Bede

Hi Sojourner,

I think it may be anachronistic to discuss the scientific way before the nineteenth century. The way that even the pioneers of the seventeenth century went about their business was not strictly scientific in a lot of ways. The people on my list used reason and observation to solve problems but did not use the scientific method as it hadn't been invented yet.

The Pope who can best claim to be arch conservative was John XXII - a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work. He thought he was an intellectual but just wasn't that clever - much like a few of the posters on these boards. Most of the problems academics had with John are interpreted as caused by his ego. But even he caused relatively little trouble to natural philosophers.

We do not disagree on Augustine and you must admit that he was very rational in the way he set up his premises and followed them to the bitter end. Admittedly, nowadays only evolutionary psychologists believe in original sin, but it was a rational answer to the problems he identified.

Your warts do not have much to do with science - Nazi Germany did some great science, as did Communist Russia, but they were both totally totalitarian.

On the Universities:

"The Church sanctioned the growth of new universities, but kept strict control over the curriculum taught. The faculty was ever watchful for heretical ideas--and if warnings were not heeded, acted quickly to suppress the individual before they had attained any significant following."

True enough but this rarely impacted on science. Theology and science were separate disciplines with very little crossover.

"Theology was always the main study."

No, the main study was Natural Philosophy and Logic. You had to get an MA in that before you could even start a theology, law or medicene degree. Only at Paris and Oxford was theology pre-eminent in prestege.

"There was no real effort in expanding new learning in the sciences--as this was not considered a reliable method of arriving at real truths. At best, science was seen as a method of merely confirming truths already discovered by the ancients."

Well no. Many important advances were made in medieval science - impetus theory, the mean speed theory, falling in a vacuum, relative motion, optics, etc. Aristotle was not considered infallible and was criticised and his ideas improved.

"Science was still perceived as potentially dangerous. Based on Plato's philosophy, observation of the physical world was NOT deemed a reliable method of acquiring truth! Catholic Christians took this one step further--believing such inquiry could lead one into "sinning" against God."

This is simply untrue. Grosseteste, Bacon, Aquinas and Buriden all praise observation. It was William of Ockham who was the empirical sceptic who said that we could only discover trivial truths from observation - not causes or effects (yes, it's Hume ahead of his time).

"Still, the importance of the new universities was not from the subjects that were taught, but from the standpoint that more people were learning to read at all--and were exposed to new ideas. Much of the early learning that was taught is viewed today as mystical and false."

Actually true. Poor Aristotle. He did his best.

"For example, numerology was considered a serious subject. The number seven was determined to be the harmonious number within the universe.--
There were seven planets, seven zodiacal signs, seven notes in a harmonic scale, etc. There were seven virtues for Christians, seven sins, and seven sacraments. According to the Book of Genesis, the world was made in seven days, Adam and Eve had been in Paradise seven days, etc, etc. Theologians noted this mystical number seven came up when one added three (the number in the Holy Trinity) plus four (the number of gospels). Again if you multiplied the three facets of the soul times the four elements within the universe (based on Aristotle's theory) this gave a product of twelve-- the number of the Apostles."

Not in natural philosophy. Numerology was Platonic which never really made it into the universities. They were Aristotelian. Yes, there was a alot of alchemy, astrology and magic around (often carried out by the professors) but the syllabuses remain fairly true to Aristotle.

"Even up into the fifteenth century, favorite topics for debate included".

I think these quotes come from humanist satire. They are mentioned by Erasmus during "In Priase of Folly" , I think?


What has this got to do with science? Your contention that toleration and freedom are good for science is far from proven. What about the great figures of 18th century France - that was hardly free in any way at all? Likewise, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Yes, but you were still supposed to get medical help. The standard pieties need to be treated with suspicion.

You are right that medicene didn't advance for a long time but wrong to put this down to Christianity. Medicine didn't advance in most periods of 1,000 years of human history and given the state of medicine prayer WAS more effective than putting yourself into the hands of profession physicans.

Well, that is wrong. The church insisted that all its theologians had a solid grounding in natural philosophy, supported and protected the universities where it was taught, it is praised by vast numbers of commentators and it provided the metaphysical backdrop of a lawful universe essential for science.

