Sojourner553

That's right. Applying Hume's quotes, it seems he thought all metaphysics which relies on induction should be considered garbage (tossed out). Science can use induction (since it uses observation, unlike metaphysics, as a test for inputs). But even in science it only improves probabilities as opposed to giving absolute certainties.

Sojourner

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

DID CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN FORCES CAUSE A DECLINE OF SCIENCE IN THE WESTERN ROMAN WORLD FROM THE 5TH - 12TH CENTURY (1100 AD); INDEED WERE THEY THE CAUSE OF THE DARK AGES:


Here is how Lindberg described the effect of what he calls “conservative religious forces” on the decline of Islamic society:

“Sometimes this took the form of outright opposition [to Islamic science]… More often, however, the effect was subtler—not the extinction of scientific activity, but alternation of its character, by the imposition of a very marrow definition of utility. Or to reformulate the point, science became naturalized in Islam—losing its alien quality and finally becoming Islamic science, instead of Greek science practiced on Islamic soil—by accepting a greater restricted hand maiden role. This meant a loss of attention to many problems that had once seemed important.” (p 180)

Prior to 1100 AD, Lindberg has observed the end effect that "there is virtually no science or natural philosophy in early medieval religious and theological works".

Unlike Lindberg (who “chooses” not to criticize) l will here attempt to show the effect of conservative religious authorities was a major cause of the decline of science during the Dark Ages: Overview:

· The Orthodox Church’s intoleration and internal persecutions within Roman society-- conducted first against OTHER Christians, before being expanded to include Jews and pagans--weakened the social structure of Rome so that it was more vulnerable to attack. (As we will see. The dates support the TIMING of this as well)

· Mankind was held out as basically devoid of the ability to better his lot in life in social life and undeserving of freedom and liberty in political life. The Catholic Church discarded earlier Christian traditions stressing individual freedom —in favor of a doctrine that stressed the need for an all-powerful authoritarian body to rule over a weak, sinful society.

· The conservative Orthodox/Catholic authorities displayed disdain and contempt towards the natural sciences and their ability to make any meaningful improvement in this world DURING THIS TIME.

I. Intoleration Policies and Internal Persecutions Weakened Roman Society

Following the collapse of the Roman Empire (beginning with its sack in 415, but not official until 475 AD), pagans (who were in the minority) charged that Christianity had CAUSED the collapse of the Roman empire, and with it, all of Roman civilization. Christians, returned the favor, countering that the Roman empire was already declining by the third century C.E., while it was still under the control of pagans. (The implication was that the SAME thing would have happened under pagan rule!)
Actually, there was, at least SOME truth to what both groups were saying! Pagan Roman emperors, especially around the latter third century C.E., had turned the empire into a military state, which was characterized by intrigue, corruption and violent succession wars. During the reign of Diocletian in 284 C.E., the government of Rome had clearly become an absolute sovereign over the populace. The economy had declined as Italy suffered an unfavorable trade balance, and financed this by letting the currency inflate as opposed to encouraging manufacturing for export.

Neo-Platonism and the mystery religions had encouraged the pessimistic attitude that this life did not really matter--that it was the NEXT life where one should focus one's thoughts and efforts. Although this made for creative spiritual literature, this attitude had much to do with increased ignorance, superstition, and insensitivity towards barbarism so far as THIS life was concerned.

But when the Orthodox Christians came into power, these problems not only continued, but became worse!! Constantine ruled (as had Diocletian) as an absolute autocrat. During his reign and that of his successors, even more laws were imposed to bind the common people ever tighter to the land to become serfs--whose status was hereditary. Beginning with Constantine, Orthodox Christians formed a partnership with the State, and used their position of power, to impose their doctrines on the rest of the population. Conservative Orthodox leaders bragged to Constantine how their doctrines would help make the populace more meek and resigned to their status in life. Persecuting pagans, Jews, and heretical Christians provided scapegoats to the common people to divert attention from the worsening social and political order.

Believers were taught that it was a virtue to be passive against the
injustices they saw around them. As for those segments of the population that resisted- which included all "other" Christians sects that were not Orthodox, Jews, and pagans-these were proclaimed "heretical" and their art and literature destroyed. Attacks on their temples and leaders escalated, almost certainly leading to even MORE internal disruption and demoralization within Roman society.

Council of Nicene

Before the Council of Nicene, Constantine had given complete religious freedom to his subjects, and had even issued an edict forbidding anyone "to compel others" to accept Christianity. (Eusebius, LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, 2.56-60). This religious toleration applied to all his subjects in his empire--including pagans and Jews.

Following the Council of Nicene, Constantine was caught up in the violent battle among Orthodox and Aryan Christians for control. Interestingly, Constantine never swayed from allowing toleration for his Jewish and pagan subjects. However, Orthodox Christian leaders talked him into declaring their other Christian rivals as "heretics"--ordering them to convert to Orthodoxy. (The pagans would not be similarly persecuted until after the death of Constantine).

