Jeffrey Gibson

Nope, the question is why you think you have any sure grasp of what Momigliano is saying when it's evident over and over again that you consistently misread texts you appeal to and take them as saying what you want them to say, not what they actually say.

JG

Ted Hoffman

I have never understood Gibson's raw jealousy toward Carrier - one would think they grew up together. Now Carrier's alert mind and prolificacy are indicative of an "obsessive streak?
I have already done this in the past when you disputed that Carrier is a reknown atheist figure. He has been published in scholarly journals. You want me to give you the list again?
You were the first one to use "many" in reference to Carrier's accomplishments in your post. You even want me to support what you have said?

Jeffrey Gibson

Why ask me? Ask Oppenheimer. They are his words.

Yes, please. But please show, too, that these publications are on atheism.

Yes, please, provided you give the full context of what I said.

JG

Richard Carrier

Toto's synopsis of my talk does over-simplify a bit and leave out a lot of qualifications, though some do pass quickly in an oral delivery (e.g. "Christianity practically makes villains of those who ask for evidence" now becomes "Christianity makes villains of those who ask for evidence" and "doubt can be a path to sin" now becomes "doubt is a path to sin"). And my talk was already an abridgment of a lengthier more scholarly chapter that includes even more qualifications and careful language. But Toto at least gets the gist right, as far as I could tell on a quick look.

I should add some things:

Regarding:

Toto: Christians argued that disagreements among scientists are grounds for dismissing all of them, while pagans used disagreements to get more empirical knowledge or to argue for probable revisable knowledge. YoungAlexander: Sounds like modern day fundies on IDC - Carrier isn't retrojecting is he?

No. The ancient Christians really did use that argument. Quite a lot in fact. To be fair, it had already been invented by the formal Skeptics well before Christianity, but it was then deployed differently (and, IMO, more competently).

Regarding the remarks of Antipope Innocent II:

(1) Though there were indeed a lot of superstitious and just plain bogus ideas in antiquity, the Flamen Dialis is a bad example if you want to paint a general picture of the age. That priesthood actually dropped most of those old restrictions in the time of Augustus (or even Caesar), since they were recognized even then as quaint and silly (and there was only ever one guy in any generation holding that singularly exceptional priesthood anyway--and in its early days it was bizarre even among its fellow flaminates, but not as bizarre compared to modern Hasidic or even Orthodox Judaism).

In fact, in the Imperial Age few Romans took such things seriously. Lucian and Seneca, for example, ridicule similar beliefs exactly as we do now. In fact, Imperial era sentiment among the elite resembled that of the 19th century British Empire: mostly rational about its religion, yet still with a Church speaking Latin incantations over crackers to transmogrify into the flesh of a dead god and sending exorcists to expel demons, while mesmerism and theosophy captured the minds of the siller set, spirit seances were all the rage, and some people actually believed in faeries.

(2) There is a difference between embracing scientific results, and embracing scientific values (curiosity, empiricism, and progress), a distinction I took pains to draw and identify in my talk (and will more in the book, which will also address the claim that medieval science was as progressive and advanced as ancient science). The talk was explicitly on matters only up to 313 A.D., however, but I did discuss how things changed after that, all the way up to the Scientific Revolution. Ultimately, however, valuing curiosity, empiricism, and progress did not come from Christianity. Christians had to learn those things from pagans. And, IMO, with difficulty. But you can read about that in my next book.

(3) As to Clement, I have ample direct quotes from him on the matter supporting everything I said. But then perhaps Toto's summary was too simplistic to convey what I said. I don't know, since I can't tell what you think Clement advocated. Similarly regarding Lactantius, since, e.g., I specifically said his flat earthism was a minority view, and his antiscientism ultimately didn't win out (though it was more popular at the time than you seem to think, and those with saner views, like Origen and Clement, whom I did discuss, were not exactly defending scientific values, even if they could see a place for scientific results).

(4) As to Tertullian, I will simply quote him and leave it at that (though one could consult his references to Herophilus and Soranus for examples, and one must remember that "soul" in ancient parlance means what we now call "mind," i.e. consciousness, intellect, and perception):

I won't debate these things here. You can visit my blog to see some of my remarks pertaining to related matters, but ultimately you will have to await my book before continuing. Yes, it will be my dissertation, and after I receive my degree.

Finally, I'm not going to evaluate any of the other claims made here, which are too numerous and often not correct. But just as a sample on both sides of the spectrum: Christians only burned one library in the 4th century, and then only to burn the pagans inside it, not specifically to get the books (although presumably some did count that a bonus, and a religious mob that is more interested in burning people than books is not exactly a step up on the moral ladder); Galen actually did dissect some humans and even wrote about how to find such opportunities, since the scruples of the time allowed it in limited circumstances (it was never strictly illegal -- the reasons for avoiding it had more to do with the public role of doctors who philanthropically attended the superstitious poor), and his usual subject was the ape (not dogs and pigs), while in fact before his time Herophilus and Erasistratus even had the royal permission of the Hellenistic Ptolemies to dissect humans at leisure; and though the Church did eventually promote its legality in a way the Emperors did not, it took a thousand years to come around to this position, and only when inspired to by the revival of pagan values, unconsciously emulating the Hellenistic kings before it.

