Bede

Sojourner, Lindberg does agree with my stronger claim that Christianity was a necessary pre requisite for science. That is a controversial position which I have not defended on this thread nor should I be expected to given the title you gave it.

On witches, it seems you are not interested so I'll drop that. No one who knows what they are talking about considers Descartes a scholastic so I think you badly need to revise this. Also, it was his mechanical philosophy Newton was defending himself against, not his dualism. Finally, Aqinas's thought only became dominant during the counter reformation. Prior to that Bonaventure and Ockham were more influential among the schoolmen.

Peter, thanks.

B

Sojourner553

Please spare us the superficial bombastic pronouncements...

You are clearly making this up!!! I have already shown quotes to dispute it. I challenge you to prove it –


I did not think this fell within our original scope of THIS post! It would no doubt be an interesting new post.

Of course Cartesian Dualism is not exactly "the SAME" as Scholasticism, although it largely replaced this movement (which was already in decline during the time of Descartes.)

Cartesian Dualism differs from Scholasticism in emphasizing reason (as opposed to authority) in the FIRST realm of the body.
This is an important difference.

However, in the SECOND, or DUAL realm of the mind, Descartes used a priori reasoning, SAME as the Scholastics!! Descartes reaches metaphysical conclusions which are little (if any) different from those of Scholastic philosophy in such areas as the transcendency of God. Descartes saw himself as a champion of the Catholic Church by fortifying earlier Scholastic arguments for absolute certainty against the Renaissance resurgence of ancient Greek skepticism (which had weakened Scholasticism in the century in which he lived).

Descartes' philosophy allowed for the primacy of reason in his FIRST realm of the body, but in his SECOND realm of the mind, we see his arguments borrowing heavily from ontological Scholastic proofs, especially those of Anselm.

Here is one example (note the second paragraph regarding “degrees” of reality):


Let me go back to the original source you were referring to for the rest of the discussion:

Your response was: “...it was his mechanical philosophy Newton was defending himself against, not his dualism.

No doubt, among the groups Newton was addressing was the camp of Cartesian Dualists (your point) in addition to any of the minority Scholastic groups that were still around. (I tended to group these philosophies together, rather than take the time to make a clear distinction, as the Scholastic school tended to be replaced by the Cartesian school of thought). As such, Newton’s focus would fall under the category of Descartes’ FIRST realm of the body instead of the supernatural, metaphysical mind—where Descartes postulated mechanical models to explain the world (which of course could not explain gravity, vacuums, etc)

Still, the search for perfect understanding of “ultimate causes” is a feature that I would argue that Cartesian Dualism shared with Scholasticism.

It is true, though, that the emphasis on explaining unknown metaphysical forces in inanimate objects is a concern only of the Cartesian Dualists. Here is a quote that gives some additional depth on this topic.


To be CONSISTENT, Bede:

If you wish to maintain an independent separate philosophical distinction between Scholastics and Cartesian Dualists, then you need to correct this recent quote by you where you maintain that it was the SCHOLASTICS (Not the Cartesian Dualists) that led the movement to no longer believe in occult forces such as witches and astrology.

Even those few Scholastics who WERE opposed to astrology/witches rarely if ever maintained there was NO special powers/forces operating in these (in the sources I have seen).

Now, if you maintain that Scholastics, for the most part assumed the philosophy of the Cartesians in later centuries, I think this would be more accurate. You seem to be following my earlier lead earlier of blending these together in the interest of time.

Here is your quote, I am referring to:

Cartesian Dualism champions the view of rationalism (that knowledge can be obtained through innate ideas and logic, as opposed to sense experience.) This philosophy stood traditionally opposed to Empiricism, the latter which of course emphasizes BOTH rationality and sensory experience and forms the basis for modern science.

I thought this quote from Harry M. Bracken in his book Descartes to be interesting:

So are you using "innate" knowledge to tell us that Lindberg agrees with your thesis, Bede.

I'd like some sensory experience on this please.


