Sojourner553

Hi Bede:

I have replied to you below:

Why? I took some of these summaries straight from the Catholic Library off the Web-- not exactly known as a hotbed of secularism.

I did zoom in on the relevant passages that were indicative of the relevant issue at hand – their attitudes towards philosophy and science.

I invite you to show me what important relevant information I left out…as it relates to the issues of science in medieval times.

I am a financial analyst by profession. I have been told by my bosses in the past that I was their best analyst, because I drill down into the details, sift through numerous detail to find the RELEVENT passages to prepare my analyses. My peers who stayed at the high level without doing this made numerous errors – because it is easy to make high level assumptions—IF ONE DOES NOT TRY TO EXPLAIN ALL THE DETAIL DATA POINTS.
I am merely applying the same process in the area of history/theology/philosophy. If you have a valid criticism, you must demonstrate this with the DETAILS, not some high level lofty statement(s).

On the contrary. I am following the classical approach of classifying individuals according to whether they follow the Platonic vs. Aristotelian outlook. In simplistic terms this breaks down into whether one finds OBSERVATION a valid tool or measure for obtaining new truths. Aristotle emphasized the use of observation and rationality as a TOOL for discovering new truths. It was Aristotle that developed a system of logic that was used as a basis for rationality. Plato argued that observation was NOT a valid input to finding new truths (although he was for rationality of course.)

Science is based on a foundation of observation AND rationality – and by all definitions follows the Aristotelian tradition.

*Ancient Greek society drifted more towards the Platonic outlook and with it mysticism in the last centuries BC.

But it is a distortion to say there was little to no science during these times:

** Eratosthenes (273-192 B.C.E.), accurately calculated the size of the earth.
** Euclid developed his theorems on geometry , and Archimedes made new discovered in engineering and mechanics here.
**Herophilos (335 B.C.E.) engaged in the sciences of anatomy and physiology. He followed the school of Hippocrates in using observation to diagnose his patients. He was the first to time his patient's pulse. (He used a water clock).
** Hero of Alexandria (62 C.E.) invented an instrument for cutting metal screws, and built various devices using gear wheels. Even more impressive, was his design (never implemented) of the first steam powered engine.

{there are a few more on NOGO's list.}

These are true examples of scientists. (More examples can be found in a number of books written on ancient sciences.) You need to cover all these DETAILS before you make your next blanket statement that there was no science during ancient pagan times.

*The fact is the early medieval Church chose the Platonic view – deeming faith and authority as the only valid measure of truth . There were a few exceptions of course – but very few. It is no coincidence that we do not see the activity in the SCIENCES that comes anywhere near the examples I gave of the ancient pagan Greeks.

*The most important contribution of Thomas Aquinas was that he re-introduced Aristotelian philosophy back into the Catholic Church. He was able to accomplish this through a compromise: One could use rationality and observation in obtaining new truths on WORLDY matters, but in SPIRITUAL matters, one must still accept the primacy of revelation, faith and authority.

It is agreed though this was a necessary step to bringing science back into Western Christian culture.

I don’t agree that the Platonic philosopher/theologians on your list made any relevant contributions to science. But don’t trust me, here is Thomas Jefferson on the subject of Platonism:

[quote] per Bede:

We are not talking about who makes the best twenty first century scientist – we are talking about the men who made science possible. And philosophy and theology were vital to that story. All the men I listed used reason and rationality to solve problems, developed logical and mathematical techniques, helped bring old knowledge back into circulation and without them we would have no science. [quote]

You keep muddying the definition of science to include ANYONE who was a scholar – be it a historian or a Platonic philosopher. These should not be included in ANY definition of science – either then or now.

You try to hint as an apology that I could find no other “scientists” using this definition. This is just not true: I have already given you examples of ancient Greek scientists and I could also provide you with a list of Muslim scientists as well.

But I suspect, deep down you really know all this…

It is a disingenuous of you to say this – without responding specifically to my examples of the contrary:

To repeat:

According to David Lindberg on the subject, in THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN SCIENCE:



LOL. You slay me, Bede. You can’t even stay consistent here. Looks like you have a definition of “scientists” you aren’t sharing with the world, and indeed seems to move around based on what you are writing on/defending.

