Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Brother Daniel · 08-31-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apsu

Also, to kind of boil this down for myself, the basic concesus here at the atheist forum is that the RCC was more a friend than a foe of scientific development?

That's not anywhere near a consensus on this forum (though it may nevertheless be true -- I wouldn't know). Individual threads often attract only a small amount of attention, so don't be fooled by the fact that this particular thread has been ticking along peacefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apsu

So, am I understanding this stance correctly -- the argument between science and religion was basically made up by 19th century scientists in order to drum up support for darwinism by fallaciously importing an idea of a backward church holding back the ideals of science?

If so, many 19th-century (and later) Christians certainly did a good job of trying to make the idea (of conflict between science and religion) look true.

Brother Daniel · 08-31-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

It is more likely Sir Francis poisoned himself working on a exilir to prolong life, which I find deliciously ironic.

Indeed.

Brother Daniel · 08-31-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

But it was a Roman innovation. It used to be thought that the "heavy plough" was an early Medieval invention which enabled heavier northern soils to be brought under cultivation and increase production levels and population, thus stimulating trade and leading to the advances and expansion of the later Middle Ages. It's now clear that the Romans developed the heavy plough.

Whoa there!

James: Does this mean some updating is needed in your free first chapter? I read it rather hastily, but I thought there was a bit there about the heavy plough being early Medieval.

Brother Daniel · 08-31-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is simply in the process of moving away from its old wife, religion, to its new darling, evolutionism. This is a move from pseudo-spirituality to pseudo-science.

I'll probably regret asking this, but what do you mean by evolutionism?

Toto · 08-31-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is simply in the process of moving away from its old wife, religion, to its new darling, evolutionism. This is a move from pseudo-spirituality to pseudo-science.

I'll probably regret asking this, but what do you mean by evolutionism?

You will regret it. But if you chose to pursue it, please take it to another forum.

Brother Daniel · 08-31-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You will regret it. But if you chose to pursue it, please take it to another forum.

Done.

No Robots: Don't answer my question in this thread. I've moved it to E/C.

Antipope Innocent II · 08-31-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

And weren't all those eye-glasses and printing presses & things late medieval, not dark ages? (I may have my terminology funny; I'm no historian. To me it's "dark ages" about 500-1000; "medieval" about 1000-1600.)

No, you have the terminology right and yes those things are later than the Early Middle Ages/"Dark Age". This thread is about the "Dark Age" though some of its posts discuss the Middle Ages generally (500-1500 AD).

Quote:

BTW, are any of you historians familiar with Terry Jones' Barbarians? (or via: amazon.co.uk) I read that recently and found it very intriguing.

Jones always needs to be handled with care. He likes to overstate his case, plays things for laughs a bit much and has some clear biases. His series on the Crusades had some good bits, for example, but degenerated in a Runciman-inspired series of cliches about how the Crusaders were all ignorant and bad and the Muslims were all wise and noble. It got fairly farcical towards the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apsu

Also, to kind of boil this down for myself, the basic concesus here at the atheist forum is that the RCC was more a friend than a foe of scientific development?

That's not anywhere near a consensus on this forum (though it may nevertheless be true -- I wouldn't know). Individual threads often attract only a small amount of attention, so don't be fooled by the fact that this particular thread has been ticking along peacefully.

Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is free to do so. So long as they come armed with facts and knowledge about the period and not prejudices and wild assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apsu

So, am I understanding this stance correctly -- the argument between science and religion was basically made up by 19th century scientists in order to drum up support for darwinism by fallaciously importing an idea of a backward church holding back the ideals of science?

If so, many 19th-century (and later) Christians certainly did a good job of trying to make the idea (of conflict between science and religion) look true.

Yes, they did an excellent job of distorting things. Luckily better and more thorough historians are doing a good job of correcting their errors and prejudices and, slowly, that's finally managing to seep into the popular conception of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

James: Does this mean some updating is needed in your free first chapter? I read it rather hastily, but I thought there was a bit there about the heavy plough being early Medieval.

I've already suggested to him that part of his initial chapter should be amended.

Berthold · 09-01-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

If the Renaissance gave us anything other than some nice paintings and Leonardo's crackpot doodlings it was the way that period's new perspective finally got over the Medieval world's inferiority complex when it came to the ancients.

Renaissance mainstream, though, was the quest to regain the knowledge of the Ancients, supposing that it had been perfect at its time, then, later, had been watered down by scholasticism.

That's how Stephen Jay Gould wrote it in one of his essays; according to him, the proverbial Renaissance Man was the exception during the Renaissance proper!

Roger Pearse · 09-01-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how Christianity could have helped things along. (I'm not asserting that it didn't.)

The ancient Greeks had problems as pagans which tended to lead them to confound astrology and astronomy, since they believed that the planets were powers or divinities (this is a very brief version of a complex subject).

The arrival of Christianity made that position out of the question, stripped out much of the superstition which hampered earlier writers, and so forced a division between the two.

The instance that highlighted this point to me was when I was working on Severus Sebokht, bishop of Kinnesrin, On the constellations who lived in the 7th century, and is attacking superstition and so reads a little bit like a 19th century atheist, purely because he does not want the pagan baggage.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

RAFH · 09-01-2007, 07:33 AM

They were sort of darkish dark but not quite absolutely dark.

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

09-01-2007, 07:33 AM	#110
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	They were sort of darkish dark but not quite absolutely dark.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.