Freethought & Rationalism Archive

joedad · 11-13-2002, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Butters:
Of course Bede also completely discounts science done by Arabs, Asians and others. I also note a complete silence on the works of Alchemists and their contributions to science.

Actually, Bede has said that there were other influences on science besides christianity, but has not made an attempt to enumerate them, nor has he ever defined "christianity" apart from these other influences, and nor has he ever displayed a working knowledge of the causes of civilization. From Bede's perspective, the universe and human history are contained in the Bible, and not vice versa.

I think it's interesting to note that every day and month of the year in the west is still named for a pagan god or a pagan. Even the "week" is a pagan invention.

joe

Butters · 11-13-2002, 11:43 AM

Posted by Nogo,

How did Christianity help restore civilization?

How does one verify such a statement? What would Europe have been like without Christianity? There is no way to know.

"This is true. I meant Christianity helped restore civilization only in the sense that it helped bind different peoples together. Any other religion would have done. Perhaps a strong leader could have done it without religion, though the state of mans mind at that time makes it doubtful. As I said, perhaps a more tolerant religion would have done better."

If the Roman empire was built on Pagan ideologies, philosophies and religions then it would have happened again.

"I agree, but a binding force was called for, we use the word "pagan", but this discribes many various religions. If you add disagreement between religious factions to political and regional differences, it would certainly have slowed things down. Now of course if these religions could have acheived the state of tolerance that was shown by the Romans, in the long run, we may have been better off."

My guess is that Europe would have emerged from the Dark ages much earlier without Christianity.

"This may be, but as you said above, there is no way to know."

Christianity usurped the intelligence and abilities of so many people in a quest for futility.
Christianity brought a sense of reliance on God rather than man's abilities. This influenced people in varying degree but none of it was very useful.

"I agree, but I cannot envision a society emerging from that time void of religion, I believe it took the emergance of science to disprove the powers of God/s. Religion has never been actually useful to anyone other than preists and preachers."

This idea is alive and well today in people like Bede who is trying to show that science stems from God himself. This is for him the ultimate proof that God exists, that Christianity is true and that man cannot do anything without God.

"I don't mind him preaching all that, it is his attempt to rewrite history that bothers me."

Just look even today how much effort is spent in religion. At the start Christians spent all their efforts converting eveyone in sight. I would like to know how many man-hours were spent in preaching and converting rather than rebuilding civilization.

"You and me both. When Christians start in with "look how much comfort it gives people", I can only think how much better off those people would be if we concentrated on a rational way of living. Or when they say "look at how much Charity work Christians do" I can only think, how much less would have needed doing if we had not spent so much money, time, and effort supporting Christianity in the first place. Sure christians feed the poor, but what have they done for poverty? Every time a pass the Large Baptist church here, that I know for a FACT costs over $10.000 a month to just maintain, it makes me sick."

lpetrich · 11-13-2002, 01:47 PM

Quote:

NOGO:
But my point here was to show that science has shown a willingness to abandon old ideas and embrace new ones. ...

I think that there have been more drastic paradigm shifts, like:

The redefinition of "element" or "fundamental substance" from Aristotle's four to the present-day conception (Lavoisier, etc.). Aristotle's "elements" correspond more closely to states of matter.

Charles Darwin's founding of evolutionary biology.

Continental drift and plate tectonics.

With such changes, a lot of earlier scholarship was made obsolete, rather than be shown to be special cases.

Quote:

NOGO:
You are saying that each new religion subsumes the old. I disagree. I think that they only pay lip service to this claim in order to gain credibility. ...

Could well be. And it's a good way of making converts. Consider Paul stating that he has been all things to all people.

Quote:

NOGO:
A fundamental problem I have with Christianity is that although Yahweh revealed himself to Moses and provided laws etc. there was still a need for a second revelation, through Jesus, so different from the first. One must believe that God has trouble communicating.

I agree. But the apologists doubtless have interesting answers.

Butters · 11-13-2002, 02:06 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOGO:
A fundamental problem I have with Christianity is that although Yahweh revealed himself to Moses and provided laws etc. there was still a need for a second revelation, through Jesus, so different from the first. One must believe that God has trouble communicating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. But the apologists doubtless have interesting answers.

"They have answers, but they are not as much interesting as silly.
-B

Fiach · 11-13-2002, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
Sojourner, we are done. Three points I need to make:

Firstly, the Early Middle Ages means the Dark Ages so Lindberg is not referring to the period after the 1100. There was a lot of science from 1100 onwards and Lindberg never states the medieval church was anti-science. You have quoted his saying there was hardly any science in the Dark Ages three or four times now and it still doesn't say the church in the Middle Ages was anti-science. This is hardly surprising as Lindberg knows very well it is not true.

