Bede

Well, at least it isn't about the Jesus Myth....

A while back we had a chat about witches so I thought I should post my considered thoughts on the issue. This is an adapted school essay and the NOTES should appear in the status bar. One note remains to be filled in because the book is out the library and I forgot to take a page reference.

The End of the Witch Trials

Enjoy or not, as the case may be.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

TiConTiki

Nice paper - did you get an "A"?

I agree with some of the reasoning behind the rise of rationalism over superstition as a cause - but at the same time - in that era evidence was coming to light that many ailments and afflictions had a purely organic basis - and so folks were begining to see that wicthcraft was not a necessary cause.

But it is human nature to accuse another - to keep from being accused yourself.

Peter Kirby

Why wouldn't we enjoy it? It's a fine paper.

"A defendant, accused of a non-existent crime, should expect that any effective legal process will find them not guilty and in witch trials this is eventually what happened."

Do you mean that usually people were eventually acquitted (in the process of the trial), or that eventually it got to the point when people were found not guilty (in the process of history)?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

TiConTiki,

Thanks for your reply. A point I wanted to make was that New Philosophers did believe in witches. Rationalism might have extinguished finally belief in witches (although in a social rather than intellectual way) but the trials declined simply due to improved legal process. I cannot agree your final point as again the medical revolution came too late to effect the decline of trials.

Peter,

Thank you also. I mean in the process of history although outside the great panics, acquital rates were always higher than is often believed (up to 75% in some countries) and we don't know how many accusations never came to court. There are some on these boards who find elements of history uncomfortable to their core beliefs and they may not enjoy finding witch belief prevalent in the Royal Society and rejected by radical protestants.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

There are some on these boards who find elements of history uncomfortable to their core beliefs

For example, the Christians here.

Butters

Ah the return of Bede, can't deny that christians burned people at the stake, so try to downplay it as much as possiable, shift the blame to the legal system (consisting of all Christians) whatever it takes. You would probably be better off just not bringing up the subject and reminding everyone of Christianity's bloody history.

Jeremy Pallant

I don't think this really belongs in Biblical Criticsm and Archaeology. I'm moving it to General Religious Discussions.

Rusting Car Bumper

I know little of the English trials. Given that they are legal trials there will always be an improved legal process that ends it. However, "improved legal process" is not an antithesis or dichotomous of rationalism or religion.

In the U.S., they were ended when it was declared that "spectral evidence" is not evidence of anything and thus banned.


Speaking fo the Royal Society, the point whould really be made that the clergy becamse secondary to the Royal Society at some point in matters of nature.

I recall part of an account about the Royal society were a woman was said to have given birth to a farm animal. (I dont remember precise details and dates. I would have to go look it up again.) The account I read says members of the Royal Society were dispatched to investigate. This seems innouous but in context it should be noted they were dispatched instead of the clergy. If the incident had occured a few decades previously than it did then clergy would have been the obvious and superior choice by opinion.

There came a point of recognition that science and rational thought were better at dealing with these problems for better or for worse. The fact that science and rationalism stumbles and gets mixed in with preexisting cultural elements is trivial. One would be shocked if that was not the case.

In seems that Christians (more often than not) are uncomfortable with history because it "knocks their core beliefs". That is, history tells us that even great Christian thinkers had to go outside of the scope of their faith to solve real problems and that eventually a great mass of the world realized that Christianity could only bring a limited scope of understanding to the table.

DC

Bede

DC,

I agree your first paragraph on trials.

But on the Royal Society you set up a false dicotomy between clergy and non-clergy. In fact, the RS was in large part made up of clergymen and many of members who were not, like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, were also extremely religious. They also believed science to be strongly in support of their religion.

Hence, it would be wrong to say either that the RS replaced clergymen as the investigators or even that they had to travel outside the scope of their faith to solve scientific problems.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Rusting Car Bumper

But they say "not all at once." As I said in my previous post "The fact that science and rationalism stumbles and gets mixed in with preexisting cultural elements is trivial. One would be shocked if that was not the case."

I think its fairly irrefutable that many of the great scientists and thinks of Europe that you like to discuss were stepping outside of their role and outside of the scope of the church when performing science, and/or writing or thinking about their philosophical views.

Newton, for example, was superstitious. He wasn't merely religious. Many of his views would get him treated as a crackpot today by religious and secular alike.

The fact that the Bible is not complete and says little or nothing about many things is what makes this possible in this context.

Constrast this with Islam, where Islam is said to be all encompassing of one's life and thought and thus (as many an Islamic thinker has said) there is no church state seperation in Islam. Whereas there can be in Christianity because the Bible is largely silent on the matter.

The cultural trend in Europe at one time started to see the church as less valuable and science and reason as more valuable. One can always take a microscope and say "Hey! Look! This guy was a Christian and a rationalist" or something similar. This itself counts for little in the way of understanding the move toward naturalism. What is more instructive is to notice how naturalism became more dominant to the detriment of supernaturalism as science became more successful as a TREND through time.

DC