Bede

Hi Sojourner,

Lindberg is not an authority on Byzantium – I have never seen a learned article by him on this subject. His area of expertise is the western Middle Ages.

Misconceptions that seem to be creeping in: This debate is about whether the pre- 1100 church was anti science. It is not about how Christianity helped bring about the birth of modern science in the High Middle Ages and Renaissance or even about how the Catholic Church turned against science to some extent in the 17th and 19th centuries. My view that Christianity was a necessary ingredient for the rise of science does not mean that science was the primary interest of the church. Also, the processes I considered important took place after 1100 and not the period we are examining. No one is claiming that church preserved all Classical literature. What is true is that all Latin literature that was preserved, was through the church. The situation in the East is more complicated but it still had a huge roll to play. Hence, the Dark Ages church in the West did preserve what learning survived but it was not its major business.

On the East, I see no evidence that scientific work declined at all in the period 200AD – 600AD. Lindberg, speaking out of his speciality, is wrong here, I think. But if you could supply such evidence, I’d be interested. John Philoponus was an important scientific writer who made considerable advances in his commentaries on Aristotle – their importance was even recognised when they were translated and used in the West after 1200. Again, Lindberg is outside his field. John’s work is as scientific as anything from ancient Greece. He did use observation to show that Aristotle’s mechanics were wrong. This is fact, Sojourner, not interpretation. Although no scientific tradition existed in ancient Greece, if you were to use hindsight to construct one, Philoponus would definitely be within it.

On Alexandria, now we have dispensed with the Jew’s expulsion and found John as head of school, we have no evidence that science declined before the Persian invasions. You seem to be clinging to the ‘it must have done’ argument but it seems you have no evidence – perhaps this is a stone you need to turn over. BTW, you misunderstand the handmaiden philosophy – this states that in doing theology, science can be used as a servant and cannot be allowed to determine the way we do the theology. We use a tool to do a job but don’t allow the tool to determine what the job is. What handmaiden does not mean is that science becomes an offshoot of theology – it remains a separate subject in its own right respected within its own boundaries. Edward Grant proves this in God and Reason although I accept Lindberg might be less than clear.

AM’s quotes on shut libraries is so often brought up, I thought I’d better look into it. Just goes to show you must always look up references, hard work though that sometimes is! I am trying to track down the shutting of the Athens academy now, so any references you have for this would help. Is it in Procopius or Zosimus, I really haven’t got a clue! The Bacon quote (if it is by Bacon) is illustrative of late 16th century attitudes rather than medieval ones and hence has no place in a discussion of medieval thought – I do not understand why you do not see this.

I think you are making a number of mistakes on the barbarians. Firstly, secular scholarship is an elite activity that only occurs in societies that can support it. Hence, even when Greece was conquered by Rome, it remained part of a society that had enough surplus to allow such high level activities. This was lacking when the barbarians conquered the West – infrastructure was swept away and replaced by local tribes and custom. In other words, before too long the Roman elite had lost their power and possessions and it did not much matter about all the common people. Arian barbarians were, in general, not converted to Catholicism. The Arian Visigoths were subjugated by the Moslems in Spain, the Vandals by the Greeks in Africa, while the Goths in Italy lost their kingdom first to Justinian and then to the Lombards. Meanwhile the pagan Franks, Angles and Saxons were converted directly from paganism to Catholicism. The Celts agreed to join the Catholic Church at the synod of Whitby, but they had not had too many differences in the first place (they were not Arians).

In short, the lack of a secular intellectual culture in the West during the Dark Ages no more requires Christianity as an explanation than does the lack of a secular intellectual culture in the forests of Germany wherein the tribes dwelt before they crossed the Rhine.

You are right about Justinian’s wars in Italy being a disaster for the country – typical of Romans from the year dot – just look what they did to Carthage and Palestine. Not sure what this has to do with Christianity either, though.