Bede you surely know this is a gross distortion, because he was not executed by Roman authorities. In fact the Roman soldier who accidently killed him was executed for killing Archimedes:


Again. This is not the same as being executed by Roman AUTHORITIES. But again, I think you really know that.


Roger Bacon was the BEST example I saw on your list of a true scientist. No doubt he was one of the worst example of a Platonic philosopher/theologian (apparently your criteria for greatness). But if you remember, the topic is about SCIENCE, not religion.

Did you ignore this part, Bede, from the site:

“{Bacon’s} proposal was for an encyclopaedia of all the sciences worked on by a team of collaborators, coordinated by a body in the Church.” Pope Clement IV… misunderstood what Bacon was proposing. He asked to see it and Bacon, who could not disobey the Pope, rapidly composed the Opus maius (Great Work), the Opus minus (Smaller Work) and the Opus tertium (Third Work).

This remarkable achievement was carried out in secret since Bacon's superiors were violently opposed to what he was doing. Bacon was aiming to show the Pope that sciences had a rightful role in the university curriculum…In 1268 Pope Clement IV died and Bacon's chances of seeing his great project come to fruition vanished. “

It was probably his proposals for “church reform” that got him jail time. The site indicates they were “violently” opposed to his scientific efforts.

Don’t try and mix the two together to muddle things: For people who have novel ideas in science would also tend to expand this to have novel ideas in theology (Newton is an example from a later era). To you it is acceptable they are imprisoned etc for having novel ideas in theology – so this neatly apologies for scientists (the few there were) being imprisoned (like Bacon), or later being put under house arrest

I know what circular logic means Bede. And you haven’t proven it. Try again. This time add the DETAILS.

LOL. You haven’t responded to ANY of my details. The scientific method entails explaining ALL the detail points.

So you are now saying Bacon and Bruno were not scientific? Where is “official” list of scientists, Bede, that is comparable with the ancient Greek pagan scientists I provided??


I gave you evidence from Lindberg’s admissions the early Church was not.

"lack of evidence"?! LOL. Where’s the evidence for your side Bede, since you seem to want to ignore mine!

Excellent. Please respond to the DETAILS! Enough of the summaries which are easily TAINTED with bias.

All apologetic talk. Where’s the BEEF. Even Lindberg gave in on this point re: early medieval times.

Then DEMONSTRATE why? Are you saying my analogy with Islam is NOT false. You seem to be hedging somewhat also on the communist analogy.

Why is it the ONLY place I am “allowed”. Sounds a bit authoritative, Bede.

If one is interested in REAL truths, why are we only “allowed” to go in certain areas??

I chose to break up the time periods for discussion – to demonstrate there was a lack of scientists in the early medieval period. I always intended to cover the Reformation period separately and on a separate post (just because it was getting confusing and long lumping this intogether)-- BUT STILL COVERED. There was more science around during the pre/Reformation, although the Church’s behavior was abysmal (as the episode with witches clearly demonstrates)

Is this the REAL reason you don't want not to cover this period: You are acting more from an apologetic standpoint than an honest inquiry on the facts?

Tsk. Tsk. There are many good Christians who admit medieval times and the Church were anti-science (and anti-democracy -- another discussion and one you claim is not related to the other)

You seem determined not to be counted among them, no matter what the evidence.

Prove me wrong, if you can. But please use the details, "precise" definitions, and not high level slogans!


Sojourner

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Anytime. You would find me very easy going and friendly. (Definitely not the yelling or screaming type.)

Agreed in the early medieval period, the Church believed in witches, but saw them as VICTIMS of Satan, not willing CO-PARTNERS with Satan. This shift occurred during the 12th and
15th centuries--at which time the Church now declared witches to be en evil force operating within society.

In the 13th century the Inquisition was in full force:

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV decreed that heretics were thieves and murderers of the soul, and therefore deserved the same treatment as ordinary thieves and murderers. At first, Inquisitors were not allowed to torture. However, this
changed by 1256, after the pope gave Inquisitors the authority to absolve each other for employing torture--and to grant dispensations to allow their
colleagues to torture.

Witch trials really began en masse during the fifteenth century.

I did claim this earlier. Did you ignore my quotes on Johann Weyer and John Wesley. I noticed you did not reply back.

