Sojourner553

Dear Bede,

Before labeling anyone a fundie, you need to take a serious look at the posts above, especially my simple requests asking for citations to prove your position.

Have you honestly considered you might be the one with the misconceptions?

Then where are the citations as proof?

Really? I would recommend starting with the basics.

Let's focus on whether Plato was as scientific as Aristotle. And whether "intellectualism" is synonomous with being scientific-- ie defining what constitutes science. I think a lot of our differences occurred at this juncture.

I asked for citations and got none. Although you did provide one from a new source that is not easily assessible to me.

And I am a freethinker.

AND I do debate both ways: Remember when I defended the position that Christianity, per se, is not opposed to science? I was blasted by other atheists on this board who hurled very similar language at me as you have above.

Still, I would tackle them again with the same vigor, just as I have tackled you above. For I value truth... wherever it takes me.

Nor do I generally hold personal grudges against others who disagree with me on issues (if they are in other respects a nice person.) Maybe it is the Danish blood in me -- I am naturally pretty easy going...

So with that in mind, let me be wishing you, Bede, a very Merry Christmas!


Yours

Sojourner

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

I thought we might be done but on reflection, I think I should say just a little more to ensure that my own position is not confused with the opposite extreme of yours and also to provide a few citations that further show your misuse of sources.

First on the handmaiden philosophy: There is a passage addressed to “the critic determined the view the early church as an obstacle to science” on page 151 of BWS that you need to read. You are that critic and Lindberg is trying to explain slowly and patiently (without being rude) exactly why your views are not good history but anachronistic in the extreme. For you to continue to assert that Lindberg may not think it wrong to claim the early church was an obstacle to science (but did not want to admit it due to his bias!) after you had read this is simply dishonest. I assume you must have forgotten about it.

On medicine which you claim, on the basis of some Lindberg citations, that the church was anti secular medicine. Yet in that very chapter we read: “But the vast majority of Christian leaders looked favourably on the Greco-Roman medical tradition.” (BWS p321). To quote the passages that suit you and ignore this is gross misrepresentation that shows you picking the qualifications that Lindberg makes for your evidence while ignoring his substantial points. What Lindberg makes clear is that ideas of miracles could and did co-exist parallel to secular medicine. He is trying to get you to think outside the modern box here (BWS is a textbook for undergraduates after all) but in your case meeting very little success.

On Aristotle and Plato you really mess up. While it is certainly true that there were Neo-Platonists who were dualists (and this was picked up by various Christian heretics like the Gnostics and, later on, the Cathars), orthodox Christians always insisted that as God created the world it must be in some way good and worthy of our attention. If you had ever read any Augustine, you would know this. As Lindberg says “In the spectrum of pagan values… the church fathers chose the middle position [of moderate Platonism]” (ISIS 74:4). But Plato also insisted on the mathematical rationality of the cosmos and this was as important an element to science as Aristotelian empiricism (as even NOGO has realised). Steven Shapin says in the Scientific Revolution (p58) “[Early] modern natural philosophers turned… especially to Plato to legitimate a mathematic view of the world.” You cannot just pick one element of Plato’s enormous corpus of work (none of which, I am willing to bet, you have read) and declare him anti-science.

As for Philoponus, Lindberg is perfectly plain in BWS that he is an important scientific figure. To be even plainer he says “John Philoponus presented a major and important reassessment of Aristotelian physics and cosmology”, “Philoponus proceeded intelligently, with considerable rigour and with notable benefit for the future course of cosmology” and “It is noteworthy that Philoponus’s argument against Aristotelian dynamics rests not on any theological foundation but to a very great extent on arguments from experience.” (all ISIS 74:4). Now are you satisfied, Sojourner? It was not your fault you knew nothing about this, but it was your fault if you continue to insist on your old views when I have introduced you to all the evidence. That is a fundie attitude.

Let’s leave the last word to Lindberg in the conclusion to his article on science and the early church. Despite the fact that Christian theologians always had religion as their primary concern “it would be a distortion to create the impression that there was no Christian involvement in natural science or that the church retarded or crushed science.” (ISIS 74:4).

Happy Christmas to you too.