Do you have any evidence for this? I must say, the church being blamed for an economic collapse is not one I have heard before. It essentially looks like an ad hoc hypothesis you have cobbled together to keep the church in the frame. Also, I have seen lots of programmes on TV about how rich and settled Western Europe was in the fourth century – not collapsing but thriving immediately before the barbarians crossed the Rhine and Danube. Maybe I am wrong and you have evidence to present. The fewer numbers of the barbarians do not matter as we are talking about the destruction of elite infrastructure – not wholesale ethnic cleansing. Once the tax gathering, communication, bureaucratic and legal structures were gone, so was the Empire even if the lower classes remained to be exploited by someone else. As for feudalism, the transformation from a slave based agricultural economy to a serf based one does not sound like a reason for depression (economic or emotional) to me.

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Perhaps we should also define what is science. I define science as the search to improve our understanding of natural causes in the world through observation, study, and experimentation. Have you got a different definition in mind?

Let’s review some of your statements:

** You told me earlier in a most authoritative way how Lindberg is “the leading working historian of medieval science in the world today.”

** And again, “just because [Lindberg] does not agree with you is unacceptable when talking about one of the leading scholars of the field. And let's face it, he knows a whole lot more about it that you do.”

Now Lindberg is NOT silent on the subject of the East: He states very clearly:

This is no mere oversight on Lindberg’s part: He is implying that he is very much an expert in Byzantium as well as in the West. If you wish to dispute him Bede, you need to follow your own rules and prove exactly why HE is wrong and why “YOU know better”!!!
Not in those “e-x-a-c-t” words. But Lindberg doesn’t like to use such political labels. One, of course, can find the answers in his facts:

Let’s compare again how he viewed Islamic science once conservative religious authorities gained political control:

He notes that while Islamic science went into decline sometimes this “took the form of outright opposition… more often the effect was subtler—by the imposition of a very narrow definition of utility.” In this way Islamic science faced a “greatly restricted handmaiden role.” (p 180)

Because it promoted superstition over natural causes, I think it would be fair that most would dub this later ultra-conservative period of Islam as anti-scientific.

But let’s switch to Christian medieval times. Lindberg uses the SAME term “handmaiden of religion and theology" to describe classical tradition.

“Western Europe went through a process of de-urbanization; the classical schools deteriorated, and leadership in the promotion of literacy and learning passed to monasteries, where a thin version of the classical tradition survived as the handmaiden of religion and theology.” (p 184)

And science fared worse than classical learning in general, for he goes on to state:
“There is virtually no science or natural philosophy in these religious and theological works.” (Ibid)

And there is more: as noted earlier, “ religious authorities showed a “DETERMINATION to subordinate [SCIENCE] to theology and the religious life.”

and

Let’s repeat that last line: “WE HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS DENOUNCING SECULAR MEDICINE FOR ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE RESULTS.”
Here were some of the examples I had collected showing that it was either implicitely or explicitely considered a sin to look for natural causes in place of divine causes.

"For the faithful, empirical inquiry is unnecessary, a distraction from the practice of his religion and possibly a source of dangerous heresy." -- Tertullian

According to Eusebius, on the subject of scientists,

"It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labor , that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things" [ie the contemplation of God and heaven].

According to St. Ambrose,

"To discuss the nature and position of the earth, does not help us in
our hope of the earth to come."

According to Augustine:

"Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you
may understand."

and

"Cursed is everyone who places his hope in man."


In summary: Lindberg states we have concrete evidence of religious leaders denouncing secular medicine. We have the quotes stating science is not necessary and worse a potential “source of dangerous heresy.”

I have shown the evidence. I have shown it is in conformity with Lindberg. I noted when I go against a highly respected authority, the burden of proof is on me to show why they are wrong.

This is why the burden of proof now goes over to you, Bede, to show why Lindberg is wrong on these facts.

Yours,

Sojourner

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

You need more than sweeping statements since you go against Lindberg plus I elaborated with quotes. Look at even the art during this time. So childlike and primitive compared to Greco-Roman art – same with Islamic art.

Now some of Byzantine architecture was great. And I understand there were some great mechanical gizmo toys. But one should look to an increase in knowledge of the sciences not just an application of existing knowledge. That is why Byzantium gets bad marks by Lindberg compared to early Islam.

But Lindberg goes over this in some detail. See pp 302-6. By the details he provides, he acts very much as if this is ‘within’ his field.
Are you saying he is really not very smart – as he implies he is knowledgeable –but really isn’t here?? Answer this very carefully please.

