Bede

"The title of the post implies that Christianity was required ("a necessary prerequisite")-- but again this is how NOGO summarized it and you state that this role could have been filled by a pagan religion (by which I infer you mean a non-CHRISTIAN religion.)"

Hi Sojourner, good of you to join us.

My position, to state it exactly, is that among the necessary factors that led to the rise in modern science in the West, were some that were supplied by Christianity.

"But help me out: EXACTLY what role did Christianity play from the years 400 - 1200? If ancient Christianity is to be touted as "friendly" to science, then its attitudes of its authorities towards allowing observation and the use of rationality must (at a minimum) be no worse than that of the ancient Greeks/Roman authorities..."

Between 415 and 800 there was no science really to speak of in Western Europe due to the complete lack of a civilisation or educational infrastructure capable of supporting it. This was, as you know, due to barbarian migrations that led to the Roman Empire being overrun by peoples with a nomadic culture. However, there are exceptions - the most important being Boethius, Isadore and Bede who all wrote important scientific works. However, after 800 Charlemagne restored a modicum of the old empire and intellectual life quickly florished with such important figures as Alciun and John Scotus Eriugena.

All these authorties insisted on the importance of reason which they use to deal with the problems they saw in front of them.

"This is important because, as we both know, early science was often conducted by INDIVIDUALS or small elite groups, so they would need intellectual freedom to conduct their studies-- by which I define this as meaning not to be threatened physically for holding/spreading their theories."

Actually, after about 1150, natural philosophy was institutionalised within the universities giving it independence, long term stability and intellectual freedom, all safe guarded by the church.

"The COPYING of writings by Christian monks was primarily of CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS works -- possibly as high as 99% by some estimates. Most secular --INCLUDING SCIENTIFICALLY-ORIENTED writings emphasizing observation and/or logic-- were lost in the West."

True. But that was due to the collapse of any intellectual role. Vast amounts of early Christian work were also lost simply because there was no one to copy it. Your implication that they should have copied high level scientific works rather than what was important to them is both anachronistic and patronising. That we have almost all of Cicero (plenty of reason there), Lucretius, Pliny the Elder and others is a tribute to the copiests of the dark ages who somehow found time to preserve this knowledge.

"The only reason why the writings of Aristotle survived is because they were preserved by the Muslims. Therefore --DURING THIS TIME--the Muslims should be credited with the preservation and advancement of science (and not Christianity.)"

Your first point is wrong - Aristotle was preserved in the Arabic by the Arabs, but in the original Greek by Byzantium. You second point is true and Islam deserves enormous credit for forming the most advanced and intellectual empire the world had ever seen. Islam was certainly an important factor - not for passive copying but making orginal and important contributions to science.

"Can you find me ONE original Christian work that was scientific in nature during the years 400-1200 AD?"

You need to read more widely. Do some research on Boethius, John Philoponus, Bede, Isadore of Seville, John Scotus Eruigena, Gerbert, Peter Abelard, Adelard of Bath, Anselm of Canterbury, Theirry of Chartres, Hugh of St Victor and William of Conches.

"Even after 1200, I see much of the role of Church AUTHORITIES as being opposed to the scientific outlook, not friendly to it."

All your examples are picked from the arguments in the Reformation when polemic was thrown this way and that. Try to read about High Medieval Scholastics who were criticised for being too rational by Erasmus, Descares and Galileo. Robert Grosseteste, Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Copernicus all did science using reason and insisted on observation. They had no trouble with the church and most of them worked for it.

"As you and I have discussed before, I see it as more relevent that science grew first from competition with the Muslims, (the West realized the Arabs were more advanced in medicine and the general sciences following their contact with them during the Crusades.)"

The West did realise this but had overtaken Moslems well before the scientific revolution.

"I also think there is a correlation between science and the ABSENCE of an authoritarian body that has a monopoly power on what is considered "orthodox" (like the role the Catholic Church held for many centuries.)"

Well, lets abolish all the guardians of scientific orthodoxy today - nothing like and intellectual free for all. Sociologists like Toby Huff insist on the need for an institutional framework for science which the church backed universities provided.

"Protestants have typically stressed more individual freedom within both religion and secular matters-- than the Catholics. I think that it is NO COINCIDENCE that science evolved much more rapidly in Protestant than in Catholic countries."

That's news to me. I thought Copernicus, Descartes, Galileo, Pascal and Torricelli were Catholics. The Protestants being better scientists is just our Anglo-Saxon bias.