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Well, guess I will address you before Christmas after all. (Hope this doesn’t ruin your Christmas: You do seem to have a temper, Bede with all that banging your head against the wall talk. I think you stated once your writings lets off some of that steam… )

You will probably need to find some release valve after this post…

As stated before Bede: I rely on authorities for my FACTS, but not necessarily on their INTERPRATION of these same facts. However, I do feel obligated when I deviate from a scholar’s INTERPRETATION, to give my REASONS for doing so.
Let’s first review the quote you pulled out on Lindberg.

I will show you this one line does not represent the full RANGE of Lindberg’s discussion.
First, let’s reviews Lindberg’s FACTS on the topic, which is where I had previously quoted copiously:

In typical Lindberg fashion, he INTERPRETS these facts in a soothing way to find criticism of no one. I showed earlier his statement how he does not feel it is his role to criticize but to understand, and we see this attitude over and over again—ie --Lindberg tends to either praise or make bland statements, but rarely, if ever, outright criticize.

Let’s look more deeply at his interpretation, a subset of which you cite:

Although there were some Christian denunciations of secular medicine, Lindberg notes the majority of majority of Christian leaders viewed the Greco-Roman medical tradition as a “divine gift” which was “legitimate and perhaps even obligatory.” (This is basically the line you pulled out, Bede)

But in the very next paragraph he qualifies this, stating

By this, he notes the strong tradition of healing miracles, that operated alongside secular medicine. Lindberg gives us his synthesis as follows: That it is simplistic to look at the Church as either completely pro OR opposed to the medical tradition. Instead, he sees the church as a …
However, he sees the monasteries as incubating ("nurturing") medicine. He adds a line about how there was Christian charity as well and how “institutionalization in the universities restored [medicine’s] contact with various branches of philosophy and elevated its status as science.”

Now, for the record, I do agree with Lindberg’s FACTS. But here are my reasons for disagreeing with some of Lindberg's’s INTERPRETATION:

(1) He ignores what impact that the religious denunciations and emphasis on miracles had on the PROGRESS of medicine before 1100 AD (The time period we are talking about, remember?) Again, this was BEFORE Greco-Roman medicine was reintroduced back to the West via the Arabs.)

** And there is no question of the FINAL result – ie there WAS indeed a REGRESSION of medical knowledge and practice during this time (ie before 1100 AD) from the earlier pagan Greco-Roman era!!! ***

(2) To state that monasteries were basically nurturing medicine, is refuted by Lindberg’s next paragraphs where by comparison he discusses the advance of medicines by the Arabs in superlative terms: “The Greek medical literature served as a foundation on which a SOPHISTICATED ISLAMIC MEDICAL TRADITION WOULD BE BUILT”; “Medicine in Islam was a DYNAMIC, rather than a static, enterprise.” And here “particularly prominent was a series of COMPREHENSIVE, ENCYCLOPEDIC works that surveyed large segments, or even the whole, of medical theory and practice.”

Lindberg’s own facts show it was basically AFTER the reintroduction of Greco-Roman medical knowledge via the Arabs beginning 1100 AD, that we begin to see a return to scientific tradition of medicine in the West.

It is true the medical tradition finds support in the universities. But universities were forming in the twelfth century (again after our cutoff of 1100 for purposes of this discussion!)

Basically, Lindberg has picked out events happening AFTER 1100, to interject into the time period WE are discussing, TO OFFSET THE DECLINE BEFORE 1100 AD. The later events does mitigate what we are seeing from 500-1100 AD. But again that is not the time period we are discussing.

And let’s do the math: This TIME PERIOD was 600 YEARS (ie counting from 500 AD to 1100 AD)

This is no short blink of time. This is roughly TWO and ONE HALF times the life of the USA government. The time period between me and Thomas Jefferson/George Washington MULTIPLIED BY A FACTOR OF OVER TWO TIMES! Assuming an average childbirth age of twenty – that means 30-35 generations.

And I DO think we could be potentially hundreds of years more advanced in the future, if this VAST time period had not been lost to the SCIENCES. For example, if the sciences had advanced as much in medieval Catholic society as they had under early Islam along a continuum.

