Century) (Early Christian founder)
Quote:
"I. IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE OF THE SCHOOL OF EPICURUS WHO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A PROVIDENCE, AND REFER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE TO ATOMIC BODIES.

Is the universe one coherent whole, as it seems to be in our own judgment, as well as in that of the wisest of the Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Pythagoras, and the Stoics and Heraclitus? or is it a duality, as some may possibly have conjectured? or is it indeed something manifold and infinite, as has been the opinion of certain others who, with a variety of mad speculations and fanciful usages of terms, have sought to divide and resolve the essential matter of the universe, and lay down the position that it is infinite and unoriginated, and without the sway of Providence? For there are those who, giving the name of atoms to certain imperishable and most minute bodies which are supposed to be infinite in number, and positing also the existence of a certain vacant space of an unlimited vastness, allege that these atoms, as they are borne along casually in the void, and clash all fortuitously against each other in an unregulated whirl, and become commingled one with another in a multitude of forms, enter into combination with each other, and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it; yea, more, that they construct infinite worlds. This was the opinion of Epicurus and Democritus; only they differed in one point, in so far as the former supposed these atoms to be all most minute and consequently imperceptible, while Democritus held that there were also some among them of a very large size. But they both hold that such atoms do exist, and that they are so called on account of their indissoluble consistency.

...

Well, but I suppose they will reply that the varying conjunctions of the atoms account fully for differences so great in the matter of duration. For it is maintained that there are some things that are compressed together by them, and firmly interlaced, so that they become closely compacted bodies, and consequently exceedingly hard to break up; while there are others in which more or less the conjunction of the atoms is of a looser and weaker nature, so that either quickly or after some time they separate themselves from their orderly constitution. And, again, there are some bodies made up of atoms of a definite kind and a certain common figure, while there are others made up of diverse atoms diversely disposed. But who, then, is the sagacious discriminator, that brings certain atoms into collocation, and separates others; and marshals some in such wise as to form the sun, and others in such a way as to originate the moon, and adapts all in natural fitness, and in accordance with the proper constitution of each star? For surely neither would those solar atoms, with their peculiar size and kind, and with their special mode of collocation, ever have reduced themselves so as to effect the production of a moon; nor, on the other hand, would the conjunctions of these lunar atoms ever have developed into a sun.

...

But even though men like these--and miserable men they are, however they may believe themselves to be righteous--may choose not to admit it, there is a mighty Lord that made the sun, and gave it the impetus for its course by His words. O ye blind ones, do these atoms of yours bring you the winter season and the rains, in order that the earth may yield food for you, and for all creatures living on it? Do they introduce summertime, too, in order that ye may gather their fruits from the trees for your enjoyment? And why, then, do ye not worship these atoms, and offer sacrifices to them as the guardians of earth's fruits?"
- Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century) (Early Christian founder)
Quote:
"CHAP. XVII.--DOCTRINE OF ATOMS UNTENABLE.

But you will say, according to the opinion of Epicurus, that successions of atoms coming in a ceaseless course, and mixing with one another, and conglomerating through unlimited and endless periods of time, are made solid bodies.

...

CHAP. XVIII.--THE CONCOURSE OF ATOMS COULD NOT MAKE THE WORD.

Then, in the next place, if they are ceaselessly borne about, and always coming, and being added to things whose measure is already complete, how can the universe stand, when new weights are always being heaped upon so vast weights? And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction, if indeed t the yawning top of the structure was not propped and bound by any stays? For as those who build circular domes, unless they bind the fastening of the central top, the whole falls at once; so also the circle of the world, which we see to be brought together in so graceful a form, if it was not made at once, and under the influence of a single forth-putting of divine energy by the power of a Creator, but by atoms gradually concurring and constructing it, not as reason demanded, but as a fortuitous issue befell, how did it not fall down and crumble to pieces before it could be brought together and fastened? And further, I ask this: What is the pavement on which the foundations of such an immense mass are laid? And again, what you call the pavement, on what does it rest? And again that other, what supports it? And so I go on asking, until the answer comes to nothing and vacuity!

