American Agnostic

Let's not forget that much of early christianity (there are of course always some exceptions) wasn't exactly supportive of the Greco-Roman science and philosophy that had survived up until the 4th century. They rejected reason for faith and therefore had no need of (and even held in contemp) "pagan science". It wasn't until some christian theologians managed to integrate the teachings of Aristotle into the the teachings of christian scripture. It allowed them to explain things like the Sun standing still for Joshuha but because of this ability to conform with the bible it became part of the dogma. Any christian founding of science that Bede refers to was merely the losening of the chains of the church. Whould you credit someone with setting you free if they were the one who imprisoned you in the first place? When people like Copernicus finally began to question the church's standing on the natural world (especially cosmology/astronomy) they didn't look to the teachings of the church but to the writings of the philosophers and investigators of Ancient Greece and Rome. Simply put, it's not that modern science came for the christian curch but rather it finally managed to squirm aout out of the church's head-lock after 1200 years of opression. Let's not forget that those how held views (how every justified they may have been) that the churhch felt didn't conform to its own were ruthlessly hunted and persecuted for their beliefs. It was only when society as a whole began to question the church's authority (the reformation and the rest of the Rennisance) that science as we know it today sarted to emerge. Which raises an interesting ,though perhaps unanswerable, question. What whould have happened if the candle of empirical investigation started by the Ancient Greeks hadn't been snuffed out by the religious masses of the times?

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: American Agnostic ]</p>

NOGO

First on the "as I think you now know". Isn't this the very thing that you complained about to Sojourner.

Not only I do not agree but simly do not see how you could possibly say this. No theory of planetary motion can be correct unless it gives results as observed from Earth. That is why Copernicus had to comply with this important constraint even though he believed that what was actully happening in space was different.

By the way the constraint that we are talking about above is nothing more than the fact that any theory must account for observed data. So Ptolemy, Copernicus and Kepler were doing the same thing, accounting for observed data.

Copernicus is the one who made the major step here. Like Einstein he offered a totally different theory for the same observed data. But even he used techniques also used by Ptolemy which means that Copernicus also believed that Ptolemy was serious and not just a mathematical game.

Ptolemy must have believed that what he was doing was real. He believed that everything flowed from circles since the circle was perfect. It this not on par with Kepler who thought that the five solids would explain the planet orbits. Remember that even after he discovered the elliptical orbits Kepler went back to the 5 solids model and tried to make it work.

Also Ptolemy used the astronomical data to draw maps which were used for navigation. A totally practical aspect.

I see no reason to think that Ptolemy was just playing Spirograph. But you should have a problem with this notion as well. Even you acknowledge that all Christians up to Copernicus believed that the Ptolemaic system to be real.

I think that you are showing your bias here.

Yes, then why did he go back to the 5 solids model. You are also implying that Kepler believed that the Copernican system with the sun in the centre was real. Was it a mystery to him or not?


I find this statement quite strange. If it were part of Christian doctrine then we would see in full in the NT. The fact that you have to admit influences is very telling. My personal view is that the bit that you claim comes from the Bible is irrelevant.

The only thing that you are hanging from now is that Ptolemy, and thus all the ancient Greek thinkers, did not really believe that they were modelling the real world. That goes for Pythagoras and his numeric music intervals as well. I think that you are hanging from a string. A very thin one.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

lpetrich

Simply consider the miracles that Jesus Christ had allegedly worked. There is no hint in the NT that they only seem miraculous out of an incomplete understanding of natural law or whatever.

I've been making a big issue out of miracles, because true miracles indicate the non-universality of natural law, and because attaching great importance to their occurrence suggests a secondary status for natural law.

NOGO, Sojourner553, etc., what do you think about the question of miracles? Do you think that the question of miracles is a good one to consider in this context?

I use the phrase "true miracles" to distinguish such miracles from "apparent miracles", which are only considered miraculous out of an excessively limited understanding of natural law.

Bede

Actually it was meant as a complement, but not a justified one as it turns out. You clearly have a lot more reading to do about ancient science as you are well off track about Ptolemy. Read up on the Greek idea of 'saving the appearances'.

BTW, you won't find the Trinity in the NT either, but I doubt you'll be claiming it is not core Christian doctrine.

Anyway, this thread has run its course. Sojourner and I have hammered each other flat, you have a lot of reading to do, Ipetrich is still not saying anything useful and I want to talk about witches with Sojourner.

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Bede,
Well, my intent was not to “piss you off” as you say. But, when I see you throwing out OBVIOUS distortions such as:

--”Archimedes [was m]urdered by the Romans but for some reason we don’t go around saying they [the Romans] were anti-science. [I explained how it was a Roman soldier looking for plunder who killed Archimedes and the Roman authorities executed the soldier for this – this is VERY different than being executed by Roman AUTHORITIES!]