Sojourner

Bede

Sojouner,

It is good to see that you realise reason is not the ultimate panacea that many here claim (and you usually imply) and that you also appreciate that the scholastics were highly rational almost to a fault. It is also good to see you realising that there is a continuum of thought through the Middle Ages into the Scientific Revolution while your website lambasts the medieval period as superstitious and irrational.

This is all excellent and shows that perhaps I was too harsh when claiming you would always defend your old claims to the last breathe. I hope you will not now try and make out that you thought this all along when you obviously have not. Anyway, I hope that even though you cannot admit it here, our discussion has encouraged you to re-examine some other preconceptions of yours and that you will eventually start thinking like a historian rather than a polemicist.

I am happy for Descartes to be considered an heir of scholasticism (although so are nearly all other early modern scientific figures) but he was not a scholastic. Your broadbrush approach of grouping people together is part of your problem and you must just accept things are more complex than is ideal. Also, you will find the rejection of magic (essentially as a reaction to hermetism) in fifteenth century scholastic thought and earlier still, just as I said. Descartes was not entirely original (but then who is?).

Finally I owe you an unreserved apology for missing out a 'not' - what you might call a clerical error. Lindberg does NOT agree with my more controversial postion that Christianity was an essential pre requisite for science. He has attacked those like Stanley Jaki who do. I have already made clear I do go beyond scholarly concensus on this but it is not the title of this thread. You will have to wait a few years for my developed thoughts on the matter.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sojourner553

I think I have always emphasized that as an empiricist (myself, not you) – that rationality is not enough—that one must also TEST the INPUTS to reasoning (ie assumptions), else one faces the error of Garbage-In, Garbage Out. That is, even a perfectly working computer produces errors in output, if there are errors in its input.


Here is an older writing off my website:


Science has had to correct its own assumptions as well– and this process continues to this day. The plate tectonic theory of the earth is one famous example.

But the point I’ve been trying to make is that it is important for no authority to impose their dogma in a way to prevent new innovative theories; not to mention the flip side: to be allowed to criticize the dogma/cherished beliefs of the authorities as well.


Sorry to disappoint: I do not correlate scholarship (no matter HOW brilliant!!) with science.

And I do think science is very important for identifying and reducing superstition.

I do agree that religions (including Christianity) can integrate science into their dogmas. I agree that many Catholics are good scientists. However, I see no evidence for Catholics being good scientists (in the ancient Greek or Arab) mold during the early medieval period – an era that you have agreed can appropriately be dubbed as the Dark Ages.

I think we both agree that there was a major decline in the sciences during this time.

Your position is that this 600+ year time period was due almost in its entirety to a breakdown in secular culture from ongoing wars.

My position is that this is too long a time period to only be explained by wars and that there was ample evidence that Christianity turned to fundamentalist authorities which held back rational inquiry and thus science. (Lindberg would say Church authorities demanded science be a handmaiden to Church dogma/theology. But then he admits elsewhere that there was virtually no science in the contemporary scholarly writings during the time period we are speaking of: 500-1100 AD. If the wars were the factor, why wasn’t ALL scholarship affected?)

You seemed to forget how I thanked you (from the very first) with pointing out that the Carl Sagan quote from Cosmos on the Christian mob burning of the Library at Alexandria could not be proven in the ancient texts . I also gave you a bravo for finding the long quote by Ammianus Marcellinus to make this a gray issue for me. In both of these cases, I had accepted their authority without testing their quotes. (And it is not they always provided bad sources: As I recall you have used facts from the author, Mostafa El-Abbadi, yourself.)

And although you do not realize it – there is a part of me that wished you were right that HISTORICALLY there was no conflict between Christianity and science because I think science is very important to solve some of modern society’s most complex problems.

However, I cannot pretend to believe in something I see no evidence for. Worse, I can see danger in letting others (primarily fundamentalist Protestants) twist these distortions one more notch to argue their agendas: that all Islam is evil, Christianity has always been good, etc;– What is needed is for another all powerful religious authority to stamp out all other religious views than their own, etc. Afterall, there were “no problems” when the Catholic Church conducted this policy during the Dark Ages...