CHAP. XIX.--MORE DIFFICULTIES OF THE ATOMIC THEORY.

...

Thus it is sufficiently shown that the bodies of the world are not consolidated by the union of atoms; and that insensible bodies, even if they could by any means concur and be united, could not give forms and measures to bodies, form limbs, or effect qualities, or express quantities; all which, therefore, by their exactness, attest the hand of a Maker, and show the operation of reason, which reason I call the Word, and God."
- Recognitions Book VIII; Pope Clement of Rome (2nd century) (Early Christian founder)
Quote:
"For if every sickness and every infirmity, which our Saviour then healed among the people, refers to different disorders in souls, it is also in accordance with reason that by the paralytics are symbolised the palsied in soul, who keep it lying paralysed in the body; but by those who are blind are symbolised those who are blind in respect of things seen by the soul alone, and these are really blind; and by the deaf are symbolised those who are deaf in regard to the reception of the word of salvation. On the same principle it will be necessary that the matters regarding the epileptic should be investigated. Now this affection attacks the sufferers at considerable intervals, during which he who suffers from it seems in no way to differ from the man in good health, at the season when the epilepsy is not working on him. Similar disorders you may find in certain souls, which are often supposed to be healthy in point of temperance and the other virtues; then, sometimes, as if they were seized with a kind of epilepsy arising from their passions, they fall down from the position in which they seemed to stand, and are drawn away by the deceit of this world and other lusts. Perhaps, therefore, you would not err if you said, that such persons, so to speak, are epileptic spiritually, having been cast down by "the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places,"
- Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew - Book XIII; Origen (2nd century CE) (Early Christian founder)
Quote:
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.

We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.

(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.

Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.

2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Prætorian Prefect.

Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.

(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word .... These things, indeed, do not require further proof, and should be respected.

(2) Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.

Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.


...

12. The Same to John, Prætorian Prefect.

We order that Our Divine Decree by which We have ordered that no one who accepts the error of heretics can receive an estate, a legacy, or a trust, shall also apply to the last wills of soldiers, whether they are made under the Common, or military law.

Given, on the Kalends of September, after the Consulate of Lampadius and Orestes, during the second year of the reign of Justinian, 535.

...

CONCERNING THE PAGANS, THEIR SACRIFICES, AND THEIR TEMPLES.

1. The Emperor Constantius to Taurus, Prætorian Prefect.

We have determined that the temples shall be immediately closed in all cities, and access to them forbidden to all, so that permission for further offending may be refused to those who are lost. We also wish everyone to abstain from sacrifices, and if any person should do anything of this kind, he shall be laid low with the avenging sword; and We decree that his property, after having been taken from him, shall be confiscated to the Treasury, and that the Governors of provinces shall also be punished, if they have neglected to suppress these crimes.

Extract from the Novel, "Concerning Statutes and Customs." Section Beginning "Gazarists," Collection 10, Last Constitution.

...

We condemn to infamy, set apart, and banish the Gazarists, the Patarians, the Leonists, the Spheronists, the Arnoldists, the Circumcised and all heretics of both sexes, and of every denomination; declaring that all the property of such persons shall be confiscated, and shall not be restored to them afterwards, so that their children cannot succeed to them; for it is much more serious to give offence to Eternal than to temporal majesty.

(1) Moreover, those who are found to be only liable to suspicion, unless they show by proper repentance that they are innocent, shall, according to the nature of the suspicion and the rank of the person, and in compliance with the orders of the Church, be considered as infamous and banished, so that if they remain in this condition for a year We shall condemn them as heretics.

...

1. The Emperor Constantius and Julian-Cæsar to Thalassius, Prætorian Prefect.

If anyone, after renouncing the venerated Christian faith, should become a Jew, and join their sacrilegious assemblies, We order that, after the accusation has been proved, his property shall be confiscated to the Treasury.

Given at Milan, on the fifth of the Nones of July, during the Consulate of Constantius, Consul for the ninth time, and Julian-Cæsar, Consul for the second time, 357.
- The Code of Justinian; 529-534 CE
Tell me again about how the Christians didn't set mankind back.....
Malachi151 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.