Lindberg characterizes Philoponus as a Platonist – To me, this means he uses metaphysical reasoning – not science. Unless you have a better definition showing a Platonist is really a scientist. I have not seen anyone claim Philoponus used observation or experimentation, Bede. Got some other sources?


Lindberg does talk about Philoponus commentary on Aristotle’s PHYSICS at some length in THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN SCIENCE. For ex., Philoponus disagreed with Aristotle that an external motion was required to keep a projectile in motion, proposing instead that all motions, natural and forced alike are the result of internal movers. Therefore, when a projectile is hurled, the projector impresses on the projectile an “incorporeal motive force”. {Newton corrected both views of course}.

Just because Philoponus was right sometimes over Aristotle can be taken as hit or miss. Ie you have to have the correct REASON why another theory is wrong for it to be considered scientificAs an extreme example, ever hear of a fellow named Velikovsky? He won a lot of fame because he predicted that Venus was hotter than Mercury before the scientists. (For the wrong reasons of course– but many pseudo-scientists didn’t look at the reasons.)

John Philoponus' efforts were largely to reconcile Platonic thought with Christian theology (so this could be considered a "handmaiden" to Christian theology, Bede.) Still in his later years, his writings revealed him to be a Monophysite, which caused a great deal of controversy (as this variation of Christianity became denounced as heretical.)

Ever find evidence the Athens school was not shut down by Justinian? I did not think this was disputed by anyone…

You need to get that log out of your own eye, Bede.

Smile. R-e-a-l-l-y. Make that a forest, not a log:

Lindberg states science was a handmaiden of theology and religion, NOT religion and theology was a handmaiden of science. Simple logic Bede.

He ALSO uses this SAME term to describe the decline of science in Islamic society under their ultra-conservative religious leaders.
Are you proposing he had a different meaning in mind when using the same terms to describe medieval Christian religious authorities DEMANDING religion be a handmaiden to theology and religion?????

This is very good Bede! But I would wish to see you test your own theories by drilling down into the details with even half the same vigor.

It may indeed be an example of where Renaissance thinkers made fun of medieval times which they considered backward and boorish. Does that invalidate the IDEA? Again, I remind you I do not discuss this in my history section – nor would I include it in a HISTORY section.

Bede this might apply for 100 even 200 years – but 7-800 years??! The US of A is less than 250 years old!!

Plus there is much evidence the Church was hostile to the sciences (DEMANDING the sciences be a handmaiden to theology) as even Lindberg notes, etc.

There was no previous tradition for it, nor evidence this was stamped out by authorities. We see instead a continuous uninterrupted tradition of superstition. You are comparing this against an intellectual culture where the lights went out.

Did you not read my text from Salvian, as an example?

You are on my turf here, Bede. (Masters in Finance, an ex-CPA, and lots of accounting and economics coursework): What you leave out is that the MIDDLE CLASS was also largely transformed into serfs--not just the slaves. With the shrinking of the middle class, market demand for goods and services is significantly reduced.

Yours
Sojourner

Whew. I'm calling it a night.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

(ok one more...)

Bede, my source on the closing of the Athens Academy came from Pierre Chuvin, A CHRONICLE OF THE LAST PAGANS, Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts/London England 1990:

Here is my summary of the whole episode:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/DARKAGE1.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/DARKAGE1.TXT</a>

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

Gentlemen,

Have you considered taking this to Formal Debates & Discussions?

Given your dual preference for one on one debate, it might be a more suitable venue.

Just a thought.

Oorah! Carry on!

Bede

Sojourner,

Defining science: modern science is the business of creating models that accurately predict real world situations. The models do not have to, and frequently do not, reflect the actual reality and neither do they necessarily have much to do with natural causes. Given you were approvingly quoting something about Galileo and Newton dispensing with causes and moving on to description, your own definition is a 180 degree turnaround.

I am also simply not going to accept you labelling anything you don’t like as ‘Platonic’ and not scientific. There is nothing unscientific about Plato that cannot also be said of Aristotle. Your complaint that he puts mind before matter shows you do not understand how science works – theories constructed in our minds always come before observation, our senses really cannot be trusted, only in idealised thought worlds is it possible to construct useful models. I majored in Physics at Oxford and after four years realised the pat definitions supplied for science are simply divorced from reality.