P.S. On the Flew thing and my nerdiness (which is way off topic) see my blog (for those who will read this long from now, look in November for where I have an entry on it). On my "accomplishments" my pubs list is available for download as a PDF from my Secular Web bio page (and of course I do have three degrees--though I can already tell, sadly, that a lot of people are actually going to be mortified when I finally get the Ph.D.).

Roger Pearse

I am mildly surprised that a portion of Tertullian De anima, written to controvert the heretic Hermogenes, is being studied as if it was a treatise on a science yet to be invented. Tertullian is always concerned to close down philosophical speculation by heretics, and the endless evasions thereby involved, and put it straight to them, "do you believe Christian teaching or not"?

As such, it would be strange to quote so knowledgeable and learned a writer doing this, as if he was expressing a general hostility to knowledge! What he is hostile to is evasion.

The idea that Christians were hostile to science involves multiple anachronisms, not least the 19th century "Science=good, God=bad" dichotomy. Complaints about hostility to science, if they were sincere, might more usefully be directed to those who are camped outside my laboratory, not 16 centuries ago, but right now. In my experience those who love science do not try to get the myriad followers of the world's largest religion to be hostile to it.

The history of science is Bede's area of interest, so I will refer anyone interested to him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

I attended a conference on Thursday on Autistic Spectrum Disorders.

Now there is a huge debate about who these conditions belong to. Comment was made about neurological factors, several speakers were psychiatrists quoting DSMIV, there were learning disability specialists.

Tertullian, Concerning the soul, would seem to have caused a huge amount of mess muddle and confusion in our thinking that is evident in modern approaches to issues like ASD!

One of the speakers noted the conference should have been called telling your asd from your elbow!

GakuseiDon

Yes, I'm puzzled at why Carrier believes that Tertullian is addressing science here. With regards to the soul, Tertullian is saying to trust Christian teaching rather than Greek philosophy. It doesn't have anything to do with science AFAICS.

This is what Tertullian says about the intellect:

"[The intellect] is sharpened by learned pursuits, by the sciences, the arts, by experimental knowledge, business habits, and studies"

Tertullian seems to be suggesting that this is a **good** thing.

Anyway, Carrier's book sounds interesting, so I'll certainly be having a look at it when it comes out.

Roger Pearse

Tertullian is a risky author to quote. This is because of his inability to resist a striking phrase, which may or may not map particularly well onto what he has to say.

In consequence we get the dreary repetition by the unwitting of "credo (sic) quia absurdam" (after De carne Christi 5:4) as if he was making some desperately serious creedal statement, rather than -- as the context makes plain -- taking the p*** out of Marcion's position.

Likewise we get people asserting that Tertullian was hostile to philosophy and learning of any kind, based on "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" (De praescriptione haereticorum 7) by ignoring the entire context of his remarks -- that the heretics were just bastardising pop-paganism -- and the massive oratorical 'rush' in ch's 6-7 of which this is the crescendo.

It is often forgotten that the term 'philosophy' in antiquity did not only cover what we think of as philosophy, or the seeds of what might become science. It also was used for what was often more visible, pop-paganism. It is this which the Fathers are resisting. Tertullian, indeed, uses Stoic philosophical techniques extensively. It's the paganism he objects to.

The question for which Mr. C. wants him as evidence is one not under discussion in De anima as far as I can see? The idea that Christianity involves hostility to learning -- a curious idea only possible to those who choose to be deeply ignorant of the sources of all modern learning -- seems to me rather like a retro-projection of 18th and 19th century invective onto the ancient world, rather than something which illuminates antiquity.

Christians had and have no special views as Christians on a lot of subjects, and this is one of them. To misrepresent their preference for God in order to smear them for not being as interested in <insert fashionable cause here> is merely smear-polemic. But this is not something that can be discussed in this group, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jeffrey Gibson

Excellent news. And the best of luck in getting the dissertation finnesd and approved. I know what a hard slog it is.

So who will be its publisher?

A bit of a nit pick, but the question was not your "nerdiness", or even whether you were/are or were/are not a "nerd", but whether Oppenheimer presented you as "a bit of a nerd" and more importantly what the meaning of his statement about you possessing an "obsessive streak" meant.

Yes, in which you yourself note that the remark about your possessing "an obsessive streak which is debilitating" is "snarkiness" on Oppenheimer's part and therefore certainly not a compliment, let alone the one that Toto called me tone deaf for not seeing.

Thanks for helping to clarify that.

Yes, it is. But since the issue under discussion was whether Oppenheimer spoke of you as a man of "many" accomplishments or listed more than three, what's actually on your pub list is a bit irrelevant.

Despite what anyone might think, I will not be one of them. I will be delighted for you.

Jeffrey

Magdlyn

Well, that is unfortunate for Christians, I feel. A bit hubristic perhaps?

As if the canon has not!

"Massive oratorical rush," ie: talking out his arse? A bit in love with his own voice?

Definition, in the sense you mean it, please? Christianity in general, borrowed heavily from Hellenistic mystery religion, as should be obvious to any clear-headed person.

Stoics were not "pagan?"

Tut tut. You do not speak for all Christians. Many literalists are extremely anit-science and anti-intellectual. If not, George Bush would never have been so tragically elected.

Perhaps if you were more clear...