"But this is the same as today. What percentage of today's population do you consider interested in intellectual content in either the sciences or general philosophy? Would I be off if I suggested a small minority?"

You would be, but we can point to stable scientific institutions like the universities that were invented and protected by the church. The ancient Greeks never had anything like it.

Yours

Bede

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

NOGO

Perhaps your position is different than what I have stated in this thread's title.

However, it seems to me, that this ambiguity must be cleared up if we are to make sense of each other's position.

"some were supplied by Christianity"

What does that mean?

Does it mean that ONLY Christianity could have supplied them?

Does it mean that Christian doctrine was directly responsible for the creation of the factors alluded above?

Or

Does it mean that Christianity, not necessarily Christian doctrine, but the mix with other ideas/cultures, happened to have created some factors?

joedad

I'd also like to hear Bede's response in that regard.

I'm presently led to believe that Bede's use of the word "christian" almost serves some kind of religious racist or triumphalist urge. But I will reserve judgement and allow Bede to separate what is "christian" and what is not, and most importantly, how exactly this is so, by his reasoning.

Otherwise, using the word "christian" is like using the word "European."

joe

Sojourner553

Hi Bede,

You gave a most excellent post,-- best of the best I have ever seen you write!

Good to hear from you too.

You and I do agree on some points:

* You and I agree that there were Christian INTELLECTUALS during the early Middle Ages.

* You and I also agree Christians can/ and have made excellent scientists. [Indeed, if you will recall I took on Intensity in a hot heated debate defending this topic–-- you know Intensity. On that subject: You and I both agree Intensity is not an individual either one of us would find worthwhile debating in the future… Smile]

But here is where we part ways: I see the early individuals on your list – while scholarly – not necessarily scholarly in a scientific way.

It’s true there were relative liberal and conservative periods of the papacy. It seems to me you emphasize the “liberal” periods while maintaining a blind eye on the ultra-conservative periods. And to be fair, I am sure I tend to do the opposite. It is not that I don’t acknowledge there can’t be a good aspect, just this: If looking for whether something is true or false, one should look at the warts.

And there were plenty of warts:

**for example you find the purges taken place by the Catholic Church against OTHER Christian sects, Jews and pagans to be "necessary". I find it outright horrid. On the note of compareing Christianity with paganism, I have found pagan religions were far more tolerant of other points of views than their own.

**I realize we disagree on Augustine. Augustine instituted a new Christian view of sin that stressed mankind’s helplessness to strive for new knowledge (which would especially include the sciences). Augustine's theology also affected Christian Orthodoxy by justifying a strong Church authority in society – and with this the power to stamp out all other viewpoints other than their own.
This is not science. This led to a period that was anti-scientific in the West where Augustine was influential.

You have also seen these quotes before [and they were not from the period of the Reformation]

Agreed: St. Augustine's writings were not venerated in the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, which maintained more of a Greek outlook.
This is another example where I fixate on the warts and you tend to ignore them.

Here is what my sources state regarding the Opening of Universities

We seem to agree the Church’s actions during Reformation cannot be easily defended:

But what about the period before the Reformation? Examples:

* The Albigensian massacre

* the Fourth Lateran Council instituted the Inquisition in the 13th century, whereby accused heretics could be arrested in secret trials, conducted by ecclesiastical tribunals. Horrible tortures were instituted.

*the burning of women for witches. The official manual used by Church Inquisitors for trying witches, "MALLEUS MALEFICARUM", claimed that:
"All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable." and "Whatever is done for the safety of the State is merciful."

* The belief that plagues were sent as punishment for mankind’s sins. This theme can be seen again in the famous opening lines of Giovanni Boccaccio's DECAMERON-- "In the year of Our Lord 1348, there happened . . . a most terrible plague, which was sent from God as a just punishment for our sins".

* Lack of medical progress. According to David Lindberg on the subject, in THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN SCIENCE:

[quote] As medieval Christians matured it became common for sermons and religious literature to teach that sickness is a divine visitation, intended as punishment for sin or a stimulus to spiritual growth. The cure, in either case, would seem to be spiritual rather than physical. Moreover, within medieval Christianity there developed a widespread tradition of miraculous cures, associated especiallywith the cult of saints and relics. And to complete the picture, we have concrete evidence of religious leaders denouncing secular medicine for its
inability to produce results. (p. 320)

Howard W. Haggard, associate professor of Applied Physiology at Yale University, was more blunt: "From the fall of the Roman Empire until beyond the thirteenth century-- nearly a thousand years--there is no advance in medical science to record in Western Europe."