What the hell has this got to do with science? Science is not a happy liberal thing. It is used and abused by dictators just like religion.

The facts simply do not bear this out. The Church, even in its 'ultra conservative' phases, had little trouble with science. There was always debate but like NOGO, you are claiming 'the Church' must be the side who are against science, allowing you to paint a false picture. For every quote you can find against science, I can find three for it. And clearly the ones for it won because science developed and was not held back by the church. This idea that we had to wait for the Reformation is false - if anything that held back science by entrenching positions and hardening polemic.

You just let go of this idea that you an divide history up into goodies and baddies. It is never that simple and science ignores the distinctions anyway.

BTW, my Masters desertation is on "Church Discipline of Natural Philosophers in the Middle Ages." You have no idea how hard it is to find examples. I have a few but the arguments were almost never over science. Generally, the degree of intellectual freedom allowed in the universities was very high but almost any historical standard.

Yours

Bede

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

NOGO

Notice how Bede failed to clarify his position.
He is either ashamed of it or does not think that it is defendable. So as long as he keeps it vague he can keep going.

I stated that I credited the people of Europe and not Christianity for the emergence of science.

Therefore according to Bede I am a racist.

Now let's think about that for a minute. Fundamentally it comes down to this. Everything that humans have done and know comes from humans and their environment. So Bede would prefer if I said that science can be attributed to the European climate rather than the Eiropean people.
His point of view, of course, is that it all comes from God.

Climate is indeed a good item in this discussion. The most developed nations even today all inhabit the mid latitudes where the climate is moderate. Even within some countries like China, France, Italy and the US the northern parts are more developed than the southern parts. Why is that? Wealth provides surplus to allow people time to study while technology provides tools to investigate. I am therefore not surprized that science developed in an area where the climate was moderate like Europe.

Europe also inherited the Latin language. Europe had many nations and competition among them and they also shared a common language. That certainly contributed to the dissemination of knowledge.

Climate cannot be attributed to people but other things like language and other factors can.

Yes, but you have done the same.
Calling me a racist, stupid etc.. does not qualify as intelligent discussion.

Says who?
Galileo applied the scientific method as we know it today.

Yes they were, but neither claimed divine authority and neither claimed to save mankind from sin.

Some repression can be attributed to politics.
Sone other is attributed to the nature of the Christian ideal itself.

The claim is that the Christian ideal is anti-science. Science came about when the Christian ideal subsided enough so that some indivudual rose above it.

Edited to add:
I also credit the Chinese for the printing press.
Yet, no one would call me a racist for making such a staement.
I stated that I credited Europeans for science and that makes me a racist ... the world according to Bede.

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

lpetrich

I will concede that I goofed on the narwhal's appearance. Narwhals only have white bellies; their backs are grayish. Interestingly, there is an all-white whale that otherwise looks much like a narwhal without the tusk: the beluga -- which inhabits the same waters. So the whiteness could be from mixing up narwhals and belugas.

But on the habits of lions, modern practice and theorizing are so radically different from Physiologus's that it's hard to make a comparison. By comparison, early-19th-cy. natural theology like Paley and the Bridgewater Treatises seems much closer to modern views.

Sojourner553

Hi Bede,

My, My. You do repeat yourself a lot. An expletive too no less…

Maybe I hit on a subject you really don’t want to analyze too deeply in detail??


The answer is this: The “science” in an authoritarian society is restricted so as NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM THE IDEOLOGY OF THE DICTATOR(religious or otherwise) – else it is pronounced heretical. There is a lot of science that has been threatened as heretical. (Many early Christian scientists had their "entanglements" with Church authorities.)

But let me take YOUR examples: First Russia.

Surely you know how the Russian communists savagely attacked genetics as “decadent Capitalistic science” and appointed Trofim lysenko, a former peasant and plant breeder, to run their agriculture program. Soviet agriculture was behind the West at least forty years from the disastrous agriculture programs entered into during this period which had interpreted darwinian genetics as an enemy of the Soviet people.