I have now reviewed Lindberg and must admit to some mistakes. I was assuming your misrepresentation of what he says was accurate but looking at his work, he says nothing like you suggest. So I don’t disagree with him much after all.

1) On the handmaiden idea, I agree with him. He states that natural philosophy was used to illuminate theology. He does not say that theology is used to determine the way that natural philosophy is actually done. Neither does he say that using natural philosophy as a handmaiden is anti-science. He says, in fact, that science is always in the service of something and it is just a question of what. To use science as a ‘handmaiden’ to theology is no more anti science than using it as an aid to building computers.

2) He places John Philoponus as an important figure among others of that period. He does not say that he was just doing theology and gives examples of valid criticisms. Nor does he accept your arbitrary declaration that anyone tainted by Platonism (like Copernicus, for instance) cannot be a real scientist. Given this, when he says Byzantine science declined he must mean over the whole period he surveys. This is certainly true, especially in the period from 600 – 800 during the Arab and Persian invasions. He does not state it declined specifically in the period up to 600AD.

3) When he talks about tensions he does not mean their were clear sides with ‘goodie’ scientists against ‘baaaad’ clergy. He simply points out that, like there are tensions between quantum mechanics and relativity, different schools of thought argued things through. As both sides were Christians you are unable to claim this is religion v science. It is simply different interpretations. Some Christians were anti-science, so are many environmentalists and feminists in today’s world. So, are feminism and environmentalism anti-scientific forces? If you were writing the history, anyone would think so.

To state that the early church was anti-science from Lindberg’s facts would require you to carefully select from them and ignore vast amounts of what he says. One swallow does not a spring make and your careful editing out of most of the facts does not make the early church anti-science.

“Because it promoted superstition over natural causes, I think it would be fair that most would dub this later ultra-conservative period of Islam as anti-scientific.”

The philosophy behind this came from al-Ghazali, was extremely sceptical and later echoed by Hume. With hindsight you can certainly label it anti-science but at the time it made perfect sense as science was going nowhere in a hurry. I disagree with the label of hand maiden here as the foreign sciences were never accepted as helpful to Islam in the way that they were found helpful to Christianity. Instead a sort of Islamised science grew up which gradually replaced foreign science. It was this new science that became the handmaiden (the relavant chapters of Huff expand on this).

“Western Europe went through a process of de-urbanization; the classical schools deteriorated, and leadership in the promotion of literacy and learning passed to monasteries, where a thin version of the classical tradition survived as the handmaiden of religion and theology.”

So no mention of Christianity causing the Dark Ages. He is clear that the monasteries became leaders because all other intellectual culture disappeared. Nothing about the church causing it. But the monasteries were religious institutions who did religious work. This is not because they were anti-science (they did a bit on the side) any more than the fact that my plumber does not repair TVs makes him anti-technology. There is no mention at all, at any point ever, of Christians putting pressure on secular institutions to get rid of Greek science in the way that happened in Islam.

On medicine, the central point that you have failed to grasp is the empirical fact that prayer was more effective than the bleeding etc (which was actually harmful). The reason there was a tension (which does not exist today in mainstream Christianity) was that, natural causes or not, secular medicine did not work. But despite this, as you miss out Lindberg saying, nearly all Christians said it was right to use both prayer and medicine. If they were anti-science they would have tried to ban it and they did not. It was a valid part of treatment, with prayer too. Again, by missing out half the story you manage to paint an utterly false impression.

Your quotes:

"For the faithful, empirical inquiry is unnecessary, a distraction from the practice of his religion and possibly a source of dangerous heresy." -- Tertullian

I did a google search for this (as all Tert’s works are on the net) and only your page came up. So either you are paraphrasing or you have another dud. As your same page included Magellen claiming the church said the earth is flat (which he certainly never said and the church never believed) I take the Tert quote with a pinch of salt. Could we have a reference to the actual work of Tert. Until then, I am afraid this quote is ruled out of court.

"It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labor , that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things" - Eusebius

This one came up with John William Draper (and your site). I really hope that you have not been accepting unreferenced quotes from Draper who is notoriously unreliable. Could we have a reference to Eusebius’s works?