Why assume “you” have no preconceptions???

Actually I had hoped this would be a “mutual” interaction. You never seem to detect your own "assumption" that you are 100% correct.

Indeed, I have always enjoyed the stimulus part--that is when I felt you were not getting personal with the headbanging!

I think you must have skimmed over the last part of my post too fast. Although I found Descartes to be a step-child of scholasticism (especially regarding the Mind realm), Cartesian Dualists held themselves in opposition to the Empiricism movement. And it is with the latter (Empiricism) that the majority of modern scientists trace their foundation, including what is the meaning of "science" and the "scientific method".

My sources do not show the majority of Scholastics were opposed to magic. The Church did seem to be undecided on the issue of astrology -- sometimes being for it and at other times against it.

Again in my last post, I emphasized that I thought you were mingling the Cartesian Dualist position with that of Scholasticism. It is true that the former replaced much of the earlier philosophy or outlooks of the Scholastics -- and maybe this is what you mean.


Here is one example:



Thank you for clarifying this. Of course I do not think you must agree with Lindberg—although you should be able to justify (eventually) exactly “why” you think Lindberg is wrong.

Still, don’t you think it was a bit premature to have demanded I follow Lindberg to the letter because he is a leading authority in his field, when you do not follow the same rule?? And I could give my reasons why I did not agree with Lindberg… today --without waiting a few years to develop my thoughts on the matter!

Take care,
Sojourner

Bede

Sojourner,

I am beginning to get rather concerned about your sources as they have this one spectacularly wrong. Perhaps you have included my stray 'not' by mistake. As everyone should know, the Church has always been vehemently opposed to all sorts of magic (except that it practiced itself) and insisted they were all diabolical in origin. Any scholastic theologian who stated otherwise would have a lot of explaining to do to his colleagues.

The 10th century Canon Episcoli which was incorporated into the corpus of canon law called Gratian's Decretum, stated that using magic was a sin but also insisted Satan could only produce illusions. Divination including judical astrology was also a no-no, both because it didn't work and because divination was forbidden in the OT.

So why your confusion? Firstly, a number of important medieval figures such as Peter Dabano, Raymund Lull and Arnau de Villanova and had magical texts attributed to them and hence gained posthumus reputations as warlocks. Second, astrology and alchemy were 'mixed' subjects which had magical elements but also those that were considered acceptable. The position of the dividing line was a matter of controversy that never quite got sorted out and some writers tried to push it further than others. A late discussion (but in English and on the net so accessible to you) is James VI's demonologie (bk 1, ch4) which pretty accurately reflects earlier ideas. Thirdly you are confused between the neo-Platonist maguses of the Renaissance and the scholastics. They were not the same thing. The maguses did believe in magic but tried to insist it was 'natural' and so OK to use. The church never bought this line although some clerics tried to sell it.

No, you brought up dualism (which is not the same as scholastic theories of the soul) and I have never mingled them. You also got confused between Cartesian dualism and mechanism - the later being what Newton was arguing against and not scholaticism either. Can we end this, as you are tying yourself in knots? My point was simply that you thought Newton was arguing against scholatics and he was not. End of story.

Finally, yes I am afraid I do know far more about this than you do. Please could you just accept this and stop thinking that your reading lots of popular books and surfing the net means you are an expert? A graduate student in physics would lose patience with someone who constantly attacked them after reading Cosmos and a Brief History of Time. I do not think you know enough to form an opinion contra the experts especially given the huge number of very basic mistakes you keep making. If this seems unfair, I am sorry, but that is the way it is. You are learning slowly but it is bloody hard work.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sojourner553

To Peter: I hope you are evaluating your earlier comment: I can’t get Bede to discuss details and the more I challenge him the more he just starts the headbanging going. Although I prefer the posts that leave out the personal stuff, I do reply in kind…

I originally had citations and cut this out. The quote that was left was not clear by me in that I meant Scholastics believed there was magic inherent in the world (astrology, witches, etc)-- although all this derived from Satan and therefore was evil; and to be avoided rather than used.