The Christian Church did brutally persecute the great woman scientist, Hypatia of Alexandria, killing her in 410 CE. Her sin was teaching the old knowledge of the Greeks such as the Aristophenes finding that the Earth was indeed a sphere based on measurements of the sun's shadows on two poles placed in upper and lower Egypt at noon. She also taught many of the other sciences possibly the Ancient Greek theories of the atom and animal evolution. Many of her writings were burned by the Church under orders of SAINT Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who also had her murdered. She was the first major martyr for science by religious superstition. After Justinian, pagans were persecuted for holding Neoplatonic views which were in part scientific. Witch trials were occurring as early as Joan of Arc, and possibly because it had a protocol, was not the first.

Gallileo was persecuted for saying that the lights in the sky were stars like our sun, and planets were worlds revolving around other bodies. That threatened literal Biblical Genesis Myths. He was treated shamefully living under house arrest even when he caved in and retracted the truth. Giordano Bruno was burned for his scientific views and questioning the nature of a creator. Copernicus survived because of the LIBERALISM of the North German Princes.

>Second, I do not accept that the churches action >against heresy was anti-science. The heretics >they were after were the Cathars, Beguin, >Waldensians, Lollards and other popular >movements whose major danger was they were >radicals who might upset the existing social >order.

Then why were Hypatia, Bruno, and Gallileo persecuted when they had little interest in religion?

>Science is an elite activity (was then, still is >today) and the heretical sects had nothing much >to do with it. Popular heresy hardly ever >touched the universities where science was going >on so the two subjects are not really related.

True, they were not related but both were persecuted because of any threat to Biblical mythology. However, many scientists were clergy. They walked on very thin ice.

>Thirdly, when I said your thesis that liberal >societies are good for science is unproven, I >meant that you seem to suggest that the >relationship is in some way causal.

Agree. Liberal or conservative do differ somewhat. Conservative nations like Communist China promote pure and pragmatic science. Liberal Japan also promotes science. However, both nations are largely atheistic. Liberal Britain promotes science as does France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Russia, Australia, and Canada. Conservative America has tended to promote practical or commercially profitable scientific research, while putting roadblocks in the way of science that violates superstitious taboos (stem cell research, DNA research, research into evolutionary molecular biology, etc.)

> It is not true that Europe became more liberal >in the run up to the scientific revolution. The >Church actually became more conservative as a >result of the reformation and its counter. As >we have seen witch trials are at their height as >the scientific revolution gets going. The >feudal system of rights and duties was being >replaced by absolute monarchies ruling by divine >right leading to a decrease in secular liberty >as well. You seem to be getting confused >between political liberty for the masses (which >was non-existant up until the eighteenth >century) and intellectual liberty for the elite >(which was in the universities for most of the >Middle Ages). Hence your thesis fails simply >because the facts contradict it.

I disagree 180 degrees. A popular myth is that people had great freedom during feudalism, and that it was usurped by Kings who weakened the nobles (lords, earls, barons, counts, knights). Actually most people were serfs, and nearly slaves. The barons ruled and the King was weak. The Kings fashioned the centralisation process of nation building by posing as defenders of the people. Absolute Monarchs were not perfect but they were better than thousands of petty warlords owning serfs. Kings allowed more personal freedom, but they did a poor job at feeding and clothing their subjects than the barons did of the people that they "owned." It is like comparing communism to market capitalism. The communists like feudalists guaranteed you a meal, house, job (no pay), and protection from brigands. The Merchant Capitalists like the Kings offer more personal freedom. You can move if you wish, you can be an entrepreneur (village cobbler or make computer chips today) but you have less protection from crime and less protection if the economy fails.

>On witches, have a look at these two articles, >one by a neo-pagan and one by a Catholic. The >question that interests me is why did witch >hunts suddenly start at the end of the fifteenth >century and end by the close of the seventeenth.

I already answered this error. Witches were being hunted long before the Inquisition. In the very early Middle Ages they were executed in Charlemagne's Empire, Ireland, and the HRE. Joan of Arc was tried during the 100 years war in 1431. They clearly followed jucidial protocols indicating that it wasn't the first time for a witch trial.

