livius drusus

If I have read you correctly, your sole sources are overview textbooks on the history of mathematics. Textbooks can easily fall into the trap of propagating urban legends because the editors rely heavily on secondary sources and very rarely do any primary research of their own.

Furthermore, textbook publishers seek to sell a large volume of books, and therefore have a vested interest in providing what is expected. The fact that the story of the destruction of the library is "common knowledge" might explain why it was repeated in your texts, but that in no way guarantees that it is not simply a legend told so often it has become an accepted truth.

Bede

This thread has inspired me to finally put my article on the Mythical Conflict between Science and Religion up. It may be of interest to some followers of this thread. Some of it has been previewed here and thanks to Hugo for the newly added Shapin quote that I missed before.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

lpetrich

One can guess what was lost from what is known to be lost from a variety of ancient authors -- oftentimes, only part of their output has survived, or only scattered quotes.

As to science being overrepresented in the surviving books, if that is really the case, that may be because of their relatively universal nature of their subject matter. And some of it was certainly colorful; Pliny the Elder's Natural History may well have survived because it contain lots of marvels; that work mixes sober observation with an ancient Roman version of the National Enquirer.

It is worth noting that the Islamic world out-achieved the Xtian world in the earlier Middle Ages in science and related subjects; consider the various technical words that start with "al", like algebra, alcohol, algorithm, etc. In fact, the Islamic-world scholars helped Europe out by doing a lot of transmission before the fall of Constantinople.

I also note that Bede gets very sore when anyone refers to literalist fundamentalists as Xtians -- even though they have at least as much claim on that label as Bede and his heroes. Could it be that they are a glaring counterexample to his premise of Xtianity as a whole being some superscientific religion?

As to the idea of a God who decrees natural laws, that is either a reinvention or a borrowing of the pagan conception of fate; it is essentially a God-created form of fate. I suspect that it ultimately derives from the likes of Plato and Aristotle, because there is not much on the Bible that suggests a conception of natural law.

Furthemore, the pagan version of fate is not exactly "meaningless", but is a natural and moral order that one transgresses at one's own risk. Perhaps a bit like Hindu karma.

Gurdur

Or, IOW, religion helped out science there ?

IOW, religion can be either a help or a hindrance to science, often both simultaneously.

Newton's mechanistic Deism played a part in his ground-breaking analysis of gravity and motion.

The beginnings of probability theory are found in a rabbi's works in the early Middle Ages, on a very religious subject.

The birth of linear algebra took place in a Hindu enviroment.

Life is never quite what it seems, and refuses simplistic agitprop in the place of analysis.

Biff the unclean

Sure but just a little Irish history to throw in the pot. If you ever go on the tour of the Jameson museum in Dublin you'll find an exhibit on this story.
The Islamic world had something they called el cohol. Or what we call "coal." They did burn it, but mostly used it as eye-shadow. They also invented the still which they used to distill perfume. Now it seems that some of the Dublin lads were over there on a crusade and thought that make-up and perfume for the girls back home would set them up in a cottage industry and make their fortunes.
They called all of their make-up el cohol because that was the only word they could remember.
One day back in Ireland, flowers being hard to come by one of these fine lads ran a grain mash through the Moslem perfume still to try to get grain perfume and the whole world changed for the better.
Ireland only had the "Dim" Ages, we were having too good a time for the Dark ones.

Another little note.
Algebra is named for it's inventor the Alchemist El Jabbar.
He has the notable distinction of having his name become two English words. Because his writings on Alchemy were impossible to understand by anyone, even another Alchemist his name also became the word "gibberish".

Radorth

I wasn't being sarcastic at all in my reference to Locke and Hooker. Your cynicism is showing. (again). I'm sorry, but if you are going to define me as a"fundy" I can fairly call Locke one. Shoot. He probably believed in a seven day creation, not to mention the Resurrection. Just using your own rules there bub, as usual.

Well, yes he and Hooker applied all sorts of enlightened thought to various human problems.

(When they weren't memorizing the NT)

Rad

Radorth

Presuming the only way anything gets lost is in a library fire, you would have a point. Are you seriously arguing that we can tell what was lost in a library fire by comparing what was lost by a myriad of other means?

The rest of your post is off-topic rambling assertions as far as I can tell, so I won't encourage it, other than to suggest you give links or verifiable facts when making such sweeping declarations.

Rad

hezekiah jones

Get a grip. I never called you a fundie. How typical. You're the one that keeps calling these pre-fundie Christians fundies. It's a load of crap. Debates are about ideas, not name-calling. And name-calling your own beloved figures preemptively is just comical, not to say desperate.

Radorth

I don't suppose you ever believed it either, but tell you what. I'll take your word for it and keep that in mind. I can now remark that "HJ doesn't agree," I take it.

It's not name-calling to me, if "fundy" stretches to anyone who believes Jesus is Lord, and atoned for our sins by his death, the passion and resurrection story, acts of creation by God, the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus. On most atheist sites I've been labeled such, including II, so I just roll with it. I've been called worse things.

Would you call such a person a "fundy" or not? I assumed you would, but I could be mistaken. If you would, are you denying Locke and Hooker believed the above?

Rad

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Radorth
I don't suppose you ever believed it either, but tell you what. I'll take your word for it and keep that in mind. I can now remark that "HJ doesn't agree," I take it.

No, you can now remark that HJ never called you a fundie, which he didn't, and which is what I said. Who cares what I "believe" you are.

Originally posted by Radorth
It's not name-calling to me, if "fundy" stretches to anyone who believes Jesus is Lord, and atoned for our sins by his death, the passion and resurrection story, acts of creation by God, the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus.

Stretch it wherever you want. Fundie, as far as I'm concerned, stems from a series of pamphlets that appeared in the 20s in the US called "The Fundamentals." I get my understanding of the word from Martin E. Marty's The Fundamentalism Project mostly, at least for the Christian version of fundamentalism. I realize your understanding is considerably more fluid. John Locke, the author of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding? That John Locke, a "fundie"? Good grief man.

Originally posted by Radorth
On most atheist sites I've been labeled such, including II, so I just roll with it. I've been called worse things.

So what. I never called you any such thing.

Originally posted by Radorth
Would you call such a person a "fundy" or not? I assumed you would, but I could be mistaken. If you would, are you denying Locke and Hooker believed the above?

You're mistaken.