Should I repeat these??

Tell me EXACTLY (with details) why it is so "daft" to state this.

Seems to me this is just an area that is difficult for YOU to justify...

Really? There you go making high level comparisons again (ie without referencing the details):

The scientific revolution did NOT have its roots in the Catholic or Protestant church. For the most part the religious AUTHORITIES were opposed to the scientific revolution, but were not powerful enough to halt it by then. It really helped to have their power not splitered among Catholic AND Protestant authorities.

Sure. But only if you are willing to go into the details.

BTW: As you have seen me on this post, I will debate ON your side against those who say Christianity is inherently against science. But I will debate AGAINST you if you say Catholic and Protestant AUTHORITIES have been pro-science throughout history.


Sojourner

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojouner,

Please stop telling me what I believe 'deep down'. It really pisses me off.

Science is not what you think it is, nor were the Greeks you mention scientists in the modern sense. But as your definition of science appears to just be 'rationality plus observation' I suppose you are just misdefining. You also claim that the church was against this. For the last time, find me the evidence - detail as you insist - not from web sites or your conjecture - but actual academic or primary sources. You have given nothing of this. You admit that Bruno was not executed for his scientific beliefs, you do not know what Bacon got into trouble for (your web site does not actually say), Lindberg does not say the church was anti-science just there was not a lot around in the Dark Ages. That you think that witch trials show that the church was anti science is just depressing. In 1265 the pope actually expressly forbids the inquisition to get involved in accusations of magic.

I accept I cannot persuade you that Christianity helped the rise of science. But for you to stick to your guns that it was anti-science without any evidence is just plain unacceptable. Show me the decretals that say this, the condemnations, the papal bulls etc (Aristotle was condemned in 1277 at Paris but you do not seem to have any knowledge of this). Aristotle not Plato dominated the Medieval university curriculum. You cannot say for an instant that the church was purely Platonistic when all its universities taught Aristotle, called him The Philosopher and considered him the biggest authority on natural philosophy. From 1200 onwards Plato was nowhere in Western Europe.

Anyway, I fear we have to leave off this until you have had a chance to read something a bit more up to date than Thomas Jefferson. Finish Lindberg for a start and then try Edward Grant - God and Reason in the Middle Ages.

And perhaps you could agree with NOGO whether Platonism was the inspiration for modern science as he says, or whether Platonism was a bad thing as you do. I rather get the impression that both of you would accept any explanation that gives no credit to Christianity.

Finally, my strong claim that Christianity did help is controversial. But the claim the Christianity, especially in the Middle Ages, is anti-science is utterly rejected by modern scholarship. Only on the Sec Web could academic orthodoxy be called apologetics.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

lpetrich

In effect, he proposed a form of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, some centuries before Galileo and Gould.

NOGO

* * * T h e _ F l a t _ E a r t h * * *


Did people in the middles ages believe that the earth was flat?

According to Bede everybody believed the earth to be a sphere. To prove this Bede cites a number of Christians who talk favourably about the earth being a sphere. But it that enough?

What I am going to demonstrate is that the issue is far more complex than this. The problem is not just an issue of the shape of the earth. The flat earth and the spherical earth are concepts which are each part of two very different worlds.

In the Bible the flat earth was fixed and resting on foundations. It was covered by the dome of heaven which resembled a tent (Is40:22). The Sun, Moon and stars were within this dome.(Gn 1)

Two concepts are immediately obvious in this flat earth world. The world is finite and is based on the heaven/earth duality. Jesus said that "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away" (Mt 24). Heaven and earth are the two parts of the world as perceived back then.

The dome of heaven was a solid and is therefore a limit as to how high one can go. This is reflected for example in Neb's dream Daniel 4:11 where the tree reached to the heavens.

Obviously the idea of a spherical earth does not come from the Bible. It was Pythagoras who initially held that the earth was a sphere. Later Eratosthenes measured its size and Ptolemy build a model of the world baseed on a spherical earth. The Greeks did more than this. They also made maps which were based on astronomical data ie a sort of latitude and longitude grid. This is critical because it is a direct consequence of the spherical earth and has an inpact on practical aspects such as navigation.