"To discuss the nature and position of the earth, does not help us in our hope of the earth to come." – Ambrose

I am not even going to bother look this one up. It is entirely true and cannot possibly be interpreted as anti-science. Studying science does not help in getting laid either (indeed it is widely seen as an impediment) but someone saying this is not being anti-science. It is an example of NOMA which I thought you supported.

"Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you
may understand." – Augustine

Here Gus is talking about himself – you have turned the quote into the third person. Also, as he is talking about the religious mysteries, I am at a complete loss as to what this has to do with science. You are again using a misquote out of context to make a bogus point.

"Cursed is everyone who places his hope in man." – Augustine

I’d like to know where in Gus’s works this appears. I again fail to see what it has to do with science. It is also true – no power of man will keep you out the grave and death is a curse.

“In summary: Lindberg states we have concrete evidence of religious leaders denouncing secular medicine. We have the quotes stating science is not necessary and worse a potential “source of dangerous heresy.””

In summary, Lindberg states nearly all Christians said it was fine to use secular medicine although some correctly recognised it didn’t do much good and Tert may have said what you claim, but you have no reference.

“Lindberg characterizes Philoponus as a Platonist – To me, this means he uses metaphysical reasoning – not science. Unless you have a better definition showing a Platonist is really a scientist. I have not seen anyone claim Philoponus used observation or experimentation, Bede. Got some other sources?”

As I said, I relyed on your mischaracterising Lindberg. He makes it clear Philoponus and others were important. Alas, your attempts to write him off as Platonic show a lack of understanding about science. I agree whole heartedly that the reception of Aristotle into Western Europe was important but, with Lindberg, I realise that it is not the whole story. To try and characterise Philoponus as a pseudo scientist just because he screws up your schemes is a desperate measure. My source is the DSB under John Philoponus.

“Plus there is much evidence the Church was hostile to the sciences (DEMANDING the sciences be a handmaiden to theology) as even Lindberg notes, etc.”

YOU HAVE ALMOST NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. I am banging my head on a brick wall here. You misquote, misrepresent, find all your sources are wrong, quote out of context and don’t understand the basic concept of what the handmaiden philosophy means. You are driving me nuts. To miss out Lindberg saying that secular medicine was considered completely fine for use by Christians while quoting his qualifications as if they are his main point is gross misrepresentation. You cannot say the early church was anti-science on the basis of a book which deliberately makes very clear it was not. On top of this you make unfounded claims that the church caused the Dark Ages, against every historian on the planet, ignore it when I debunk your points (where they are clear enough to be debunked) and never accept that the theory you formed might be wrong. You tell me to dig down but never check your own references or their context. And you pile on irrelevant points about feudalism, original sin etc without even attempting to show how these mean the church was anti-science.

Here is Lindberg in an article in the scholarly journal ISIS (74:4) “It seems unlikely therefore that the advent of Christianity did anything to diminish the support given to scientific activity or the number of people involved in it.” In the article he makes clear that Christians were no less tolerant than pagans and that any decline in ancient science began in 200BC. He also makes special mention of the achievements of Philoponus.

“Did you not read my text from Salvian, as an example?”

I did. I was at a complete loss as to how to connect it to the church. If the Dark Ages were caused by an economic collapse in the West that some how bypassed the East we still have no blame attaching to the church which is what we are arguing about.

I think, Sojourner, we need to take a break, plus I have an essay to write. I am afraid I am quite disappointed with your responses. When you first decided the church was anti science you thought: fanatic monks had burnt down the Great Library, the church insisted the world was flat, it was the reason that there were no autopsies, that Vesalius was arrested by the inquisition, that Christians closed down the libraries in Rome, that bleeding was a Christian idea, that medieval science was characterised by horses teeth, angels and pin heads etc. You now know every single one of these things to be false. Furthermore, many of the quotations you use are ripped out of context to support your thesis. You never check your references even when it can be done on the internet and don’t even apologise when I have to do it for you. Faced with this, most people would reconsider their theory and decide maybe it wasn’t right after all. You are sounding like a biblical inerrantist who simply retreats from each point as it is debunked but never admits that he is worng in his ideas.

I think you need to go away and think. Perhaps re read Lindberg with an open mind rather than just looking for the bits that fit your ideas. Then double check all references you use for accuracy and context. You might also read Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s De Anima which are both short and available in Penguin Classics. This might help with your misconceptions about which one is ‘scientific’. Maybe turn over a few stones.