--“Your contention that toleration and freedom are good for science is far from proven” quickly followed by:

“I am not claiming that liberal democracy is not the best political environment for science (although this is qualified, as a dictatorship can steer resources more effectively than a democracy)” [I argued why history has shown this never applies in the LONG run, using Russia and Nazi Germany as examples. There was no reply incorporating the facts I used—or any others of your own.]

These type of responses made it appear to me (rightly or wrongly) that you, Bede, were more interested in playing the role of “religious” DEFENDER—viewing it as part of your “moral” duty to throw out distortions under an “ends justifies the means” conviction. I am sure you will hotly deny this. But this was the source for my comment that deep down you surely know better about these facts – (especially the Archimedes comment!)

But let’s get off character please. I only responded here in defense of me “pissing YOU off”. I know I have “pissed” Intensity off numerous times -- no less than you-- so do not feel I am not an “equal opportunity pisser offer

You need to demonstrate exactly why this is wrong, and your improvement or replacement of the definition – for your criticism to be valid.
It seems to me you like to play “loose goose” with definitions, so that you can make generalizations with no detailed backup.

Only when the results conflicted with Church dogma (which included questioning whether the Church had ABSOLUTE authority in determining right thinking from wrong thinking).
I sizeable number of the scholars on your list ran into trouble with Church authorities—sometimes it was blurred where their scientific views merged in with theological views such as questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. Regardless, they were disciplined or threatened with discipline (which could include imprisonment or death).

Actually, my thesis is somewhat of a compromise between the two: I agree with Bede that science is not incompatible with Christianity.. but I agree with American Agnostic that Christian AUTHORITIES stood as an impediment to its early development, slowing down the growth of science in the West until the time when they had declining power (partly because this authority was diffused between Catholics and Protestant sects, partly because there were secular laws allowing more toleration of Jews, Unitarians, and atheists in society.)

I do not blame the Christian religion for this, per se – for it was CATHOLIC authorities (who had proclaimed the OTHER Christian sects as “heretics” and persecuted them out of existence). Nor do I think this is primarily a CATHOLIC issue, because I would also argue that ANY ultra-conservative group (of all religions and non-religions) ultimately subjugate some areas of science to their religious/ideological dogmas.

Bede, on the other hand, seems to hint at time that the Catholic Church’s actions against “heretics” is “necessary”—and therefore did not slow down the growth of science, but ultimately “saved” science for the long run. I think the timing of when science emerged proves him wrong, not to mention the details of what the Catholic Church was actually doing during this time.


Using this logic, atheists should make the best scientists. And indeed the statistics bear this out.


I think Bede’s thesis is to take two high level independent statements and assume there is a causal relationship: That is, (1) because Modern Science is best fully developed in the West and (2) Western culture is predominately Christian, that (3) this means that science could only have evolved as it has in a Christian (or similar pagan Christian-like) society.

Arguably my thesis can also be simplistically broken down as follows: (1) Because Modern Science did not truly appear on the scene until the last few centuries, and (2) because this period correlates when there was more toleration and freedom for all points of views, then (3) this means that science evolves best in a society that does not require a rigid obedience to some predetmined dogma.

{I feel I can both drill down plus explain other cultures with this; while Bede cannot}


My, My. Did you not read some of my references I gave earlier.

{You also seem to forget you ceded to me the point once how Augustine was a proponent of using torture against “heretics”. (It was your authorities that led you astray; and the detail readings of Augustine that proved otherwise.]

I will answer this further below.

I never said this. I said that scientists who “question” things of this world (like rather the sun revolves around the earth instead of visa versa) would also likely question Church dogma (indeed the aforementioned scientific statement was considered then a heresy). Where the heresy begins and ends thus becomes muddled. You try to hide behind this, because there is no perfect clarity in the records. If Bruno had been executed for something concrete, this would be in the record.

Indeed one thing is clear: None of Bruno’s beliefs should have been viewed as heretical and in today’s society none of it would be deemed breaking any secular law.

By “trouble” do you mean imprisonment? To me, it was very clear, Church authorities were VERY unhappy about his scientific pursuits long before his imprisonment. And optics “should” have been an area that did not have been such a controversial area.

I am not saying the church is anti-science today. Just during medieval times (ie the Dark Ages) through the Reformation.

To bad the Catholic Church did not follow this in the FIFTEENTH century, a couple hundred years later!

But you asked for some details. Do you disagree with any of the following facts?

Scientists would easily fall under the category of “heretic” as this was defined to include individuals who “dared to preach without Papal or episcopal permission, or dared to believe doctrines not approved by the Church.”

This may explain why new laws against witchcraft were implemented:

quotes from:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/DARKAGE3.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/DARKAGE3.TXT</a>
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/DARKAGE2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/DARKAGE2.TXT</a>

I assume this goes both ways?

I would have brought this up under Aquinis, but felt I had already written a lot on the other individuals.