Note, however, that Ptolemy's world maintains two aspects of the flat earth model of the world. The earth is still motionless and the world is still finite. These elements are critical for the acceptance of this model by Christians. The sphericity of the earth, however, has caused Christians some problems. Note also that in Ptolemy's model the duality of heaven/earth is gone but Christians did not notice it.

The Copernican system was rejected by a majority of Christians. Why?
Because it placed "the earth in the heavens".
This is strange because the Ptolemaic system also had the earth in space but somehow Christians continued to maintain the duality of heaven and earth as with the flat earth view of the world.
This is a critical point for understanding the issue at hand.

People also rejected the Copernican system because Copernicus made the world infinite. The effect of this is to make obvious what Ptolemy had done. The heaven/earth duality had been shatered.

Finally Copernicus has the earth not only rotating but moving around the sun. Both of these movements are a problem to Christians. First the rotation brings out exactly what the sphericity of the earth implies. I will deal with this issue below when I discuss the antipodes, for now let me just state that as long as the earth was motionless a spherical earth was not that much different than the flat earth since it maintain all aspects except the shape. The movement around the sun further demolished (with an infinite universe) the concept of duality which could otherwise be maintained with the Ptolemaic system.

Let's look at some of the evidence.

Saint Isidore of Seville (560-636) wrote the encyclopedia Etymologiae, an important reference work throughout the Middle Ages. How did this Christian scholar describe the earth?

He called it orbis terrarum and drew a disc shaped map where asia was at the top, Europe on the left and Africa on the right. The map was centered in Jerusalem. This map had abosultely no reference to any astronomical references and was thus useless for navigation. One of the purposes of the map was to show the place for paradise.

I quote this for two reasons. First it shows what Christian maps were all about. Myth rather than any useful quantitative information. The second reason is found in the last five words "reaches almost to the sky".

As I stated above Daniel 4:11 and other parts of the Bible talk about reaching the heavens ie reaching the dome of heaven. Sky and heaven are the same since in Genesis "God calls the firmament heaven". So "reaches almost to the sky" is a statement based on the heaven/earth duality and is a flat earth concept.

Isidore is saying that the flames are almost touching the dome of heaven. The dome which covers the flat earth.

It was also Isidore who first used the name mediterranean as a proper name. We hardly ever think about this today but the word mediterranean means "middle of the earth". Some may argue that earth here mean "land" that is sea surrounded by land but all seas like the Dead Sea, Black Sea are surrounded by land. The Meditteranean was in the middle of all Christian maps of the world. This is another flat earth concept.

The most important point here is that Christian maps attempted to locate sites like the Garden of Eden and other mythological places and were totally useless for navigation. Christian maps placed Jerusalem in the centre which is flat earth concept. Also they entirely dropped the work of Ptolemy who based location on astronomical data.


One important consequence of a spherical earth is the possibility of navigating around it. This, however, means that there are people living or could be living on the other side, that is, opposite to one's position. This was called the antipodes and was almost unamimously rejected by Christians. Even those who accepted the posibility maintained that no one was living there. The problem is that people would have their feet above their heads, trees would be growing downwards etc. Since the concept of gravity was not yet understood this was a logical conclusion.

So although the earth may have been a sphere to some Christians, only the top part was inhabited by humans. The implication is that the shape of the earth may have changed but the flat earth concepts were still firmly in place.

In his voyage Columbus kept two figures of distance travelled, one for himself and one for his crew. This was not, as some maintain, to underestimate the point of no return. It would be easy for sailors to determine the point of no return just based on the numbers of days that they were travelling west. The distances were underestimated because the sailors were afraid of falling off the earth. This is true whether the earth is flat ... or ... a globe which could only be inhabited on top.

With this as a background just consider the reaction if somebody comes along and suggests that the earth is not only spherical but "rotates" ... then it becomes impossible to continue to believe that people only live on the top side. We are no longer dealing with just a shape change, as with the Ptolemaic system, but with a completely new world.


Conclusion
I still maintain that most people in the middle ages believed that the earth was flat. If it can be shown that along with "Jesus saves" Chrisitanity also thought people that the earth was a sphere then I would certainly reconsider. But I doubt this very much. Even in ancient Greece I doubt that the sphericity of the earth trickled down to the average uneducated person.