<a href="http://www.uscolo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM5a1.html" target="_blank">Neo-pagan view</a>
<a href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2001/feature1.htm" target="_blank">Catholic view</a>

I know for a fact that witches are condemned in the Old Testament, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." After European countries fell to Christianity, they still had many rural people of the native religions. In Ireland and Scotland, my ancestors, had noted that during the reign of the great King Brian MacCennedi (Brian Boru) in the 10th century, that there were still a few residual druids. Those who were female drew the wrath of the virulently anti-female Christian clergy. Many worshipped the Earth Goddess Eriu or Sila na nGig, and the Moon Goddess Danu whose ceremonies were noctural. Christian bigots accused them of consorting with Satan. (They didn't believe in Satan who is a Christian deity.) It is true that a McCarthyism of witch hunts began in the 15th century as science was also advancing. Why? Science was a threat to the old Christian superstitions. Even today, American Fundamentalists rant and foam at the mouth over witchcraft in the schools. This is occurring at a time of incredible scientific advances in geology, plate tectonics, continental drift, genetics, medical science. Again it seems to run parallel to a paradoxical increase in religious madness. That is the rise of malignant Christian Fundamentalism in America. Notice that the killers Tim McVeigh, Ben Smith, Buford Furrow, Eric Rudolph, Matthews, Paul Hill, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Christian Army of God, all kill for God, not for witchcraft or science.

Yours

Bede

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

Slainte mhaith,

Fiach

NOGO · 11-14-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Bede
Even today, American Fundamentalists rant and foam at the mouth over witchcraft in the schools. This is occurring at a time of incredible scientific advances in geology, plate tectonics, continental drift, genetics, medical science. Again it seems to run parallel to a paradoxical increase in religious madness. That is the rise of malignant Christian Fundamentalism in America. Notice that the killers Tim McVeigh, Ben Smith, Buford Furrow, Eric Rudolph, Matthews, Paul Hill, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Christian Army of God, all kill for God, not for witchcraft or science.

Confusion as usual. Bede tries to mix everything together as a was of excusing the unexcusable.

When the Church burnt witches it was all powerful and witches were not a threat to the polical power. Witches were burnt for reason of religious ideology.

Osama Ben Ladin may be a religious fanatic but his purpose is wholly political. Religion is just a tool.

What needs to be stressed is the relation between the killer and the victim(s). In one case the killer is the establishment (church) in all other cases mentioned by Bede the killers are rebels. In one case the victim(s) are selected (witches) in the other cases the victims are random.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

11-14-2002, 07:12 AM

NOGO,

As I didn't say the above (it was an atheist headbanger from Scotland who can't edit) you'd better rephrase yourself. It is funny you cannot tell the difference between an atheist ranting against Christianity and me. Rather throws into doubt your ability to read and understand English at all.

Yours

Bede

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

NOGO · 11-14-2002, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Bede
As I didn't say the above (it was an atheist headbanger from Scotland who can't edit) you'd better rephrase yourself.

Bede, if you did not say the above I am glad and certainly apologize for my mistake.

Butters · 11-15-2002, 02:53 PM

After mulling all this over, I got to thinking. There is a point to be made that the Greeks,(and Romans for that matter) were slow to develop technology. They exceled at architecture, building, agriculture. But why DIDN'T they devlop the steam engine when they had the concept? Why no washing machines, lawn mowers, etc.?
I contend that a major factor was slavery. Think of the average Greek citizen. All the menial work was performed by slaves. If you had no moral qualms about slavery, all you had to do was sit back on your couch and pontificate. No need to do any dirty work, even dirty work of experiment. It was only later when small feudal communities had to scrach to survive, and people had the opportunity to better themselves did "science" as we know it become desirable. I also feel that the accomplishments of a host of unknown inventers and craftsmen of the dark ages that provided the tools for "scientists" has been totally ignored.
This is by no means the full story, other scocio-political events had a bearing, but all could have and would have (perhaps sooner) occured without Christianity.

Sojourner553 · 11-16-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:
After mulling all this over, I got to thinking. There is a point to be made that the Greeks,(and Romans for that matter) were slow to develop technology. They exceled at architecture, building, agriculture. But why DIDN'T they devlop the steam engine when they had the concept? Why no washing machines, lawn mowers, etc.?
I contend that a major factor was slavery. Think of the average Greek citizen. All the menial work was performed by slaves. If you had no moral qualms about slavery, all you had to do was sit back on your couch and pontificate. No need to do any dirty work, even dirty work of experiment. It was only later when small feudal communities had to scrach to survive, and people had the opportunity to better themselves did "science" as we know it become desirable. I also feel that the accomplishments of a host of unknown inventers and craftsmen of the dark ages that provided the tools for "scientists" has been totally ignored.
This is by no means the full story, other scocio-political events had a bearing, but all could have and would have (perhaps sooner) occured without Christianity.