----------------------------------------------
Show me where this is wrong, Bede. Even David Lindberg acknowledged: "there is virtually no science or natural philosophy in early medieval religious and theological works". His point is that if one defines scholarly as "religious or ecclesiastical", then there was indeed a great deal of scholarly activity associated with medieval times. This implies that maybe "serious scholarship" does not have to include the sciences.

In Summary, Bede:

*If you changed the post to whether Christianity was supportive of intellectual pursuits, I could concur.

* If you go back to the original scriptures and interpret them as not being opposed to the scientific outlook (ie observation and use of rational thought) I say great!

But regarding science – and its employment of observation and rationality – I can find no evidence the CHRISTIAN CHURCH supported it. Indeed in the West, I find not even passivity on the subject. Instead I see outright hostility especially as kings were allied with the Church to use religion as a means to keep down peasant revolts. {This was a challenge for Martin Luther)

Science arose despite opposition by strong Christian AUTHORITIES (including the Catholic Church during its ultra-conservative phases.) It has only been in the last centuries that Church authorities have become more liberal, probably because their authority was splintered among many groups.

Of course today liberal Christian individuals are easily reconciled to science. The ultra-conservative ones are not, and it is in the latter group one finds even today – opposition to science.

Sojourner

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

No Joe, it is not. Using the word 'European', like NOGO has done, would be rascist as it would suggest that science developed here because we were cleverer. I fail to understand your post unless it is simply a flame to try and take the heat of NOGO.

Yours

Bede

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

lpetrich

I think that Bede uses the word to mean only those he likes; thus Galileo becomes a Xian and Cardinal Bellarmine, one of his adversaries, not one.

lpetrich

Where does this 99% estimate come from? And is it fair to say that a good part of their output is biographies of saints, like Richard Carrier's favorite, St. Genevieve?

In fact, I'm surprised that Bede has not reacted indignantly to my mention of her and her miracles.

And many of those were relatively bad Muslims and freethinkers, protected by friendly leaders. Rigid Muslim fundamentalism put an end to that, however.

There is a gigantic difference between that sort of discussion and modern biology. Let's look at those examples:

Unicorns are most likely a misunderstanding of narwhal features; narwhals are white toothed whales, and male narwhals grow a single long tusk with a spiral groove. But stuff like looking like a horse with deer hooves was a product of various overactive imaginations.

And male lions have been seen doing the exact opposite to their cubs -- killing the cubs of prides they have taken over. This gets the females into heat, enabling those males to become fathers more quickly. Thus perpetuating a genetic tendency for such behavior.

Bede

Ipetrich, as you seem to thing intelligent discussion means mis-representing your opponent, grandstanding and insisting on carituring complex positions, there is little point in continuing our conversation.

Perhaps if I see your standards of debate have improved, it will be worth reengaging.

Yours

Bede

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

Steven Carr

Robert (No Link) Turkel writes 'That finds its origins in the theory of demonic agency of natural disasters -- which goes back not in origin to Christianity, but to pagan suppositions which Christian missionaries found it easier to work with than to refute.'

Of course, Christians such as Plantinga are adamant that demonic agency causes natural disasters :-

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~vantillian/plantinga.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~vantillian/plantinga.html</a> and this is a widespread Christian view.

Turkel appears to be rewriting Christian theology to suit himself.

Robert (No Link) Turkel also writes 'In the name of driving away these putative demonic lightning bugs, endorsed were all manner of equally unscriptural, unjustified practices such as using relics, special prayers, or ringing bells to ward off the lightning.'

For some bizarre reason, Bede appears to think that quoting this wards off charges of the Christian church being unscientific!

Surely, Turkel has just blown apart your claim that Christians are rational.

(Bede's use of somebody who claims that Cologne and Dresden should be resited , and that there should be no buildings within 2 miles of the Missisippi is really grasping at straws)

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/gerkin02.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/gerkin02.html</a>

'And so on with people by the riverbank (and they could certainly build far enough from the river to avoid floods and still get water from it, to say nothing of using aqueducts, etc.).' - More words of insanity from one of Bede's friends :-)

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

joedad

Just define "christian" for me so that I can understand how you mean that 'christianity contributed to the rise of science.' Maybe you only mean in the sense that "red" contributes to there being "white" light. I wouldn't disagree with that analogy.

But if you're saying there is something special about red light as compared to other wavelengths, you're going to have to make your case.

You have the floor.

joe