Thus, the books of the Arians were declared heretical and ordered burned under the following decree by Constantine:

"If any treatise composed by Arius is discovered, let it be consigned
to the flames... in order that no memorial of him whatever be left...
[and] if anyone shall be caught concealing a book by Arius, and does
not instantly bring it out and burn it, the penalty shall be death;
the criminal shall suffer punishment immediately after conviction."

All other Christian sects were also ordered to conform to the new
"catholic" or universal religion:

"Understand now by this present statue, Novatians, Valentinians,
Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrgians... with what
a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous
errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning
...Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in
congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of
all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet... and that
these should be handed over immediately to the catholic church."
(Eusebius, LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, 2, PP 64-5)

This decision at Nicene had deep fundamental implications on the
new direction Christian doctrine was to take IN THE WEST, over the next
centuries. For example, once it was established that Jesus had always been a god, it was determined that Mary should be designated "Mother of God". Mary was even worshipped as the "Ever Virgin".

The decision at Nicene would also formally break all official ties
between Judaism and Christianity. For once the Council of Nicene had
declared that Jesus was the SAME as 'God', all links between Judaism and Christianity would become irreparably destroyed--and those Christian sects which had maintained a "Jewish" outlook towards the Jewish laws and customs were now declared heretical.

By defining Jesus as equal to God--this logically linked Jews as the
"killers of God"! Faithful Christians could now be justified in mounting massive persecutions and pograms against the "God-killing" Jews, from this time onward.

During these persecutions against heretical Christians, no one seriously believed Rome would ever fall a century later. If anything, these was viewed as "strengthening society" by demanding only the true "Christian" religion be worshipped.

In 378 AD, the Roman army under the Christian emperor Valens lost a major battle in Adrianople, Turkey against the Goths. The significance of this battle was that it proved the Christian Roman Empire was not invincible against barbarian invaders.

In looking for causes why God had abandoned them, conservative Christians noted pagans were still allowed to worship within the Roman Empire in their pagan temples.

Harsher Laws against Pagans are Instituted

Although various edicts were issued against the pagans by Constantine's
successors, these were typically not enforced in recognition of the social
upheavals and violence that would result. Thus, although Christians were
favored, and increasing in numbers and power all the time, pagans were
generally tolerated up into the late 380's. (The emperor Theodosius I made
Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 C.E.)

Even by 380 C.E., the Senate in Rome was still largely controlled by the
pagans, although Christians were quickly gaining ground. Worship of the
State's pagan gods had traditionally been associated with the city's
great past. With the general spread of Christianity, there were appeals to
return to paganism. One example of such an appeal can be seen from the
following excerpt in a speech made by a pagan senator to the assembly
sometime around 389-90 C.E. In his speech, he appealed for the general return
to "the religion of our fathers", the cornerstone of Rome's political
greatness, and one of the paths leading towards the divine: "What does it
matter by which wisdom each of us arrives at truth? It is possible that not
only one road leads to so sublime a mystery."

In the late 380's C.E., there was a decided shift in imperial policy AGAINST
NON-Christians. This was largely brought about by the efforts of Ambrose,
bishop of Milan, who viewed Jews and pagans as a "problem" within the Christian
empire.

When Christian arsonists destroyed a Jewish synagogue, the emperor
Theodosius responded--in the interests of civil law and order--by commanding
the Christian community to pay for the damages. St. Ambrose attacked the
emperor's decision from the pulpit-- and wrote to Theodosius:: "Which is more important, the parade of discipline or the cause of religion? The maintenance of civil laws is secondary to religious interest." Theodosius backed down, and in 391 C.E., instituted even harsher laws against heretics.

Destruction of Pagan Temple Sites and Jewish Synagogues

Encouraged by perceived new imperial support during this time, Christian
bishops increasingly began to take the initiative of physically DESTROYING
all pagan Temples. The common view (as expressed by Marcellus, bishop of
Syrian Apamea) was that the systematic destruction of all pagan temples was
the "easiest way to convert" the population. In 386 C.E., Marcellus received
support in the form of soldiers in destroying the pagan temple in his
community. This endeavor, however cost him his life, in the ensuing
riots with pagans.

By the latter part of the 380's and early 390's, there are reports of
Christian monks who roamed the countryside, looting and destroying temples,
and assaulting any person suspected of making a pagan sacrifice. (Libanius,
FOR THE TEMPLES (XXX),8-11). Monasticism attracted not only the pious, but
the lower elements of society as well--misfits, criminals, and uneducated
tough peasants. Dressed in black-robes, they were used by Church councils to
bully hostile delegations to get their own way. They were also capable of
rioting at the bishop's command. The success of the Alexandrian monks led to
the spread of this form of 'religious mob' throughout Eastern Christendom.
(Paul Johnson, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 94)

These religiously violent mobs would be used increasingly in the destruction
of pagan temples and Jewish synagogues. In 391 C.E., the militant bishop in Alexandria led a massed attacked on the Serapeum, or Temple of Serapis in Alexandria. This temple was reputed to have been the largest temple in the world, and was considered one of the most important monuments in the Roman empire, after the Capitol in Rome. (Ammianus, XXII, 16, 12 as cited in A CHRONICLE OF THE LAST PAGANS, Pierre
Chuvin p 67). Heavy police operations had to be called in to handle the
pagan riots that followed the siege of the Serapeum. Its destruction led
many pagan intellectuals to leave Alexandria.