The other thing that can be stated is that in the middle ages even the educated who had the benefit of the Greek's advances in astronomy were totally confused and acknowledge the sphericity of the earth without understanding its full implications.

And finally Christian maps show that flat earth concepts were still alive and well.

Ptolemy and the spherical earth were accepted because Christians believed that they still had

a) the earth perfectly still,
b) a finite universe,
c) the earth/heavens duality, and
d) people living only on top of the sphere.

What had changed is the shape of the earth and the rest could be ignored until Copernicus came along.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Please tells from a scientific viewpoint the fundamental differences between Kepler and Ptolemy.

This should really be interesting.

lpetrich

NOGO is at least partially correct about the earlier Middle Ages, but the Earth's approximate sphericity had been well-known in the later Middle Ages.

Columbus had known of the Earth's roundness, but had used an estimate of the Earth's size that we now know to be too small. An estimate which made him optimistic enough to try to attempt his great voyage. He was lucky that the Americas had been in the way, because otherwise, he and his crew would have run out of supplies in the middle of a huge ocean.

Bede

NOGO, while we do not know exactly what common people thought, we do know that all educated people in the Middle Ages knew the earth was a sphere. That includes sailors - your point about them being concerned about falling off the edge is wrong. Read "Inventing the Flat Earth" by Jeffrey Burton Russell.

Your other point about the essentially symbolic nature of early maps is correct, but we know that they were not intended to be accurate representations. Isidore remains a tad controversial. Most scholars insist he thought the earth a sphere but one William McCready has tried to argue otherwise in the pages of ISIS. I did not find his analysis convincing. Cosmas certainly did call the earth flat but no one took any notice. Bede certainly and explicitly described the earth as sphere. By the High Middle Ages you find no attempts to even bother argue about this, although there is evidence that common people thought that you would fall off the bottom of the earth as John Mandeville, in a 14th century popular book, rubbishes the idea and also tells a story about the earth being circumnavigated.

What is completely undeniable is that at no time ever in any place was the flat earth supported or encouraged by the Christian Church.

As for Ptolemy versus Copernicus, the fact that C was nearer to the truth than P is simple hindsight and irrelevant to the historian. Your point about science being the act of making models suggests that you do largely understand this. It is interesting to watch your new reading causing conflicts with your preconceptions. I wonder where you will end up...

BTW, that the bible can be non-literal is set out in Augustine's On Christian Doctrine. Your schema of fear of it getting less perfect is based on modern Americans and not historical reality.

BTW2, Wiliam of Conches set out NOMA in the 12th century and the separation of science and faith was observed through out the Middle Ages as Edward Grant shows in his detailed analysis of Aquninas, Albert Magnus and Oresme in God and Nature.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

edited to add that Ipetrich has got there too, so much of this post is no longer necessary.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

Bede

The essential difference (as I think you now know) was that P was only trying to come up with a way to predict the way the planets move as viewed from earth. He was 'saving the appearances' but was not really suggesting that his epicycles etc actually existed.

K, on the hand, thought that the planets really were moving in elipses around the sun and that his was not a model that saved appearances but described how things really are.

Many modern philosohers of science would probably prefer to side with P rather than K. However, I tend to think that the belief that Christian thinkers developed that they could describe the way the world actually is to be rather more fruitful if perhaps a bit optimistic.

You will find the view that God created the universe to follow natural laws in most Christian philosophy from the earliest times. It is a central part of Christian doctrine although influenced by Platonism as well as Genesis.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

lpetrich

Except that Genesis 1 and 2 have no conception of natural law that differs from what one finds in any other creation myth. At least none that I notice.

I wonder what Bede considers "natural law".

And how he reconciles a conception of natural law with miracle-mongering. Saints become recognized as saints because they have allegedly worked miracles, sometimes large numbers of them while still alive, and not because they have shown how to use the lawfulness of nature to their advantage.

Thus, some saints were celebrated for having miraculously calmed some storms, not for working out how to predict when a storm is coming and showing others how to do so.

And somehow, I keep expecting Bede to attempt to demonstrate how the Bible had advocated biological evolution long before Charles Darwin wrote his magnum opus.