Potoooooooo

Why did you not before?

James Hannam

I was too shy.

No Robots

I really think you should look at Brunner's book. He devotes quite a bit of space to the Greek understanding of the One and the many. If you read German, I can send you the text electronically. Otherwise, take a look at Science, Spirit, Superstition. It may force you to rethink your position, but you seem to be a reasonable guy.

No Robots

That's my point: the West was able to accomodate the Arians. Theodoric the Ostrogoth governed Italy in relative harmony until the Byzantine Justinian decided to attack him, thereby plunging Italy into chaos.

As for the Christological disputes in the East, I will content myself with this quotation:

The theologians had simply taken on a new metaphysical ballast that was too heavy for them, as they lurched anew into the Apollinarian, Nestorian and Monophysite controversies. We can perhaps understand how easy it was for Mohammed to blow the whistle on the whole confusing game, with the simple, uncompromising assertion that God is One.—Theodosius: the empire at bay (or via: amazon.co.uk) / Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell, p. 50

arricchio

James,

I wouldn't agree that "most historians of the early middle ages" believe that the dark ages were not dark at all - I certainly never had one that said that- or that those who do may be fairly typified by Roger Collins. In fact, although I haven't read Collins' text in a while, I don't recall that he claims that the dark ages were not dark at all. I think that what he says is that in the past "dark age" proponents have overstated their case. Which is true. Still, there is no denying that by any measure of cultural health (city size, life expectancy, trade levels, etc) civilization in the west was in a state of drastic decline during the years 300-1000. The question is whether this alone is sufficient to classify the period as a "dark age" (whatever that means). On the other hand, the period produced some of the greatest works of scholarship in history. The question then is whether that alone is sufficient to classify the period as a "not dark at all" age (whatever that might mean).

Secondly, the term "dark age" was not coined in an effort to compare the early medieval period to the periods before and after it. It has always been used as a perjorative in comparison to the writer's own time. I believe that this is why the term "dark age" has never been clearly defined by anyone: because it was never intended to be culturally descriptive at all. It was simply an epithet that some scholars, sufficiently impressed with their own culture, felt justified in applying to past cultures that they already viewed as inferior to their own. For that reason, it's best to just abandon the term and instead attempt to describe the period as accurately as we can based on the evidence that we have - which, unfortunately, isn't much.

Apsu

My historical knowledge has been challenged by this thread, it's been a great read. So, maybe I'm wrong on this point, but wasn't it Galileo who started experimental science by rolling balls of differing weights from a contraption he'd built and then dropping them off of the tower of Pisa and attempting to record the time their fall took?

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? While it seems a rather gracious stance, I suppose in the light of considering the facts before reaching a conclusion (as the theists here are so often accused of) it does follow that if this is the truth, then it ought to be proliferated.

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? And, if I'm not completely misunderstanding the entire thread -- to what end was that idea made up, and by who specifically.

Maybe I should start reading again from the beginning :redface:


[edit] Oh, and btw -- I've got to agree with whoever said it, but I've always understood "The Dark Ages" to refer to a period of European history and find mixing it up with China to be pretty irrelevant. Of course, I've found a number of issues here which have made me question what I thought I knew, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that China was a much more advanced civilization during that time period, and I think it deserves its own thread for any interested in the history, but they were not in the dark ages, they have no relevance to it - any more than native american civilizations have anything to do with the golden age of Greece.

James Hannam

Hi there,

Collins actually never uses the phrase 'dark ages'. He doesn't even say that he isn't using it. Nor does he ever make a value judgement about the era. More usually he defends those who have, in the past, been maligned but also slightly has it in for Charlemagne (a name he also refuses to use).

I think today 'dark ages' is taken to mean in comparison to the classical world and the 'renaissance'. The phrase is prejudical and I think we should just ditch it and talk about the early middle ages on their own merits. My own view is that there was a marked decline in material culture in the fifth century but the new society that regenerated was better than the old one. Tough times meant new ideas were adopted that were ignored by the Romans.

Best wishes

James

Read chapter one of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE

James Hannam

Whether Galileo did those experiments anywhere outside his head is doubted by many historians. I think he did do them but very many of his ideas had medieval roots he never acknowledged.

Careful! I'm a Catholic of a moderate sort. The Antipope is an atheist and many atheist historians like Andrew Cunningham would concur with much of what we say. I agree it should be promulgated. Why not sign up to my list of people who'd like to see my book published? Presently I can't convince them that there is a market for medieval stuff.

The introduction to my book, (available free here) gives a brief overview of how the myths developed. The first chapter then runs through the early middle ages. I'd be very flattered if you fancied taking a look.

Best wishes

James

Sarpedon

It can't be denied that Roger Bacon used experiments, sense he died after catching ill while stuffing a chicken with snow. (he was thinking that snow would help preserve the meat, so he decided to try an experiment) Good old Roger!

James Hannam

Actually that was was Sir Francis in the seventeenth century, not Roger in the thirteenth. In history of science you must know your bacon!

Anyway, the chicken story comes from the serially unreliable John Aubrey a generation or two later. It is more likely Sir Francis poisoned himself working on a exilir to prolong life, which I find deliciously ironic.

Best wishes

James