Afterall, do you deny Bede, that it was due to the Islam religion that science declined when conservative religious forces became dominant in Islamic society??? Neither you nor Lindberg has explained EXACTLY why the circumstances would be any different when conservative religious forces became dominant in Catholic Christian society. This has to be explained Bede… Please make this an important point to cover: to CONSISTENTLY explain why there was a DECLINE in science in Islamic culture, but no parallel to this in Catholic Christian culture BEFORE 1100 AD.
(If you invoke the invaders again, indeed intense levels of wars and infighting could also be seen in Islamic culture. Don't forget to tie this in with your theme: That is was Islamic CULTURE responsible for the decline of science, that is if they ever had it, per your thesis.)


(3) Regarding Christian charities:
Christians typically have had a great reputation from the earliest times for their charities. It is very nice and applaudable. But this has no correlation with science! Afterall, Jews and pagans were not without their charities. Islamic societies today have their many charities. I do not think this makes Arab countries more “scientific”. Lindberg does not show how this is consistently applied. I strongly suspect it cannot be consistently applied to all cultures to show ANY correlation of charities with science!

(4) Lindberg seems to argue that if you are not 100% against secular medicine, this is positive. But what culture on earth has ever been 100% against secular medicine? Even African witch doctors applied herbs, prescribed rest, etc.

My criticism is this. For a principle to have validity it most be CONSISTENTLY APPLIED to not only the situation at hand – but across cultures as well. If we apply Lindberg’s SAME standard, Islamic cultures today cannot be considered opposed to the sciences as they have SOME respect for medicines.

Let's look how Lindberg compares Greco-Roman medicine with medieval medicine. In short, Lindberg

(1) praises how Hippocrates viewed diseases as arising from NATURAL occurrences – a SCIENTIFIC view.

(2) notes as a fact how the Catholic Church viewed diseases as having SUPERNATURAL causes (either from heaven or demons) and therefore sought cures along the same realm--supernatural.

Lindberg doesn't criticize. But one sees a pattern in his book. He either praises when he sees behavior leading towards the scientific outlook, ELSE he withdraws from praise, while cautioning against any judgment. You INTERPRET this latter as support, Bede. I do not.

That is NOT a good summary of what Plato is about. Plato’s analogy of the Cave states our senses cannot be trusted for ultimate truths. Plato wanted a strong authority to control society. In these two aspects: The Catholic Church was an embodiment of Platonic philosophy.

Glad to see you think Plato is negative enough you wish to impose this on the ENEMIES of Catholicism. Does that mean he was not scientific afterall?

Do you deny that Lindberg represents Philoponus as a “Platonic” philosopher in BWS??

This can mean multiple things. You need to expand if you have any real contributions from this quote to add here.

Of course Plato was rational. Of course the Scholastics were brilliantly rational and intellectual. They just were not (at least most of the time) scientific in outlook. They were looking for supernatural FIRST causes, not natural ones AND did not accept observation and experiments as valid methods. (Afterall these would not be valid in a SUPERNATURAL realm, where the most important actions were taking place in their minds.)


Scientific thought is a SUBSET of intellectualism, Bede. One can be brilliant and intellectual and very anti-science.

As one example: I would characterize much of fundamentalist ISLAMIC religious dogma to fall in this category.

But he did this within a Platonic philosophical framework, is what I read.

He does NOT say this in BWS, and implies the opposite!

BTW: My assessment of Byzantine science was a little higher than Lindberg's overall. But I was using his book for the current fact finding session with you (so there would be little question of authoritative sources). He stated the Byzantines had "little" science. He immediately leads into Philoponus following this assessment.

Now, I would think it possible Philoponus had "some" science, but it would OVERALL be characterized along the lines of thought experiments -- instead of observation and experiments (which is necessary to be labeled scientific--like the early Islamic tradition.)

Actually Lindberg possibly overstates some of this some, and there was probably a little science in Philoponus' work. Truly he was a genius -- the issue is how much was along the "scientific" tradition.

Sorry, if you want to start using names, I think I can make a better case YOU are acting more like the fundie. (Last I checked a fundie is one who appeals to authorities to claim everyone should think like them. Ahem)

Can we just stick to logic, Bede. If you start headbanging – how can I ask everyone else to refrain from doing the same on this post???

First, I do not rely on authorities except for my facts. Especially when you find some writing I do not have access to and you write sparingly of a line here or there.

I think I mentioned this somewhere, I was first interested in corresponding with you to exchange notes on our facts by authorities, as a double check for myself.