Plato is your culprit. Platonic thought (which was growing in popularity among the pagans) taught the anti-scientific, mystical view that the ultimate truths of the universe can NEVER be learned through observation and experimentation.

"During the Middle Ages, the medieval man followed the Platonic paradigm in
looking towards AUTHORITIES (now defined as Christian authorities) to give him
his foundation of knowledge."

You can find a discussion of this and more at this link:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSO1.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSO1.TXT</a>

Main page:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>
Sojourner

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2002, 11:43 AM	#142
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Posted by Nogo, How did Christianity help restore civilization? How does one verify such a statement? What would Europe have been like without Christianity? There is no way to know. "This is true. I meant Christianity helped restore civilization only in the sense that it helped bind different peoples together. Any other religion would have done. Perhaps a strong leader could have done it without religion, though the state of mans mind at that time makes it doubtful. As I said, perhaps a more tolerant religion would have done better." If the Roman empire was built on Pagan ideologies, philosophies and religions then it would have happened again. "I agree, but a binding force was called for, we use the word "pagan", but this discribes many various religions. If you add disagreement between religious factions to political and regional differences, it would certainly have slowed things down. Now of course if these religions could have acheived the state of tolerance that was shown by the Romans, in the long run, we may have been better off." My guess is that Europe would have emerged from the Dark ages much earlier without Christianity. "This may be, but as you said above, there is no way to know." Christianity usurped the intelligence and abilities of so many people in a quest for futility. Christianity brought a sense of reliance on God rather than man's abilities. This influenced people in varying degree but none of it was very useful. "I agree, but I cannot envision a society emerging from that time void of religion, I believe it took the emergance of science to disprove the powers of God/s. Religion has never been actually useful to anyone other than preists and preachers." This idea is alive and well today in people like Bede who is trying to show that science stems from God himself. This is for him the ultimate proof that God exists, that Christianity is true and that man cannot do anything without God. "I don't mind him preaching all that, it is his attempt to rewrite history that bothers me." Just look even today how much effort is spent in religion. At the start Christians spent all their efforts converting eveyone in sight. I would like to know how many man-hours were spent in preaching and converting rather than rebuilding civilization. "You and me both. When Christians start in with "look how much comfort it gives people", I can only think how much better off those people would be if we concentrated on a rational way of living. Or when they say "look at how much Charity work Christians do" I can only think, how much less would have needed doing if we had not spent so much money, time, and effort supporting Christianity in the first place. Sure christians feed the poor, but what have they done for poverty? Every time a pass the Large Baptist church here, that I know for a FACT costs over $10.000 a month to just maintain, it makes me sick."

11-13-2002, 02:06 PM	#144
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOGO: A fundamental problem I have with Christianity is that although Yahweh revealed himself to Moses and provided laws etc. there was still a need for a second revelation, through Jesus, so different from the first. One must believe that God has trouble communicating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. But the apologists doubtless have interesting answers. "They have answers, but they are not as much interesting as silly. -B

11-14-2002, 07:12 AM	#147
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	NOGO, As I didn't say the above (it was an atheist headbanger from Scotland who can't edit) you'd better rephrase yourself. It is funny you cannot tell the difference between an atheist ranting against Christianity and me. Rather throws into doubt your ability to read and understand English at all. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

11-15-2002, 02:53 PM	#149
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	After mulling all this over, I got to thinking. There is a point to be made that the Greeks,(and Romans for that matter) were slow to develop technology. They exceled at architecture, building, agriculture. But why DIDN'T they devlop the steam engine when they had the concept? Why no washing machines, lawn mowers, etc.? I contend that a major factor was slavery. Think of the average Greek citizen. All the menial work was performed by slaves. If you had no moral qualms about slavery, all you had to do was sit back on your couch and pontificate. No need to do any dirty work, even dirty work of experiment. It was only later when small feudal communities had to scrach to survive, and people had the opportunity to better themselves did "science" as we know it become desirable. I also feel that the accomplishments of a host of unknown inventers and craftsmen of the dark ages that provided the tools for "scientists" has been totally ignored. This is by no means the full story, other scocio-political events had a bearing, but all could have and would have (perhaps sooner) occured without Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.