lpetrich

Radorth makes a hero out of someone who had thought up a totally unbiblical theory of government: the social-contract theory, which is contrary to the divine-command theory. And when one considers that Locke had been an Anglican instead of some sort of "enthusiast", which Radorth clearly is...

Also, Radorth sniffs at Newton's Arianism. However, Newton, despite writing vast tomes on Biblical-prophecy interpretation and despite rejecting the Trinity on principle, never attended any church services.

Early-modern scientists had been inspired by the rediscovery of ancient Greek science; and those earlier gentlemen had been at least nominal Hellenic pagans.

So will Messrs. Radorth and Bede convert to Hellenic paganism, simply because that's where it all began?

lpetrich

A truly excellent point. As Bertrand Russell had put it about Francis Bacon, "his religion was patriotically the King's. He was not one to criticize the government about this matter."

I wonder how Bede or Radorth would have survived back then -- would they have professed the truth of whatever sect was endorsed by their rulers? So if a Protestant came to power, they would have been Protestants, and if a Catholic came to power, they would have been Catholics. And they would have believed that Catholics are idolators or Protestants are heretics, depending on the religion of their rulers.

Kepler had found such expedient changing of theological opinions rather distasteful...

Bede

NOGO,

I don't deny any of your statements or the influence of neo-Platonism. But you are trying not to tell the whole story and I filled in the gaps.

Your problem is that if Kepler and co were wholly influenced by ancient Greeks why did the ancient Greeks fail to develop modern science? After all they had hundred of years after Plato, Pythagoras and others before those wicked Christians took over. And why did the Arabs also fail and those terribly clever Chinese and Indians with civilisations that lasted for thousands of years?

Yes, Greek ideas were important, a vital part of the mix, but they were known and used by other civilisations before Latin Europe. But Christianity was an essential element too as we saw from Kepler's own words. BTW, another sceptic around here, Sojourner, thinks that neo-Platonism was anti-scientific and blames the dark ages partly on Christians abandoning Aristotelian rationality for Platonic mysticism. Seems you can never keep everyone happy.

Anyway, I'm bored now and have essays to do. No doubt we will return to this subject when perhaps you will have read enough for your views to be a bit more nuanced.

Yours

Bede

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

Ron Garrett

No. If you were slow you'd have caught on after three years. Your obstinate. That aside:

Let's try something less obscure that someone of your interests should be well read in anyway, i.e. Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Any Christian that hasn't read it should. He was your kinda guy I think. If you haven't read it, read the dedication. Another good example would be Jerome's introductory letter of his new Latin Vulgate version of the scriptures. It's a sycophantic letter to the Pope asking his opinion, but really butt-kissing him into approving the edition for publication. AQlso, read Machiavelli's The Prince and it's dedication.

If you wanted an appointment to the court, from a local official of power, a grant or gift from the wealthy that would allow you to conduct your work, you sucked up to whoever's opinion counted. To do otherwise not only meant finding your living by some other means, but in some cases, Let's take Luther for example, you can end up fleeing for your life. In point of fact the only philosopher of any merit I can think of off the top of my head that didn't earn his keep by kissing the ass of the political/religious power structure was Voltaire.

And no, I am not suggesting that none of these men actually believed in a god, or actually had regard for Jesus as they understood him, but I question how many empiricists can really cling to belief in walking on water, resurrection, gods mating with human women and such. As I pointed out, metaphysics and physics were nearly the same pursuit before the Enlightenment. So my point, again, is that what you are asserting as causal, i.e they were brilliant because they were Christian, is coincidental, and simply as inane as asserting that Aristotle was brilliant because he was Athenian.

HelenM

Prov 11:2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.

Prov 18:12 Before his downfall a man's heart is proud, but humility comes before honor.

Prov 22:4 Humility and the fear of the LORD bring wealth and honor and life.

Phil 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

Titus 3:1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

James 3:13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.

1 Pet 5:5b AND James 4:5 "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Eph 4:2a Be completely humble and gentle

etc.

Helen

NOGO

Hi Helen

Thank you for all the words of wisdom.
Here is Bede speaking. How would you rate him?

Radorth

Your implication (or shall we call it innuendo?) was clear and I believe intentional.

I am asserting no such thing, nor have I ever. I am asserting that brilliant men have had little trouble believing the NT. Some brilliant people remain humble enough to believe they can't know or prove everything. I am also asserting that Jesus is not a "ball and chain" to progress.

BTW if everybody was a Christian anyway, why did Locke feel compelled to write a book in defense of the reasonableness of Christianity? Durant asserts there were plenty of atheists in the world through the ages, so perhaps Locke was speaking to them?

(Apparently they weren't so good at math. Well OK, maybe knowing Jesus does empower a person).

Rad

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

Nonsense!
Your claim is simply not tenable. It is not enough for you to show that Christianity was there to claim that it was an essential element.

Kepler's faith in God could not possibly have been the Christian God with regards to his science. The Christian God created a world where the earth was flat with a dome above it and the sun, moon and stars inside the dome. How could Kepler hope that this God would help him figure out how the real world worked.

Your claim can be summed up as follow:
"It was the cheerleaders who won the superbowl."

Bede's answer: "They did not have cheerleaders!"

This is the same "magical thought" that Kepler had when he realized that there were six planets and therefore 5 distances and ... behold ... there are also 5 solids. Thank you, God.

Total nonsense!

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radorth

Nogo, when people leave and you keep harping away, one has to ask if you are just trying to convince yourself, or whether you can defend yourself to someone who is present.

Re Helen, teaching Sunday school for the first time on this thread:

You mean it isn't all a myth? The inventors actually had something worthwhile to say? So tell us Helen. Do you think the NT writers were humble themselves, or simply hypocrites? And if you can use the Bible to fault me, can I use skeptic's assertions to fault them as well? I guess the applicability of these axioms would depend on why I said it. You are presuming I said it because I am proud, waiting for opportunities to assert my intelligence. Is it possible I was simply stating a relavant fact to show a skeptic's gratuitous assertion is nonsense.

But yes, I must admit, Peter holds Christians to the same double standard you do. You can thank the mythical Jesus and his inventors every day for that.

May you not be judged by what you preach, fair as that might be.

Radorth

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

HelenM

It's somewhat arbitrary which posts I read but, perhaps one day I'll read a Bede post and post him some Bible verses too

Helen