lpetrich

As to supposed counterexamples for southern Europe being much less scientifically-productive than northern Europe, one swallow does not a summer make.

And does the example of Isaac Newton want to make one want to become a nominal Anglican who rejects the Trinity and who is obsessed with interpreting Biblical prophecies?

CX

<snip>

My apologies. I moved this thread in error.

Family Man

Bede --

What is it about this subject that makes you misread what people are telling you.

Yes, the scientists of Northern Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries were usually strongly Christian. No kidding. Neither Gregor nor I said anything different. Your response is completely irrelevant.

The point is that the Reformation reduced church control over temporal affairs, meaning no inquistion and greater freedom of thought. This is a very standard historical argument. I encountered it in high school, I was lectured about it in college, and I've read it in many books on the subject. It's discussed in Shapin, for example.

I'm not saying that science is incompatible with religion. I'm saying that Christianity was not a "necessary precondition" for modern science. What was required was freedom to think freely, which is what the Reformation inadvertantly supplied.

As for your second point, I think you need to read Numbers/Lindberg again. They're not saying that the Church completely killed off science, but did suppress it to the point where little was done. You mention three (it's actually two, but I'll get to that in a minute). By comparison, how many figures did England produce in the same time period? Probably a couple of orders of magnitude difference. That's the point, Bede. I never claimed that no science was done in Italy. And what about Spain, Bede? Any scientists produced in that country?

Let's take a look at the scientists you do mention:

Torricelli -- active in the early 17th century, he was initially interested in astronomy but dropped that when Galileo was put on trial and concentrated instead on the non-controversial subject of mathematics, though he did experiment on vacumns and helped invent the barometer.

Volta -- active in the late 18th century and was involved with electricity, which the church never appeared to have any problem with.

Franz Anton Mesmer -- was an ethnic German born in Switzerland and lived most of his professional life in Vienna and Paris. He spent most of his life as a lasped Catholic, though he returned to the church late in his life. Why he is on your list I have no idea.

Basically, that leaves 125 years between a single major figure and the next major figure. Not exactly a hotbed of scientific thought, eh?

In short, you're really not addressing the issues and you'll have to do much better than this.

Bede

After too many run-ins with the headbangers in this forum (GRD), I am not willing to post here. I have asked CX why he moved a history thread from the history forum and await his reply. In the meantime, Familyman is playing the Whig card that freedom of thought helped science. I think he needs to look closely at eighteenth century France. Clearly some science was going on in Italy. Spain, even under the 'liberal' pre-reconquista monarchs, never had much scientific tradition.

I disagree that Homer and Hesiod are any more religious texts than Dante.

B

lpetrich

First, I agree with CX's decision to move this thread. GRD seems like an appropriate home.

And between Bede's and Family Man's views, I agree with Family Man much more closely. For starters, freedom of thought does make a difference -- how does one learn anything if one is not allowed to have new ideas?

And if Bede doesn't like people challenging his views, all I can say is that are we supposed to feel sorry for him?

joedad

Vork said it best. Bede is unable to separate his christian bias from anything. However, and not being harsh, Bede's unending conflation of science and christianity somehow demonstrates to me that his capacity for reason and rational thought are not far below the surface. Eventually that evolved rational brain may tame this demon.

All that said, I still enjoy Bede's contributions, one headbanger to another.

Family Man

I'd think you'd better take a look at 17th century France. The philosophes, Voltaire, Diderot, the Encyclopedia, Rousseau...it wasn't the most repressive environment in the world. (Though Voltaire kept his home comfortably close to the German border, just in case.) France was the home a large number of deists and at least one atheist (D'Holbach). The culminating event of the century had the liberals fully in control, though they foolishly squandered the opportunity. No, there was no formal repression mechanism in France (only sporadic attempts by the state) in the 17th or 18th century, and considerable freedom of thought (I hope you've read Candide). I don't think you have a point here.

And the amount of science done in Italy was neglible compared to either France or England. And, no, Spain didn't -- but then, they never had much of a chance to either.

I'm not sure what's wrong with freedom of thought, but it looks to me that you have no cards left to play, Bede.

wade-w

The moderator consensus is that this thread, as it is dealing with history and Christianity, is more appropriate to Biblical Criticism & History. Therefore I have moved it back to its original home.

Bede, your backhanded insult to the GRD forum is noted, and not appreciated. Please refrain from such broad brush strokes in the future.

wade-w
Moderator
GRD

lpetrich

joedad:
Vork said it best. Bede is unable to separate his christian bias from anything. However, and not being harsh, Bede's unending conflation of science and christianity somehow demonstrates to me that his capacity for reason and rational thought are not far below the surface. Eventually that evolved rational brain may tame this demon.

I've even given his creed a name: Bedianity. Something like Metacrockianity and Eddianity.

That conflation may be why he has often put down the classical Greco-Roman world; pre-Constantine society causes a lot of trouble for Bedianity.

joedad

Am I missing something in your argument, Bede? I only ask because in your original thread, I and others pointed out the fact that Aristarchus proposed the same nearly two-thousand years earlier. This being the case, how can you state that Cop somehow pulled this idea out of the air? What exactly do you mean by "...there is no visible reason for it beyond his own stated case?" Where did Aristarchus get the idea originally? I don't understand your point here at all.

Perhaps you or Family Man can tell me what I am overlooking.