One of the internationally renown scientists whose stature helped halt Lysenko in the Soviet Union was Andrei Sakharov, the "Father of the Soviet Bomb". (A brilliant physicist, Sakharov later became a humans rights dissident in the Soviet Union.) Sakharov argued that the Soviet system had sapped both the energy and the creativity of thinking within the Soviet Union, forcing its intellectuals to retreat into a "narrow professionalism". Although he worked at first at liberalizing the Soviet Communist system from within, he came to realize that its premise of a tightly controlled state economy was not compatible with individual freedom and social diversity.

Even Ayn Rand (a person I do NOT admire, although an individual who knew first-hand the Soviet system as she emigrated from communist Russia) accurately predicted that totalitarian collectivism would trample human individuality and creativity necessary for any prospering scientific society! Such societies could always copy past technologies, but Rand noted even this would entail some "inventive organization" skills, which is not possible in oppressive societies.

Nazi Germany:

Hitler also subjected science to his ideology. According to Hitler, "We are at the end of the Age of Reason. The intellect has grown autocratic, and has become a disease of life..." and "A new age of Magic interpretation of the world is coming, of interpretation
in terms of the Will and not the intelligence."

Although technology was promoted in areas such as rocketry, submarines and airplanes, most other areas of science was subjugated to Nazi philosophy. Nazis promoted the pseudo-sciences--astrology, clairvoyance, spiritualism, and other "magical" forces--in the belief that these could help them understand the supernatural powers that control the destinies of men. SS training classes stressed such mystical subjects as the Holy Grail, knighthood, and alchemy.

As one German astrological magazine described it: "Awareness of one's national heritage and blood ties with the Aryan race are inevitably bound up with ASTROLOGICAL science." Astronomy meetings in Germany were interrupted with cries of "Down with orthodox scientists!" Scientists were handed leaflets in the street which threatened, "When we have won, you and your like will be begging in the gutter." Businessmen were warned, "Either you will learn to believe in me, or you will be treated as an enemy."

Under such conditions, the natural sciences (in which Germany had excelled in earlier generations) took a nose dive. Many of those who remained applied Nazi ideology into their science. University professors began to emphasize the "GERMAN" way of physics, of chemistry, even of mathematics.

For references, see <a href="http://mac-2" target="_blank">http://mac-2</a>2001.com/philo/crit/NAZIS.TXT

Do you mean philosophers like Voltaire? Voltaire maintained his freedom via the protection of his wealthy patrons, which included the Prussian King, Frederick the Great! Exiled from France in 1758, Voltaire bought a home in Ferney, Switzerland, which was conveniently close to the border of France (in case he got into trouble with the Swiss authorities.) Voltaire just had to be creative in where he lived and operated.


Such smug/surly claptrap. Really beneath you Bede. I suppose you are referring to how Aristotle’s LOGIC (or Organon) and metaphysics was popular on the medieval university curriculum?

There was much more to Aristotle than this: Charles Darwin regarded Aristotle as the most important ancient contributor to the subject of biology. Aristotle himself wrote around 146 books on the subject Besides science, biology, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, and alchemy, Aristotle wrote much about logic, metaphysics(the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of the universe), ethics, natural science, politics, and poetics.

Care to show me some of the IMPROVEMENTS in science that were made a THOUSAND years after Aristotle’s death, a majority of this period being under Christian control in the West?

True, Aristotle was religious and some of his works are Metaphysical in nature. (These were also popular – even though some of it was considered heretical, like the eternal universe concept). However since Christianity “borrowed” some of its dogma from earlier Greek mystical concepts, there were also many similarities between Christian dogma and Aristotle's philosophies.

But here is the important point: the reason why Aristotle is considered the “Father of Science” is because he used observation to SEARCH for the truth of THIS world. Per Aristotle, “There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses". This is the complete opposite of Scholasticism which held that the senses could not be trusted in matters of faith (which was considered an improvement because prior to this, the Church position was that the senses could not be trusted.)

You “think” this rather than “know” this? ( I suspect you know this is a weakness in your hypothesis, and this slipped out here)

Here is one example that should disprove it. Need more?

