Amaleq13

Knowledge and the way one expresses it are two different subjects.

The perceptions of one's audience are ignored at the expense of the success of one's effort to enlighten.

GakuseiDon

Tertullian "dismisses this"? If you have captured Carrier's thoughts accurately, then I have no idea how Carrier gets that from Tertullian's "On the Soul". This appears to be what Carrier is referring to (my emphasis all below):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian10.html

"From God you may learn about that which you hold of God; but from none else will you get this knowledge, if you get it not from God. For who is to reveal that which God has hidden? To that quarter must we resort in our inquiries whence we are most safe even in deriving our ignorance. For it is really better for us not to know a thing, because He has not revealed it to us, than to know it according to man's wisdom, because he has been bold enough to assume it."

Tertullian is talking about things relating to God here, not the sciences. He essentially says that for matters concerning God (in this case, the soul), Greek philosophers weren't able to know what they were talking about, but that Christians had "the good stuff" where God was concerned. He is saying nothing about science here at all. Tertullian says much the same thing when he compares "Athens" and "Jerusalem": and again, it has nothing to do with the sciences.

This is what Tertullian says about Medicine and science in "On the Soul":

"Moreover, I have looked into Medical Science also, the sister (as they say) of Philosophy, which claims as her function to cure the body, and thereby to have a special acquaintance with the soul. From this circumstance she has great differences with her sister, pretending as the latter does to know more about the soul, through the more obvious treatment, as it were, of her in her domicile of the body. But never mind all this contention between them for pre-eminence! For extending their several researches on the soul, Philosophy, on the one hand, has enjoyed the full scope of her genius; while Medicine, on the other hand, has possessed the stringent demands of her art and practice..."

Tertullian goes on to say how one's intellect is sharpened by one's physical condition and one's pursuit of studies:

"Very likely, too, something must be set down to the score of bodily condition and the state of the health. Stoutness hinders knowledge, but a spare form stimulates it; paralysis prostrates the mind, a decline preserves it. How much more will those accidental circumstances have to be noticed, which, in addition to the state of one's body or one's health, tend to sharpen or to dull the intellect! It is sharpened by learned pursuits, by the sciences, the arts, by experimental knowledge, business habits, and studies; it is blunted by ignorance, idle habits, inactivity, lust, inexperience, listlessness, and vicious pursuits."

Carrier does not seem to be presenting early Christian views accurately there. I'm not aware of any "anti-science" or "anti-learning" stance by early Christians, though some could say silly things about the world at times. The focus of the early apologists was on how Roman gods were actually demons, and how Christian beliefs were superior to Greek philosophies.

It seems that Carrier is assuming that a belief in scriptures and revelation from God somehow implied an anti-science stance, which I know is a position pushed by some people today. IOW, a presumed "science vs religion" battle retrograded back into that time.

Malachi151

See my article on evolution which goes over a lot of this in detail:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._evolution.htm

andrewcriddle

One issue is that there clearly was a move in Late Antiquity away from knowledge as based on investigation to knowledge as based on revelation. (Even if the emphasis in say Hellenistic times on knowledge based on investigation was by our standards half hearted at best.)

However this seems to have been something common to Christians and Pagans, with very late Pagan writers placing a very great emphasis on theurgy and other forms of mystical revelation.

I posted on http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...ience-and.html an article about knowledge of astronomical precession in the ancient world in which the Christian Origen appears more open to experimental evidence than the Pagan Proclus.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Richard Carrier in NY Times

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if anyone else thinks it's ironic that your link brings up an an article about an extremely prominent philosopher (who does not self publish nor write, as seems possible, his own blurbs) who has apparently abandoned and rejected the metaphysical naturalism that RC upholds.

And what's with this "in the time that he hasn't finished his dissertation...". Should we detect a dig against RC -- a chastisement for not paying attention to what he should be paying attention to -- lurking there?

In any case, Toto, can you tell us the name of the press that will be publishing RC's forthcoming book?

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey - the link brings up an article about a philosopher who has been hoodwinked by a group of evangelicals into accepting bad science as proof of a deistic god. If you read the entire article, you will see that it explains in detail how this was accomplished, and a book that has been ghost written by an evangelical is being published under this philosopher's name although the poor old man can't remember the people listed in the book. That book has not been peer reviewed.

I think that you read too fast, or your ability to pick up nuance is suffering. There is no chastisement of Carrier for not finishing his thesis, just a bow to his many accomplishments.

I don't know who will publish Carrier's book, but I know that it will have been reviewed by competant scholars.

Jeffrey Gibson

Speaking of reading too fast, please note that did not say there was a chatisement. I asked if there was. And to say that the author of the quote "bowed" to RC in any way, or that he/she was noting that Richard has "many" accomplishments, is reading much more into that notice than is there, I think.

If anything, it presents Richard as a bit of a nerd.

Before or after it's published? In any case, and assuming you mean reviewed before publication (i.e., vetted), let's hope that whoever these scholars are (do you know?) they are competent as well as competant in the subject that Richard is writing about.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

You say that like it is surprising.

Who are the "cool" ancient history scholars?

Toto

Carrier's book is his PhD thesis. I assume you know how that sort of thing works at a place like Columbia University, Dr. Gibson?