First the condemnation of Aristotle in 1277: This applied primarily to Aristotle’s philosophical and not his logical works. You leave out how this impacted Thomas Aquinas (an individual on your list to prove the Church was pro-science)

I’m “sure” you would find all this authoritarian dictates “necessary” and that the centuries that lapsed were also a “necessary” interval for the beginnings of “true” science to germinate.
I think it delayed the appearance of science for centuries. We could already be traveling to the stars by now…

Maybe in the curriculum (theoretical) world of the universities. Although I though Anselm's Proof of God should be on the curriculum, and Anselm follows the Platonic philosophy.

The Church though was very busy chasing heretics down with the Inquisition and later added to this its list of heretics – witches. {This also made it easier to execute Protestant heretics, as it was easy to "prove" back then someone was a witch}

I read Lindberg. He has it all there – you just have to “dig” like reading a legal contract to find his exceptions and qualifications. I suggest you reread this -- it's not in the first paragraphs of the chapters (no slight meant -- but this makes it harder to find.)

Platonism is definitely bad for science. NOGO do you disagree?

Nice cop out, Bede. And I think you know better.

How many times to I have to repeat this. Lindberg buries this (rather than highlighting it), but even he admits that:

“there is virtually no science or natural philosophy in early medieval religious and theological works".

Academic orthodoxy must be supported by the facts. You have not shown this.

With utmost sincerity,
Sojourner

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

<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>

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Why do you pretend I am defining this differently. I used a cutoff of 1200 instead of 1100, but other than that I do not see the difference.


If you look at my post towards the top third of Page 5 -- You will see I am refering to the same period:

That is the logical implication with my other Lindberg quote how the Church downplayed medical cures other than miracles during this time.(Note I am only referencing Lindberg now because you seem to trust this source)

There you go namedropping authorites again... I rely on authorities for their FACTS, but I review and judge their analyses for myself. Or to state this another way, I try to sort out an author's INPUT FACTS from his conclusions.

Their studies would not have been Church approved and therefore easily designated heretical. I am sure you see the fact there was little to no scientific activity during this time as a "surprise" and merely a coincidence.

As long as the curiculum was approved. I am confused whether you mean the 13th or 15th century. My response would vary accordingly.

But the Church did not have as stong a hold on society during this time!

I think John Wesley, founcer of Methodism recaps this the best in his JOURNAL (1769) {also to show you I am not interpreting this through 21st century eyes -- are you?}

As a background for others reading this: John Wesley, believed the rationality from the Enlightenment weakened faith in the Bible. For this reason he denounced the skepticism that had developed in England and elsewhere regarding the existence of witchcraft
and ghosts.


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).

But intellectual liberty was high in England and Holland, then the greatest centers of toleration in Europe. I think it no coincidence Isaac Newton lived in England. He was also not imprisoned for his heretical views on the Trinity and revelation.


Don't have time now. But I promise to look at it later.


Sojourner

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

Well we can agree on at least one thing, the thread has indeed run its course.

The fact remains, Bede, that you do not know a thing about science and therefore cannot defend the absurd idea that science suddendly appeared in Europe thanks to Christianity. You have been totally trashed.

Bottom line, Ptolemy did real science and he was not a Christian.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the Greek military and political power had not failed and thus Greek thinkers had continued uninterrupted that they would have discovered much sooner what took Christians over 1000 years.

Your apologetic and bias thinking prevents you from seeing this.


One last word on the trinity.
First the trinity was created by Christians there is no doubt about that. It is based entirely on the Bible and is derived on a clear misunderstanding of specific verses. How can you compare this to science which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bible?

This just shows how desperate you are. The trinity solves a glaring contradiction in Christian doctrine. Therefore Christians had to come up with something.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Sojourner553

True. However Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA restricts science far less than Aquinas' version, which could not question faith:

Gould's first commandment for all versions of NOMA basically says “Thou can not claim that God ordains important events in the history of nature that is knowlable only through revelation and not accessible to science.”

Aquinas was "practical" enough to state this was the other way around (for even his milder version was very controversial at the time.)

Sojourner

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

I tend to avoid discussion of whether miracles are an exception to natural law. It seems to me, if one isn't careful one can get into circular logic.

I would define a miracle as something we can not explain today by natural law -- nor think we will ever be able to explain by our improved understanding of natural laws in the future.

But there is more to the subject to determining when a miracle occurs, so that one believes:

Say a giant Apollo god-like creature stepped down out of the sky seeming to perform a miracle== this could still be alien or even an elaborate hoax.

I think your question should be posed not along Judaic-Christian lines so that Christian can also participate: That is, exactly what evidence would it take for one to believe the "god-like Apollo or Zeus creature {not espousing the Bible, maybe the opposite) above was performing real miracles, or was even the "real" God?

One could add even more: if the above creature appeared to be all-powerful, but evil, would S/He still deserve to be worshiped as a God?

Sojourner

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>