Here is a source on this:
But this was not because they did not believe in the EXISTANCE of magic (from the Devil).
This is pre-Scholastic. Which period did you want to talk about???

The Scholastics believed in occult-like powers. You try to make a major distinction between believing in magic from INDIRECT intermediaries/emanations from God/Devil as opposed to the belief that all magic comes DIRECTLY from the Devil/God. This is a minor/ not a major distinction…

It is part of your pretension that the Scholastic path led to the road to science. No, before modern times, the Scholastics were on the side OPPOSED to the philosophy that led to science (ie Empericism).

Pure trash your source. ( Why show it to me since “I” hold the scientific view that demons do not exist?)

Again: The point is that although the Scholastics rejected magic (including hermetism)– this was NOT because they thought there were no “powers” in the occult. Instead they thought all supernatural powers (ie magic) had to derive from the Devil, and therefore be of an evil nature. Like the earlier passage explained, there was no white magic around. Therefore all witches had to be evil and from the devil.

Repeat above response. There was some ambivalence on the Church re: the issue of white magic.

As I recall, I stated Descartes “borrowed” from the Scholastics in his philosophy, not that he copied every iota from it.



Best to start with the whole section:


Newton started with OBSERVATION (the point of the article above)!!!

The Scholastics began with AUTHORITIES and applied REASON to discover new truths/knowledge. Within the supernatural realm, one’s senses/observation was not held to be as valid, and indeed could lead one astray. (Note the reference to Galileo)

Descartes believed that REASON was the fundamental source of knowledge (as opposed to observation/experience). This emphasis on REASON he shared with the Scholastics. But unlike the Scholastics, he did not rely on authorities, but in the natural realm insisted on a direct mechanistic approach to understanding the universe. Because Newton could not explain his gravitational forces using this model, Cartesians accused him of employing Occult forces (similar to the Scholastics in describing specific qualities to explain magnetic attractions.)

But Newton was also no Scholastic. He did not begin with Authorities, but instead applied the Empiricist tradition (not perfectly, of course) of applying observation/experience to test the assumptions of the “authorities” to discover new truths.

That is why the quote is relevant in forging a new path (a scientific path) contrary to both the Scholastic AND Cartesian tradition!!

Not at all. You are misrepresenting again.

Seems to me you are grasping for straws… Is this not just a continuation of(see earlier post above) how I cannot possibly be up to your standards because:

* For awhile, I was “from Texas”

* I am an American. Or as you put it “Americans are famous for imposing their prejudices on every situation they see and that… is what you are doing here.”

* I have obviously “not been to Europe” [were you using reason instead of experience? You were wrong.]

* I don’t use the “correct” authorities. I used Lindberg and showed where he conflicted with you, Bede (citing long passages.)

Still, after I dared conflict with Lindberg in some areas (and after giving specific reasons why), YOU WERE VERY SLOW IN ADMITTING THAT LINDBERG DID NOT AGREE WITH YOUR MAJOR THESIS: THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS A MAJOR PRE-REQUISITE FOR SCIENCE!!! Not to mention: it’s going to take you years to formulate your position…

It this not because you Bede are making up YOUR conclusion first (ie what you ‘want’ to believe)– and it will take years to distort (I mean “pick” your favorite facts out/ignoring the rest) to arrive at the “correct” conclusion.

Words are cheap. Has it occurred to you “why” you assume you have nothing to learn?

You proclaim a faith in authorities for ultimate matters (You must be a Neo-Scholastic yourself), yet you jump over to whoever agrees with your “desired” end result)-- excising quotes in a highly subjective, arbitrary manner in order to “prove” your metaphysics – your pie in the sky. You cannot come down from your tower to look at details, and if stumped: pronounce it beneath your “intelligence” to do so. Well enjoy hiding in your lofty tower, away from all criticism where you can invent your hippogriffs in the tradition of Anselm! But don’t pretend you are employing the tradition of science!