Yours

Bede

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

Bede

One more Lindberg quote and one more myth biting the dust (material in Brackets Lindberg's):

“Despite a widespread popular belief that Roger Bacon was imprisoned for his attack on authority and his urgent assertion of a novel scientific methodology, Bacon in fact represented very old methodological traditions and his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted from his sympathies for the radical poverty wing of the Franciscan Order (a wholly theological matter) rather that any scientific novelties he may have proposed. In fact, medieval natural philosophers had remarkable freedom of thought and expression.”

from his article in the journal Osiris 10 (in an article that would make extremely uncomfortable reading for Sojourner although he also rejects Jaki's theses which I partly support.)

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

What are they “supposed” to reflect instead – SUPERNATURAL causes? Is this perhaps the source of why you are not sure demons exist? You see, I would argue that the lack of evidence for their physical existence is a proof for their “theoretical” NON-existance.

A gross distortion.

The examples I gave demonstrated that science is meant to explain “how” something works in our complex natural world, not necessarily “why” it works. (The latter relies on ultimate causes which often assume supernatural causes).
I stated this at the time.

There is a reason why Aristotle is considered the Father of Science, and Plato is representative of Mysticism. (Read anything of the opposing outlooks of Realism and Nominism throughout history)?

Actually I have been guessing for awhile you are a Platonist. Perhaps the real debate should be over whether Plato belongs in the scientific tradition or not. Everything I have read in my scientific readings answers this with a resounding no.

Care to find citations where Plato is considered pro-science? The reason why paganism declined in the sciences in the early centuries AD, is because of the popularity of Platonic thought.
I have seen no exceptions to this.

Lindberg follows this trend as well, implying in places for example that science could not return to the West until Aristotle was reintroduce first.

Lindberg also speaks of Aristotle following the scientific tradition, referring to his “astonishing” achievement (p 67). How “he went far beyond any predecessor in the analysis of specific natural phenomenon… created entirely new disciplines. [he gives examples in such scientific disciplines as astronomy, meteorology, geology, medicine.] The reason why Aristotle was dominant in later medieval times was not because of coercion but because of the “overwhelming explanatory power of his philosophical and SCIENTIFIC system.”

Again. There is no comparable statement to Plato by Lindberg or ANY scientific writer that I have ever seen. Care to counter?

Bede. You’ve got to be kidding. Of course science always starts with a HYPOTHESIS. (This is the parallel to the “theories constructed in our mind”.

But if these are not TESTED thoroughly, this is no longer a science.

Else, if based ONLY on “constructing a theory in my mind” I could argue Marxism communism is a “science”, and all kinds of hobbly gook.

Great. Where are your citations to show us you are not filtering this. Theology obvious RESTRICTS the full gamut of science in your example. In building a computer, I can invoke the full range of science with no restriction(s).

Philoponus was undoubted a brilliant scholar. Can you show me with citations from the book where this is equated with science???
Perhaps from your definition above you are EQUATING all scholarship with science. If so, this is one source of our conflict Bede.

The Platonic outlook teaches that we cannot trust our senses. Therefore observation and experimentation are not important to determine truth. Are you arguing this is scientific?
Really, Guess I need to repeat this again.

Where are your citations Bede. I’m afraid your “interpretation” does not mean as much to me.

Again, you try to distort the topic to argue I am claiming ALL Christianity is anti-science. You ignore when I state:

It gets boring repeating after awhile.

Less editorial, more citations please. Should be easy from your reference to the “vast amounts” of what he r-e-a-l-l-y says.


You are going aginst Lindberg again?! Citations please, if you disagree. I can give these showing the other side…again.


This is against Lindberg as my quotes have shown. If you want to disagree fine, but it needs more explanation than this – especially since you are going against “the leading working historian of medieval science in the world today” on this topic.

If you claim you “read” this differently: You need to PROVE it with the citations, Bede.

You might have a case if that was my ONLY quote. You left out these. I gave you the expanded version earlier, so in the interest of time I am summarizing.
You mean then -- prayer was neutral, and medicine was harmful?

There was some impressive pagan medical traditions. When they were useless was during plagues.

You do need to reread Lindberg’s section on Hippocrates – ALL of it!