Now regarding the “handmaiden philosophy”

But Lindberg is not consistent on the handmaiden issue. And let’ me test you: Is it ok for science to be a handmaiden to Islam? To Marxism?

Lindberg assumes since it is impossible for science to be 100% independent, that DEGREES of independence are IRRELEVENT. I think the degrees of independence are VERY relevant. [BTW: I have seen this same argument also applied to state we can call no other culture/individual more scientific than another. This is because, you see, no one is "perfect" -- and their premise is that there just isn't any shades of gray (!)


And by the way Bede. You stay so INCONSISTENT! To apply your own standards, is it not “rude” of you to (to use your term again) to insist that science could not have developed in Islamic culture, since this is diametrically opposed to anything Lindberg says on the subject in BWS???????? Last I recall, you were going to “think about it.”.

I really tire of the “it is ok for me to do it, but if anyone else does it they are an infidel” attitude:

But unlike you: I don’t bang my head over it—nor do I work up into a fury denouncing everyone who does not believe exactly like me as a HERETIC or a Fundie.

Instead, during this time of the year, I just wish them (if they happen to be Christian) a Merry Christmas…and for everyone else, a Happy New Year!

Life’s short. Let’s party some too!!!
(Although I won't be getting drunk. I've never cared to try.)

Sojourner

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Summary:
I rely on authorities for my facts. I review how authorities interpret these facts, testing them by applying this "interpretations" consistently across more than one area.

David Lindberg is a highly respected authority in medieval history/science. But no one – is above having their INTERPRETATIONS of their facts tested by applying CONSISTENT STANDARDS across more than one culture/time period!

Let’s see how Lindberg’s interpretations are consistently applied across two separate cultures that experienced a decline in the sciences:

I. early Western Christian medieval times ( 500-1100 AD) approx. SIX hundred years+

II. early Islamic culture (1200 AD to present?) approx. EIGHT hundred years

I. Early Western Christian Medieval Period (500-1100 AD)
Lindberg’s facts show that:

(1) The early Western Christian Roman empire inherited a rich Greco-Roman culture which had an impressive (although minority) scientific tradition.

(2) During 500-1100 AD, the scientific tradition -- and with it the outlook for looking for NATURAL instead of SUPERNATURAL causes was largely abandoned in the West.
Also: the Catholic Church was NOT passive in this transition of transforming natural history into the handmaiden of theology.” ( p 161)

Comments:

(1) Lindberg does not care to speculate “why” Christian authorities from this time period (500-1100 AD) were determined to “subordinate” natural history/science to theology. He states at one point that it is not his role to judge, but to “understand”.

(2) As a consequence of (1) Lindberg does not “judge” whether it was ‘good’ or ‘bad’ that natural history/science was subordinated to theology. He seems to imply this was would just naturally happen.

(3) At one point, Lindberg questions whether it was IMPORTANT that there is a decline in science during medieval Christianity (500-1100 AD). After all, there was SERIOUS SCHOLARSHIP activity in theology during this time.

His point though is that if one defines scholarly as "religious or ecclesiastical", then there was indeed a great deal of scholarly activity associated with medieval times. The implication is that maybe "serious scholarship" does not have to include the sciences.

(4) Indeed all of Lindberg’s conclusions/analysis commingle LATER scientific advances after Greco-Roman knowledge was re-introduced into Europe via the Arabs AFTER 1100 AD. This has the impact of mitigating (softening) any appearance of a decline in science. Ie as if, since this wasn’t PERMAMENT in the long run, maybe SIX hundred years really wasn’t so important.

(5) Lindberg expands his commentary on one subset of science – medicine to emphasizes how since the medical tradition was rarely COMPLETELY abandoned (ie, it was merely subjugated to a handmaiden role under a general Christian supernatural framework,) he interprets this to mean as follows:

Lindberg’s point is that one cannot label the Church as being COMPLETELY antagonistic towards all sciences (here medicine) since there was some role for secular medicine. (He is careful to note that on the flip side, one cannot view the Church as friendly to the sciences during this time period either).
Bede interprets all this (and I would guess he has much company here) that the Church is merely “neutral” towards the sciences during this period.

BUT AS A TRUE TEST, LET’S APPLY THESE SAME STANDARDS TO ISLAMIC SCIENCE, using Lindberg’s own facts and interpretations!!!