You “tend” not to believe these exorcist reports do you, but are not sure? This superstition was good for an early form of “psychological” treatment, was it?

Care to ask the medical experts? Is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence for what you present? Care to count the TEETH out there--if you will, instead of relying on guesses of pseudo-authorities?

Like I say, you can not count yourself in the modern science movement today.

Sounds like you could even use some pop science books. Try COSMOS (especially the chapter on the Belief in a Demon Haunted World) ...

it might help!

Yours,
Sojourner

Bede

Sojourner,

You wrote:

"My sources do not show the majority of Scholastics were opposed to magic. The Church did seem to be undecided on the issue of astrology -- sometimes being for it and at other times against it."

OPPOSE is what you said and then you spend the entire next post saying they thought magic was from the Devil which was my point all along. That was what started witchhunts. I wrote:

"This was not intolerance but the way that the gradual expulsion of magic from the world (which you would put down to reason) meant that the only source of a witches power had to be the devil. Most scholastics believed only in natural causes and rejected the possibility of nature magic, astrology etc as superstitious and irrational. Only transcendant supernatural power (God and the devil) was accepted."

Can you see why you are being annoying and the reasons I am losing patience? You made a massive cock up and got something totally wrong. Then you start haranguing me with lots of proofs I was right all along without even a reference to your mistake. It looks to me as if you have learnt something and do not want to admit it. I showed you James VI to show what he believed as it well represents opposition to magic and astrology as being diabolic. That is not trash but a first class historical source.

Incidently, Gratian's decretum was current throughout the scholastic period. The Canon Episcoli was also used against witch hunters right the way through the period and the idea that Satan's magic could not have 'real' effects also remained strong.

I never said Newton was a scholastic (where did you dig that up from!?!) and your initial point remains wrong. But you have now changed your mind and are repeating what almost exactly I told you. It is good to see you have learnt something but it is with very ill grace. I am sorry about that but when someone is pretending that my ideas were theirs when they have said exactly the opposite, I am afraid I do lose respect for people.

Feel free to have the last word. I can feel another denial, redefinition or claim that you really meant what I said coming up, so get it out. The this thread must die in a burst of mutual recrimination.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sojourner553

I did not change.

But it IS true, I was very slow to glean your initial position (which is why you saw me repeating things.)

I think my confusion arose from you presenting yourself as pro-science and not mystical: Your premise that Christianity was a necessary pre-requisite for science, etc, etc.

Therefore when you wrote:

I’m afraid I misinterpreted the above to mean YOUR position held that the Scholastics looked for natural causes (not magical causes) in the world.

That is why I kept repeating (over and over) things like:

*Virtually all [Scholastics] believed there was SOME power latent in astrology and witchcraft.

*Even those few Scholastics who WERE opposed to astrology/witches rarely if ever maintained there was NO special powers/forces operating in these (in the sources I have seen).

I was slow to catch on that any modern rational person would hold the view there is some “NATURAL HIERARCHY” of superstition” with belief in a Devil/(God) [with emphasis on the former], to be of a “lower” rung on the superstition ladder than belief in intermediary deities (demons and angels.)

Because my (empirical) mindset holds that ONCE A PERSON “BELIEVES” the natural world is explained in magical terms – Then the issue of whether this superstitious belief proceeds to operate through the “magical” Form of a devil(s), angels, fairies, aliens, etc, -- to be, well next to irrelevant!

Afterall, Why not hold the opposite theory: That a society is LESS superstitious (on a lower rung on the Superstition Hierarchy ladder) if they believe in angels first as their source (white magic) as opposed to a Devil (black magic). Of course you need the black magic theory to justify witch hunts, don’t you Bede, so you sort of gloss over that one.

Now, I thought I saw you post a SECOND TIME that scholastics did not hold a magical view of the natural world with the following:

I read this to be essentially a Cartesian Dualist position – ie Scholastics look at natural causes (as opposed to magical causes) in this worldly realm; for supernatural causes in the realm of the Soul.