Hippocrates (D 377 B.C.E.), is often called the "Father of Medicine" because he was the first doctor to use the "scientific" method in medicine. Hippocrates experimented with baby embryo chickens, watching how they developed at various stages of maturity. His search for NATURAL as opposed to divine origins in examining his patient's illnesses, led him to believe that epilepsy was the result of natural processes, as opposed to contact with supernatural beings. When a modern doctor treats a patient, he or she is basically following the same method that Hippocrates used some 2300 years ago. That is, to first observe the symptoms of the patient, and THEN to make a diagnosis. The knowledge possessed by modern doctors, since the time of Hippocrates was acquired basically through the method set down by Hippocrates-- that is through careful observation and questioning.

I agree with you there were a lot of ancient mystical mumbo jumbo, Bede. But there was ALSO some good ancient pagan science as well – you might want to pick up a book on Ancient Engineers/Science.

[quote] The way that even the pioneers of the seventeenth century went about their business was not strictly scientific in a lot of ways. The people on my list used reason and observation to solve problems but did not use the scientific method as it hadn't been invented yet. [quote]

No problem: Back then using the scientific method WAS considered using observation and reason to solve problems (as opposed to obeying authorities and having faith&#8230 It is the application of STRICT controls – and looking for facts that would falsify one’s hypothesis that is a modern concept. Indeed some MODERN folks still refuse to employ it...

But back on track: Using reason and observation – Bede the ancients did have this. It was the Catholic Church that tried to muzzle this for many centuries by proclaiming observation and reasoning as sinful. It was even controversial during Aquinas' lifetime.

Yes, good list. Of course there were some great Christian intellectuals who promoted using at least SOME observation and reason. (for Aquinas this was restricted to where it did not conflict with Church dogma.) Bacon’s scientific studies did not conflict with Church dogma – but this was probably because he was studying light wave properties relating to spectacles – hardly controversial from a theological framework.

I think this was because there very little true science around. Do you think if there was an earlier Charles Darwin or James Hutton – their views would not have been considered heretical? Agreed though, most disagreements were over metaphysical concepts like whether the universe was eternal or created, etc.

But excommuniction, even death was considered acceptable for heretics. Here is Aquinas on the subject:


Tired – to bed.
Will add this though. The reason I tend not to refer to the Byzantine Empire is because after the collapse of Constantinople, most of its citizens (Greece is an exception) converted to Islam. Therefore I see it as having no continuous tradition, unlike in the Western Catholic tradition. I think that is the reason why many historians downplay how much of Aristotle’s works were originally transmitted via the Byzantines to the Arabs; it was the latter that applied his writings towards the area of science.

Of course the Arab countries today have little to no tradition of science AND they are conservative authoritarian societies. (ie both of these flip flopped from medieval times). You think this comparison is irrelevent

Why not explain this for us within the context of YOUR hypothesis then? Because if your hypothesis that science was not possible without a Christian-like religion-- you still have not told us EXACTLY what these qualities were that Christinity possessed, and Islam (or any other religion) was lacking...


Sojourner

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

lpetrich

(Sojourner's brief reference to Lysenkoism...)

It was Mendelian genetics that was rejected; Mendelism, Weismannism, and Morganism became dirty words in the Stalin years. Curiously, the Lysenkoites also accused their critics of being "anti-Darwinist".

Lysenko believed that there is no such thing as genes; all parts of an organism contribute to its heredity (Darwin's theory of pangenesis). Believers in genes were sometimes called "idealists" for that reason.

Eminent biologists suffered; Nikolai Vavilov, who had distinguished himself by locating the domestication of crop plants in "Vavilov zones", and who was a firm supporter of the regime, was found guilty of being a British spy and sent to a prison in Saratov, where he died of malnutrition.

And in 1948, the surviving Soviet believers in genes recanted their "heresy" in Galileo fashion.

There is evidence that Lysenko had been supported by none other than Stalin himself, who would give him hints on what to say in his speeches.

Physicists in the nuclear-bomb project, however, were more successful at beating back those who challenged quantum mechanics as being un-dialectical-materialistic.

And the Welteislehre ("Cosmic Ice Theory") or WEL had been popular among some Nazis, though Hitler did not like that theory very much. It stated that the Earth had had several previous moons, that most Solar-System bodies were covered by ice, etc. The theory's inventor, Hanns Hoerbiger, concluded that the Moon was covered with ice after noticing how bright it looked; that theory also claimed Velikovsky-style support from lots of myths and legends.