As long as prayer is COMBINED with an outlook of looking for natural causes and remedies, no problem. But instead...

You need to refer to this quote Bede. You just keep ignoring it.

“Denouncing secular religion” counts in my book as “anti-science”! ie is not “passive” or “neutral”.

NOMA says there should be separate realms that RESPECTs the other with no interference. The last half of this requirment is missing from this statement.

It says to accept what you are told and not think to me. Does this encourage scientific thinking?!@ No! the opposite.

Answer:
Per ENCHIRIDION, Ch. 114
“The Principles of Christian Living: Faith and Hope

114. …For "cursed is everyone," as the divine eloquence
testified, "who rests his hope in man."[242] Thus, he who rests
his hope in himself is bound by the bond of this curse.
Therefore, we should seek from none other than the Lord God
whatever it is that we hope to do well, or hope to obtain as
reward for our good works.”

Actually, although Augustine concurs 100% with this and elaborates on this theme, I believe the original citation is from Jeremiah. (Note: I need to put the three dots in too, although I would argue the meaning does not change.)


I haven’t had time to get into the theme of Original Sin, which AMPLIFIES the effect of using faith over questioning. As you no doubt suspect: Augustine was not revered in the East (Byzantium) as he was in the West. I do hold that the PSYCHOLOGY of this affected the mindset of medieval society to view themselves as more helpless: ie they were born in sin and should look to authorities (as opposed to themselves) for all solutions to their problems.

I will look up some of the other citations later if you are interested. I have found Google is not a good source before for this kind of thing. When I found for example Augustine’s quotes on beatings, Google had previously failed me on this search.

Without doubt he was a brilliant and influential scholar. Yes. Of the scientific tradition? No.
You never followed up on showing me “other sources” where this is incorrect.

It was critical for the first step. Then the medieval mindset had to be broken so the individual trusted himself to strive to “improve” upon the authorities.

The scientific tradition is in opposition to Plato!!!

My point was that his conclusions were not reached via observation and experiment. He was no doubt brilliant and very learned.

My difference from you is that I thought we were discussing the scientific tradition?

Please stop the headbanging, Bede. You are breaking the rules.

I await the citations. Spare me your “interpretation.”

Is this article on line? I certainly agree with the first statement that the ADVENT of Christianity (ie Christianity itself) is not opposed to the sciences per se. Lindberg lists the achievements as Philosponus as well -- they just are not viewed as "scientific". I think we may be back on old themes.

You are ignoring its partnership with secular authorities. Was this not the new Christian society that allowed this to happen? More important, you also seemed to be denying these trends were going on as I recall…

By all means write your essay first. You can revive this thread at any time—months from now if you wish.

I still do not think the issue you list are as black and white as you present either...

I never saw your citations in Lindberg. Smile. Makes me think you-know-who has the biases. Anyone can “interpret”. That's why I like to show heavy citations.

And I do recommend you reread Lindberg’s details, not his last chapter summary. Smile.

Sojourner

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Is this online? I would like to read it.

Again, you noted my source came from a religious based site you agreed was "normally" accurate (just not in this one case.)

Does that mean you are "uncomfortable" with Lindberg's interpretation of Jaki? if I may re-arrange your words just a little differently...

Sojourner

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

ISIS and Orisis will be in any big university library - I believe you have them even in the Southern US. They are only on line at closed academic sites so you will either need to become a student or visit a library. I would like you to read these articles because they are even clearer than BWS in dealing with the handmaiden idea (how it meant science had a secure patron under which to work as well as some restrictions on metaphysical matters) and the attitude of early Christians (whose philosophy was in general a mean path between pagan extremes of neo platonism and stoicism). If you continue to take the opposite view then I will have to label you a fundie, but I am sure this will not happen.

The rest of your post suggests you still cannot see past your own misconceptions. I have addressed every one of your points and frankly, I would need to write a book to cover all the philosophy of science you have missed out on. Nor am I going to argue about a book you have read that says pretty much the opposite of what you get from it. Many of your mistakes I listed were not your fault and you had reason to trust your sources until I pointed the problems out. But now you really should be breaking out of the paradigm and looking critically at everything. That is what freethinking is about.

I must do my essay and after that I will look into the Athens academy. I have located your source.

Yours

Bede

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