lpetrich

My take on this question is that it's possible to compartmentalize -- have rational beliefs about one subject and irrational beliefs about another.

And I'm sure that Radorth et al. will agree with me here; Radorth considers Catholicism completely irrational (legalistic, idolatrous, with celibate priesthood, with divorce under the name of "annulment", etc.), yet he thinks of Galileo and other Catholic scientists as somehow being on his side.

lpetrich

As to the origin of modern science, I would not be some antecedents in medieval philosophy, but not in medieval Christianity as a whole, since it includes some strongly antithetical elements, like miracle-mongering.

Saints were a favorite aspect of popular religion in the Middle Ages, and saints were celebrated for working miracles, not for understanding natural law and using that understanding for the benefit of themselves and their admirers. In fact, to this day, to become recognized as a saint, one must work miracles.

Thus, saints were pictured as being very unlike (say) Benjamin Franklin, who discovered that lightning is a static-electricity discharge and who used his knowledge of static electricity to work out how to protect buildings from lightning.

I suspect that the ultimate origin of the idea of science lies in an aspect of Hellenic paganism -- belief in Fate, which even the Gods were subject to. Though certainly not the worship of those Olympian deities.

Bede

Bill, thanks. You do read me right.

Ipetrich, carving up a culture into the good bits and the bad bits is ultimately a pointless exercise. Western medieval culture is western medieval culture. It is Christian, rational, superstitous, violent, beautiful, bigotted, open, learned, ignorant and IMHO wonderful (although it's Islamic archecture that really kicks arse). Culture does not derive its value from how it has effected the great myth of progress. No one alive has ever seen the original St Paul's Cathedral but that does not make it any less of a magnificent achievement (and a damned sight better than than the present carbuncle).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: IRCC, earlier threads established that some of Dr Rick's Jefferson quotes are fakes.

Bede

Ipetrich, Fate is arbitrary. That was the whole point and the complete opposite of natural law. Think boy! You seem to be inflicted with the common condition where you'll give credit to absolutely anything except Christianity.

B

lpetrich

Bede, if it makes you happy, I'm equally reluctant to credit the worship of the deities of Mt. Olympus.

And "fate" is an impersonal order rather than something completely arbitrary -- which seems much like the more successful paradigms of science, which postulate an impersonal order. And it's that impersonality that's the important feature. Not some alleged lawgiver who feels very free to break the laws that he had created.

hezekiah jones

Radorth, IIRC, considers the Constitution "legalistic pedantry." Catchy phrase though, in its proper place.

Radorth

Well you have a point there, livius. Actually I agree that Christianity was and still is somewhat enveloped in said "rags," to my constant chagrin. But I think we have to distinguish between those who added to what Jesus said, politicized and misused it to hinder progress (social as well as scientific), and those who did not. I'm claiming those days are pretty well gone and certainly that Jesus himself is no hindrance. Perhaps we can agree on that.


For those who want to see a semi-topical Jefferson quote war, here ya go.

"Of all the systems of morality both ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." ( From Writings, Vol XIII, P377)

"No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to that which flowed from his lips, the whole world at this day. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also." (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284).


In a letter to Adams, 1813

"In extracting the pure principles which Jesus taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they are muffled... there will be found the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (Writings, Vol XIII)

In a letter to Benjamin Rush

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others. "(Writings, Vol X)

Looks like one of your early poster boys was a bit confused, but, hoping to get the same bows from thebeave for cutting and pasting semi-relevant quotes, I am sincerely yours,

Rad

Radorth

I never said they were not Christians. That is not for me to judge. At worst I was saying that even those nasty Catholics couldn't stop the march of science, and to their credit, they debated the evolutionary evidence early on. If I had ever stated that Catholics weren't Christians, you might have a point.

Your personal vendetta has never been more apparent than on this thread, nor the irrationality of your thinking. For the record, I never called your mom a witch, which is the only excuse I can imagine for the pedantic ad hom you've been posting of late.

(Sigh) It's not about us vs them Catholics here, much as you try to make it so by borrowing from other threads willy-nilly.

And my other question goes poorly answered in any case:

How did people who believed in "miracles and magical thinking" manage to outshine the rest of the world in so many ways, including science? How did Augustine manage to postulate an alternative to literal creation if he was so intellectually burdened? How was it Bacon employed the "scientific method" 300 years before it had a name? Was he a closet atheist or something?

Even if all the world was under some sort of vaguely defined religious hindrance, then it seems Christianity had a liberating effect at least comparatively. And I might argue that since folks were wont to believe something out of ignorance, then Christianity was in perspective the more intellectually liberating thing to believe. Thus, it cannot be shown to be any hindrance then, and certainly not now.

Oh wait. "If Pat Robertson had his way, Stephan Hawking would not be allowed to do his work."

I still say you guys are having an off day.

Rad

Radorth

OK, thebeave, I know you're in the Pacific time zone and still up. So where's my bows for the Jefferson quotes?

Rad

(Moral: never give kudos in a quote war, especially in Jefferson's case)

keyser_soze

I think he is talking about the scholars.....and most of them are that way.