To criticisms that some of his assertions did not work out mathematically, Hoerbiger responded with "Calculation can only lead you astray", and to one critic, he wrote "Either you believe in me and learn, or you will become the enemy". And the WEL's advocates exerted pressure to get their beliefs accepted, heckling meetings of astronomers with "Out with astronomical orthodoxy! Give us Hoerbiger!"

Though his famous Oath contains some Hellenic paganism, he concluded that epilepsy is called the disease of the Gods because nobody really knows what causes it. It is interesting that there is a "Hippocratic Oath" and not a "Christic Oath" that doctors continue to take; the Gospels' conception of medicine was Jesus Christ practicing exorcism and magical spit therapy.

Butters

Just a list of sites that support the fact that the church did not accept lightning rods. In searching for these, I also noted that many church records, while not addressing this issue, show that lightning rods were installed in many 19th century churchs well into the 20th century. 1910-1915 being a boom time for lightning rod installers. I also was amazed at how many churchs have been struck by lightning. If Christianity is true, why do churchs need lightning rods? Why do they have insurance policies covering "acts of God?

web page<a href="http://www.wordalone.org/resources/rimbo.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>web page[/URL]<a href="http://www.ifyouexplore.com/tripplanning/lighthistory2/" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.churchlink.com.au/churchlink/forum/r_croucher/caleb2.html" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://w3.siemens.de/newworld/PND/PNDG/PNDGB/PNDGBD/pndgbd5_e.htm" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.members.mva.net/cct/pastors.html" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://nyhumanist.org/pique/08piquemar99.htm#THE%20KITE" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://skepdic.com/comments/satancom.html" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.oxleigh.freeserve.co.uk/rhj02.htm" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/adev/adev1180.htm" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.reporter-times.com/htdocs/wrv/lightrod.html" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.chicon.org/gohs/bova.htm" target="_blank">web page</a><a href="http://www.cob-net.org/19th.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

As for the idea that weather being attributed to the supernatural by the pagans first, well there is a point there, this was true of all religions at the time. The fact that Christians copied/borrowed this idea from them, only shows that Christianity is just another religion like any other. Now if the bible had CLEARLY stated that weather was a random fact of nature, that would have been something else alltogher.

As for credit for the scientific method, I believe it had nothing to do with culture or religion. It was brought about by the invention of the telescope and the microscope. These were the first instruments that could give direct observations into the macro and micro worlds. They forced the idea of conformation of theories by direct observation. All that was needed was good glass manufacture.

Bede

Sojourner,

Sorry to be repeating myself, but you seem to use the same argument no matter how many times I demonstrate it has no foundation. Still, it is possible that we are arguing to past each other against extreme views that neither of us actually hold. You challenged me for just one scientific Christian work and I gave you a long list of authors. If you were not aware of these people perhaps you need to go away and re-examine the period. Of course, when you ask for original scientific work you cannot define that to mean no mention of God as it would grossly anachronistic as well as excluding practically all pagan thinkers from writing science (and you plainly thing they did).

I am not claiming that liberal democracy is not the best political environment for science (although this is qualified, as a dictatorship can steer resources more effectively than a democracy which explains Soviet achievements that not even you can deny). However, as liberal democracy did not exist prior to the nineteenth century, it is a bit irrelevant to our discussion. In fact, the whole concept of liberalism is irrelevant especially as you insist on using the label in such an anachronistic fashion. The word can never be used in a discussion of early modernism or the Middle Ages as the concept did not exist. The important figures in eighteenth century France were people like Lavoisier, Lagrange, Laplace and Carnot. Certainly not Voltaire who contributed nothing to science.

You claim “Many early Christian scientists had their “entanglements” with Church authorities.” But this is not really true. Prior to Galileo the Church never picked a scientific argument and never did it again after Galileo. Hardly any natural philosophers had entanglements with the church over science – this is just more mythology.