II. Islamic culture (1200 to roughly the present)

1. BEFORE: Islamic culture began with a burst of activity that Lindberg praises as scientific:
Lindberg states EARLY Islam accommodated the Greco-Roman tradition: "The Greek medical literature served as a foundation on which a SOPHISTICATED ISLAMIC MEDICAL TRADITION WOULD BE BUILT"… "Medicine in Islam was a DYNAMIC, rather than a static, enterprise." "…particularly prominent was a series of COMPREHENSIVE, ENCYCLOPEDIC works that surveyed large segments, or even the whole, of medical theory and practice."

2. AFTER 1200: there was a major decline in Islamic sciences.
TESTS FOR CONSISTENCY (SEE POINTS BELOW):

Point 1: Lindberg no longer feels it necessary to just observe and not pass judgment. This is implied to be negative. And (unlike with early Christian medieval culture) Lindberg speculates on what he sees as very probably causes to the ISLAMIC decline in the sciences:

Point 2: Lindberg does not tell us directly whether he deems the Western Catholic authorities to be similarly “conservative” prior to 1100 AD. Nor does the scope of his writings attempt to cover this with any historical data (that could even indirectly appear “critical” as opposed to “understanding”)

Point 3: Lindberg has no equivalent apology why it would be “acceptable” for Islamic conservative authorities to subordinate science to a handmaiden role to theology. Could not their THEOLOGICAL writings not be considered important scholarly activity??? If we are being too “critical” to judge the absence of science during the early medieval Christian period, should we not also withhold any criticism for the lack of science in the latter Islamic period? Even in modern times … ie to be consistent!

Point 4: Since the later conservative Islamic culture (as with early Christian medieval culture) have typically showed “some” respect for modern secular medicine, should this suffice as evidence that we cannot label later Islamic culture as being anti-science? Again, why should this standard be different from how we “interpret” the early Christian medieval culture’s attitudes towards science?


SUMMARY: THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN HOW LINDBERG INTERPRETS THE DATA: Obviously he is using one standard for interpreting early Christian medieval culture and another standard for later Islamic culture!!!

Now this may not be due to religious bias (I really don’t know): Perhaps this is merely good “politics” on Lindberg’s part: He shows the details to satisfy one group of historians, and “softens” the interpretation to satisfy another group(s). From the success of his books, this may be a brilliant strategy for him.

Still, from the above points, I think I have demonstrated there is more than “a little” bias going on in Lindberg’s interpretations of the facts: Which is why I will continue to use Lindberg for my facts – but NOT his interpretations!

Sojourner

Sojourner553

Lindberg apparently does not to consider it within the scope of his popular book (THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN SCIENCE) to directly judge whether the Catholic Church, prior to 1100 AD, could be viewed as “conservative” and whether this fact played a major role in the resultant decline in science.
I will these missing areas in his post:

Lindberg points to (1) conservative religious authorities and (2) wars as "causes" of the decline in Islamic sciences. But: The same conditions apply to the early Christian medieval period (prior to 1100 AD) :

* Regarding the presence of wars: Virtually all cultures (ancient and modern) have faced the threat of powerful enemies and wars. So what makes the medieval Christian wars “different”?

* If war was the only “cause” in the decline in the sciences, we would expect the effect on culture to be shorter than SIX hundred years!! ( from 500 AD to 1100 AD.)

* Indeed there was no overt attempt by the barbarians to “eradicate” Roman culture.

-- the "barbarians" were primarily Christian (although Arian) and generally respectful of Catholic Church authority (whom they looked up to in the aftermath of their wars). During the next centuries, they easily converted to Catholicism.
-- That is why we see RELIGIOUS scholarship and knowledge left virtually intact during the entire medieval period.
-- Nor was there any specially targeted hatred by the barbarians against “secular” Greco-Roman scholarship (that was not religiously based.)

As I have pointed out earlier:

Conservative religious Orthodox/Catholics:

(1) led internal socio-religious purges beginning in Constantine’s reign (when all other Christian sects were outlawed) and accelerated towards the latter 4th century when pagan and Jewish temples were destroyed by Christian mobs and forcibly converted into churches.