That was why I started a discussion here. Both Cartesians and Scholastics are of course opposed to using the Empericist's tools of observation and testing for scientific truths.


And when I stated: "My sources do not show the majority of Scholastics were opposed to magic.” What I meant was that Scholastics were not opposed to a magical OUTLOOK in society. (To repeat :if one BELIEVED IN MAGIC, it is an afterthought in my mind if this is black magic – and therefore to be avoided--or white magic – so my emphasis was on holding ANY MAGICAL OUTLOOK…)

Obviously you have found it of IMMENSE importance – not whether one has a magical outlook --but EXACTLY what magical FORM this takes (via one/two supernatural beings, as opposed to multiple supernatural beings)!!!

This is claptrap. The reason why people stopped believing in witches was not because of any gradual transition away from Superstition but instead because of the Enlightenment (which followed the Empiricist philosophy of using observation and testing for truths). The Scholastics were part of the forces OPPOSED to the Empirical movement. It was the Enlightenment that humiliated the Scholastics into a minority position on the belief in witches, not any transition towards rationality on their part.


John Wesley, founder of Methodism (and opponent of the Enlightenment) wrote in his JOURNAL in 1769:



You have not responded to the importance of observation and testing of one’s theories. I have repeated this theme over and over again. It is here where you will find the tradition for modern science.

So over the next years while you “develop your thoughts on the matter” to show why your thesis proves Lindberg wrong --**you need to ALSO “connect the dots” for us to show us why Scholastics led the “true” road to science ( and NOT the Empirical movement)!**

Be sure not to leave out the scientific "explanation" for these points:

* Galileo's works were not removed from the forbidden list until 1835--and even then--this was done under fierce opposition. As late as the 1870's, there were a flurry of books that attacked the Copernican theory of the universe, and attempted to bring back the earth-centered view.

* It was not until 1992, that the Catholic Church, under Pope John II, formally reversed Galileo's conviction of the Inquisition tribunal. Of course, this was over 350 years after Galileo's trial-- AND OVER TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE FIRST MEN HAD LANDED ON THE MOON!






Whether you want to admit it or not, I am probably hitting hard at some of your major biases on the subject.

Again: I do not agree there is really any difference – ONCE ONE HOLDS THE SUPERSTITIOUS VIEW THAT THE NATURAL WORLD IS EXPLAINED BY MAGIC – whether this comes form the Devil, or angels, etc. You seem to find it superior – or closer to the road of science – to believe it only came from the Devil. You have never explained why this view would lead to science, it is merely “assumed” by you. (Actually it is pretty obvious you "need" this artificial construct to argue that the belief in witchcraft was a "necessary" transition to science.)

All of my focus has been on the opposite. That it is the Emperical tradition with its emphasis on observation and testing that led to science. Therefore all your subcategories of philosophies that relied on more metaphysical means (however one draws the lines to distinguish between them) is of less interest to me (though it seems of vital interest you.)


I’m afraid my “real” mistake was not realizing earlier how someone could argue their metaphysical outlooks were somehow “scientific”.

I saw the hardcore belief in demonic powers on the website. Chilling.

How can I see magic and astrology as diabolic – if I believe there is NO POWER inherent in it? Of course I find swindling people out of their money/health to be diabolic (but this is by humans not by supernatural beings.)

Then I am sure any parts suggesting there was little to no power in witchcraft was also de-emphasized during the scholastic period. Yes?

I repeated the lines (consistently if you look back) because I thought you were arguing that Scholastics did not hold a magical view of the natural world.

Newton is on the side of Empiricism with his quote above, and forged the path for others to follow in its development. Obviously he was no Scholastic!


You'll have to let me know what I "learned" sometime.

And as I recall it was you sending a letter apologizing for bad behavior (instead of the other way around). It’s been obvious for some time, you loose respect for those who don’t agree with you. And that temper of yours is the true source of bad behavior.

Too bad it wasn’t via intellectual discussion, instead of headbanging. Again I don’t start the headbanging… but only reply in kind when it’s continuously hurled out.


Yours

Sojourner