In natural philosophy, Aristotle, who dominated the subject, was wrong about almost everything. This is a fact. Like Galen, he seriously misled his successors for centuries and it was only when his legacy was thrown off, that modern science began. These are facts, Sojourner, not me being surly or smug. Improvements to science made in the thousand years after Aristotle include Ptolemy’s saving the appearances of the planets’ movements, Philoponus realising Aristotle’s mechanics was wrong and Archimedes work on fluids. Anyway, the West was Christian for only 1/3 of the thousand years after Aristotle’s death so I included one Christian above.

You rightly say that Aristotle used observation and reason – he then got to the wrong answers. You then say:

“This is the complete opposite of Scholasticism which held that the senses could not be trusted in matters of faith (which was considered an improvement because prior to this, the Church position was that the senses could not be trusted.)”

This is untrue. Scholasticism does not say this. It was not church policy. The church said that reason and the senses always agreed with faith because they all come from God. Because of this we can use reason and observation to tell us about the really world as God would not deceive us (although we still make mistakes).

Just for the record I do KNOW that it is anachronistic to discuss the scientific way prior to the nineteenth century. Hippocrates is not scientific in a modern sense as you would realise if you read anything by him. You are anachronistically making him fit your preconceived ideas.

“But back on track: Using reason and observation – Bede the ancients did have this. It was the Catholic Church that tried to muzzle this for many centuries by proclaiming observation and reasoning as sinful.”

Again, untrue. Why do you keep asserting this when it is repeatedly debunked? Yes, you can find some Christians who were anti-reason. Big deal so did pagans like the Cynics. It was never church policy and as you have read Lindberg you know you are wrong about this. So stop saying it.
Nearly ALL scholastic natural philosopher championed observation and reason. Which are the ones that did not? You are also making the mistake of saying that Christians were not good at scientists because they put faith first. This is clearly untrue or we would have no science today to speak of as nearly all pioneers of modern science were devout Christians. You say Aquinas was in favour of killing heretics. True and a stain on his character, but that in no way means that he was less rational or less of a natural philosopher. Agreement with your politics is not what determines scientific importance. The hole point of my thesis is that the metaphysics of science is fully compatible with Christianity and hence it is a good thing for science (if not the heretics) that those metaphysics were enforced. You may not like the fact that they were not very liberal but history shows that this did not stop them from developing modern science.

I have explained many times what Christianity gave to the rise. It is on this thread and posted to the essay on my site. Islam lacked a metaphysics of secondary (natural causes) and instead followed occasionalism. This puts God in direct charge of every event – something Christian thinkers rejected. It makes looking for causes pointless as the only cause is God directly.
Yours

Bede

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

NOGO

One has to understand that Bede knows next to nothing about science and the scientific method.

He keeps repeating on his site that the Copernican system is no better than the Ptolemaic system and was eclipsed by Tycho's model.

To make a statement such as this one has to start from a position of complete ignorance. It is stated on the basis that the models give the same results as viewed from earth.

This is like saying that modern physics gives the same results as newtonian physics, as perceived by human senses, and therefore is no better.

Bede does not realize that Copernicus' model HAD TO "look" the same from earth as the Ptolemaic system because they were modelling the same real system. Kepler's model (based on Copernicus)looked the same too. Only when using instruments developed by Tycho and laborious data collection could you tell that Kepler's model was better.


As far as the scientific method is concerned. I have posted this.

Galileo first formulated the scientific method as we know it today in his book "Il Saggiatore" (The Assayer). In it he emphasizes to need to observe and experiment and the steps of the modern scientific method.

As an example a Jesuit attempted to prove a an excellent point with a very bad example. He had argued that a projectile is heated by friction with the air as it travels from one place to another. As an exsample he used a fanciful story of how the ancient Babylonians cooked their eggs by swiftly swhirling them over their heads in slings.

Galileo was on the wrong side of this arguement but one cannot help but notice not only his wit and power of argumentation but also his application of the scientific method. Here are his own words.

Although facetious this text is clearly the application of the scientific method.

NOGO

On the issue of science Bede starts with the conclusion that no one did any science before Christians.

Therefore the Greek pagans who made major advancements in mathematics and astronomy did not do any science as defined by Bede.

Ptolemy did not do science when he mathematically modeled the solar system. He lacked one important element, Christianity.

joedad

And I've been asking, quite cordially, for Bede's definition of this essential element called christianity, so that I may understand his position.

I continue to wait.

joe