(2) partnered with conservative secular authorities who enacted political changes restricting freedoms of the lower and middle classes (passing laws forcing these become serfs, bound to the land of their masters’ estates.), passing corrupt tax laws, etc.

(3) introduced new doctrines that emphasized the inherent corruptibility and sinfulness of mankind, and their need to submit to authorities to control their lustful passions. St. Augustine’s doctrine of “original sin” taught that all humans are born in a horrible sin, tainted with the stain of the sexual passions of their parents. We see the energies of many Christian intellectuals struggling with their abominable passion of sexual desire and its association with pain and suffering in the world. [Remnants of this exist even today -- for example the Spanish word for pregnant means to be "embarrassed" meaning from the mother’s sexual sin].

Least you acuse me of making this up Bede, let me give you a long quote and full citation:

St Augustine also taught that one should forget the secular world, focusing instead on the everlasting life in heaven. St. Augustine justified the use of beatings (but not torture! for heretics). Still, later Church authoritarians would expand St. Augustine’s arguments to allow outright torture for the new heretics that sought to question Church doctrines after 1100 AD.

You Bede think it is ridiculous that I associate right wing conservative authorities with a decline in the sciences (which I do equate with Dark Ages). But somehow it is not absurd for Lindberg to associate the same (ie “conservative religious authorities”) with the decline in Islamic culture.

You see, I agree wars can spark a decline in the sciences. But is this not because the society allows conservative authorities to rule them during this period – for protection. This means, the wars, ultimately, are not the primary causes of the decline…. Just the catalyst.

Yours,
Sojourner

Bede

Sojourner,

This really is no fun for me, but you are so far off the radar screen I do not see much alternative.

I appreciate you have not read City of God (nor have I) but you should have some idea why it was written. Essentially it proves you have your cause and effect muddled up. Augustine wrote it because as far as most Romans were concerned the world was coming to an end. Rome had fallen to the Goths, the Vandals were sweeping through Spain (Augustine would die in a city under their siege), Britannia was already lost. Under those circumstances it seemed clear that the schemes of man had failed. Augustine did not help bring about this collapse - but he did react to it.

You come from Texas. You may have been to Europe, I don't know but it is a bit rich you telling me that the Dark Ages were not caused by the barbarian invasions that shaped the countries, languages, law and culture of this continent. Rome fell, disappeared, caput. All secular culture was replaced by that of the all conquering barbarian tribes. We are all taught this at school, we see it every time we visit a Roman ruin or watch a local archaeology dig. That is why we speak a derivative of Low German and not Latin, why we have jury trials, why Spain, France and Germany are nations and not part of an Empire (if you exclude the EU!). That is why the economy changed to subsistence, why kings only existed on sufferance of local barons, why science all but disappeared.

These are the facts Sojourner. You telling me that the Dark Ages were caused or prolonged by Christianity is not only wrong, it is as arrogant as if I told the American Civil War was caused by Lincoln's bellicosity. Americans are famous for imposing their prejudices on every situation they see and that, just like Bush, is what you are doing here.

Lindberg clearly differentiates between the Islamic situation and the Dark Ages because the situations are not the same. Islam supported a thriving scientific culture that then disappeared in the same civilisation it arose in. In Western Europe the civilisation itself disappeared to be replaced by a radically different one with no interest in literacy or philosophy. Learning only survived within the church which unsurprisingly concentrated on what mattered to it. It never did anything to control what secular people studied - that they studied nothing was up to them.

I am now fed up. I had hoped for an intelligent conversation with someone receptive to new ideas. But all I get is constant last ditch defences of every refuted position. You scored your point on Augustine and beating but it has gone to your head. As I said before, I have shown you are wrong about so much now that any rational person might start re-examining their preconceptions. Not you. Enjoy your myths, I have a history essay to write.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sojourner553

Sojourner,

Words are cheap. I think the reason you are not having fun is because you cannot answer the issues.


Why would this not be obvious? Many ancient religious cultures had some tradition for an end of the world. (as one example the Greek sibyls)

Many people are convinced the world is coming to an end even today in the US. I probably have more experience than you of this: My grandfather did not want my mother to get a college education after high school he believed the world was about to end. (Luckily I had a strong willed grandmother who stood up to this nonsense.)

Back to Augustine though. Care to explain how the belief in the end of the world ties in with "original sin"?


I did live in one of the largest cities in Texas when I first corresponded with you (with a metropolitan population of around 2 million) I now live and work on the East coast in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the US. Is this important?

If you are implying everyone who lived in Texas is "the same", maybe I should turn this around to ask, ' Is everyone living in the UK the same too?' so you can answer the relevence of this.




But of course. . I remember once visiting the Cathedral at Cantebury and seeing an exhibit there of how Englishmen (during the transition between paganism and Christianity) buried BOTH their pagan artifacts side by side their crosses, in the hopes that one of them would get them to heaven.

I can discuss many other things I have seen in the museums and historical sites. I’m afraid I have not hit the bars and beaches much there. Is this important?



I think if I had just used words with no support, I would not see this type of reaction. I am used to this in business – seeing the worst demonstrations when the other person could not address the real issues and just before they gave up.

But not the religious tradition. If the intent of the wars was to REPLACE all previous Greco-Roman culture, this would have been replaced as well.

This does not parallel with say the Turkish government’s efforts to wipe out Armenians, Hitler’s plan to eradicate Jews, etc.

History often whitewashes religion. They also don’t teach us much about the treatment of Indians in the US. How the Puritans viewed their red skin as a sign they were Satan's followers; how they were following the paradigm of the ancient hebrews wiping out the Canaanites to obtain their land, etc etc.

Of course there is typically a “blending” of cultures

So why do you leave the OTHER side of the ledger blank??— do you mean to tell me there is no Roman law today in Europe, nor Roman customs (including marriage traditions of the white wedding dress & veil) ???

I gave you DETAIL reasons to justify each of my positions. I strongly suspect you merely cannot answer them!

That’s it (sarcasm). I only disagree with you because I am an American. We are “all” alike you know all 280 million of us.

…Look in the mirror… It is “you” who keep demanding one should obey authorities and not think for ourselves.

No. He does not explain at all why the situations are not the same. Did he write you some special chapters? I am using the authoritative source, remember?

on the authority issue: You leave out whether you have considered altering your thesis that science could only have been developed in a Christian-like society--as your authority Lindberg praises the scientific tradition under both the Greeks and the Muslims…. Ahem

Do you suggest all the Romans died? That the Church hierarchy was replaced by barbarians? Clearly this did not happen. Clearly there was some talk of opening secular schools in the West but this was abandoned.

And you ignore how the Church “demanded” (per Lindberg) that science be kept a “handmaiden” of theology… Yours is a gross distortion to say they never did anything to control what secular people studied. When I gave you the references of many of the medieval RELIGIOUS scholars, many of them worried of entanglements with Church politics on their teachings.

You are only fed up because you cannot answer my responses…

Where are YOUR new ideas, by the way….I see an assumption yours are all above reproach.

Isn’t it more like you cannot answer the brunt of my arguments. You are not the first (nor hopefully last) person I have debated with. I have a reputation of being very strong in my work, so your empty boasts really ring shallow.

You are the one with the myths, Bede. As one example, may I remind you how you cannot even tell me whether demons exist or not. Remember???? I line up with the SCIENTIFIC view that all stories on demons are superstition, thank you very much.


When you are ready to have an intellectual discussion, rather than blustering or head banging, I’ll listen.

I really do not get upset when people don’t agree with me… unlike you. Try not to have a stroke in the meantime, really!


Sojourner

Bede

OK Sojourner, I give up. You are welcome to your myths. I have a history masters to get on with and trying to dismantle your whiggishness when even Lindberg has failed (and he has hed enough practice) is a hopeless task. :banghead: As far as I am concerned, I won this argument ages ago, certainly when I found Lindberg being so clear that not even you could misinterprete him. You remind me of the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who could not accept defeat even with all four limbs hacked off.

One point: my refusal to give you an answer about NT demons (largely because I decided it was none of your business) is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Yet you keep bringing it up over and over again. So just for the record, I tend not to believe that reports of exorcisms involve demons and prefer to consider them as early forms of psychological treatment. But as I said, my personal feelings about this are of no pertinance to our discussion.

I am writing about witches at the moment and will eventually post a link to my essay. After my research, I have found that Christian late medieval learned demonology was an essential factor for the mindset that brought about the witch hunts. This was not intolerance but the way that the gradual expulsion of magic from the world (which you would put down to reason) meant that the only source of a witches power had to be the devil. Most scholastics believed only in natural causes and rejected the possibility of nature magic, astrology etc as superstitious and irrational. Only transcendant supernatural power (God and the devil) was accepted. Hence their more scientific worldview of rejecting almost all occult forces led, indirectly, to witchhunts.

In the seventeenth century we find that it is the new philosophers of the Royal Society like More and Glanville arguing for witchcraft while the neo-Platonist magicians and some radical protestants are against it. Odd how these things can turn out and shows how the positivist idea of picking goodies and baddies can explode in your face (as you found with your quotes from John Barrow where Newton was arguing against Cartesians and not scholastics as you thought). But ultimately I find Christianity guilty of inciting diabolical panic and aiding and abetting witch hunters. The rational world view of natural laws that Christianity fostered had some unfortunate side effects on the way.

If anyone is interested in witch trials, Brian Levack's text book "The Witch hunt in Early Modern Europe" is by far the best introduction to the literature and theories.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Peter Kirby

I want to thank Bede and Sojourner for participating in this thead. This is how discussion boards were meant to be used.

best,
Peter Kirby

Sojourner553

To Peter: I would agree with you if you could get Bede back on talking issues, instead of headbanging...



Seems to me, I have allowed you your myths.
This discussion was supposed to be over history…



Here you slip to display your prejudices without even realizing it: Obviously, in YOUR mind, you won the argument BEFORE the discussion began.


You use single sentences, often out of context. I use whole paragraphs – including where yours are buried – and explain what is going on the REST of the page.

You do not respond back WITH LONG QUOTES and their meaning because you cannot.


Words are cheap, Bede. You could not answer my questions.

By the way, did you get the idea of the Monty Python analogy from a recent article by Richard Dawkins with the exact same theme (although he also had a cartoon of it?) And his article was an attack on debating with Creationists.


But you clearly stated THEN you did not know. This is NOT the “same” as silence or that you did not wish to respond. Seems to me you are dishonest here.

Gee, do you think it “worked” very often?

If I initiated this, you would have a point. I responded with this when you were railing that I believe in myths.


My sources state that the majority of scholastics believed in astrology and many witchcraft. Virtually all believed there was SOME power latent in astrology and witchcraft.

You muddy definitions to meet your serve your own purposes. Cartesian dualism had replaced Scholasticism by the time of Newton – and was largely the inheritor of this line of philosophy. Thus to suggest that there were no similarities between the two is a distortion.

Some details for others who might be reading along:

Scholasticism represented a fusion by St Thomas Aquinas of Christian theology with Aristotle -- beginning around 1250 and lasting until around 1640. The goal of Scholasticism was not new knowledge, but the interpretation of the ancient texts, which were considered authoritative, especially Aristotle. Of particular importance to the scholastics was the teleological explanation of phenomena.

Only when Descartes' Cartesian dualism become available in the 1640's was Scholasticism replaced as the main view of the universities. Why? Because much of Cartesian Dualism was merely an “improved” extension of Scholasticism.

For Descartes, there are two substances, unextended thinking substance, and extended unthinking substance. As with Scholasticism, it attempted to look at natural laws without reference to experience. Certain truths about the physical world were thought to be "known" prior to any experience of the world. Unlike Scholasticism, it did not rely on authoritative texts for ALL its truths.

According to Cartesian Dualism, human beings had a soul which in some mystical inexplicable manner interacted with the brain (recognize the Scholasticism present here?) The human body and brain, but not the mind, could be explained mechanistically. Still without emphasis on experience and testing, this did not lead to many useful mechanical explanations (not to mention today we know of other models –chemical is one example that produce useful models.)

Again, as Descartes continued many of the Scholastic concepts (especially in dual realm of the soul) you are muddying definitions to meet your own needs Bede.


Why was this not “necessary” in other societies. Was Hitler also necessary? Do you think it will be “necessary” as a side effect again?

BTW you keep leaving this out on your replies: Since authorities are important for you, you have not explained how Lindberg somehow really agrees with your thesis that science could only have developed in a Christian-like society. Perhaps a new thread when you finish your masters thesis… Don’t forget the quotes (as I see these often differ from your “interpretations”)


Sojourner