The destruction of the Serapeum was an important symbol of the decline of paganism. For it was apparent that the "gods" never rallied to the side of the pagans during the sieges against the temples. Statues were smashed, and the head of the god Serapis was cut off and paraded down the street in mockery of those who had worshiped there. It also came to light how pagan priests had "tricked" adherents using hollow statues, with hidden openings from which human priests could whisper
oracles or curses. (Ibid, p 98).

After these attacks, Rome and other areas went through one last attempt at
a pagan revival. In 394 C.E., the pagans rallied behind a new western emperor
that had taken over in a bloody coup. But the battle that ensued between the pagan-backed armies and those of Theodosius ended in disaster for the pagans, after an "ill wind" blinded their faces. The defeat was even more humiliating as pagan leaders
had received an oracle assurance of "victory" just prior to the battle. There
was a pronounced shift in Rome towards Christianity after this last ditched
appeal to the "traditional" gods was shown to have failed! Public opinion
deemed the defeat to mean that the Christian God was the true God.

Following the defeat, more edicts were passed that revoked privileges
given to pagan priests. It was after 394 C.E., that the State of Rome was now
unequivocally Christian. The Catholic faith was proclaimed by law, and
heresy was viewed as seriously as treason. There were still a minority of
pagans that clung onto their ancient religions. During this time although pagan sacrifices and prayers were prohibited, there were no outright governmental laws that prohibited paganism. The major discrimination experienced by pagans were
instead SOCIAL in nature--whereby Christian mobs stepped up attacks against
their pagan temples and (educated pagans claimed) harassed them in their daily
living. (Note: Paganism was not directly outlawed until over a century later in
the 530's by the Emperor Justinian.)

However, with the famous Serapeum destroyed, Christians began attacking
other pagan targets as well. During the next decades, the current bishop of
Alexandria--Bishop Cyril--after a violent series of exchanges with the Jews in
the city, was successful in expelling them out of Alexandria, destroying their
synagogues, and confiscating their property. Many Christian contemporaries
were visibly impressed by Cyril's successes--as Jews (though a minority) were a
large and important segment of Alexandrian society--dating back to when the city
was originally built in honor of Alexander the Great. (Pierre Churvin, A
CHRONICLE OF THE LAST PAGANS, p 87.)

Christian leaders tried to accommodate some of the ancient pagan beliefs
within its doctrine, to facilitate the transition from paganism to Christianity.
Greek gods and goddesses were replaced by Christian saints or even the Virgin
Mary herself.

Hypatia

In 415 CE, Hypatia a brilliant woman who was considered one of the leading experts in mathematics and the sciences--and frequently lectured on the works of Plato and Aristotle in Alexandria was murdered in the local Orthodox Church. Although it was never proven Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria was present, the murder took place in his Church. (For his efforts in Christianizing the city, Cyril was later canonized by the Catholic Church as a saint.)

Most remaining pagan scholars, fearing the violence that had erupted,
left the city--by some accounts to Athens. These pagans took many of their
books with them, but many books from the temple libraries appear to have also
been "emptied" by Christians as well.

According to the Christian historian Orosius, who visited Alexandria in the
same year as Hypatia's death – ie 415 C.E.: "There are temples nowadays, which
we have seen, whose book-cases have been emptied by our men. And this is a
matter that admits no doubt. (Mostafa El-Abbadi, The Life and Fate of the
Ancient Library of Alexandria, Part III, ch. 5 "The Fate of the Library and the
Mouseion", 1992, pp. 164-167).

During this time, first pagan, and then Christian authoritarian emperors
ruled in an authoritarian police state atmosphere which restricted more and
more the rights of their citizenry. Social disruptions followed in the late
fourth century, after Christian Orthodox leaders granted Orthodox fanatics
civil powers to conduct internal purges against "heretics" (ie pagans, Jews,
and non-Orthodox Christians). This led to numerous rioting especially in the
cities. Western Christian fathers--such as Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose
had encouraged purges against pagans and Jews in order to "purify" Christian
society. Subsequently, schools and universities that were associated with
secular learning, closed down in the West.

.

The Decline of Secular Learning

The death of Hypatia and the exodus of remaining pagan scholars from
Alexandria became symbolic of a new Age-- an age which would largely eclipse the
old hellenistic civilization in favor of a new world view. However, what became
lost in this process was not the mere collection of knowledge (which other great
cultures such as the Egyptians had done before them)-- but instead the unique
Greek fusion of philosophy with science--their combination of the individual's
drive for human freedom along with an inquiry into the very elements of the
universe itself.

Although pagans had in recent centuries begun stressing mysticism as
opposed to the natural sciences, Orthodox Christians took this one step further--because they not only de-emphasized "natural" scientific causes, but declared them inherently sinful and evil as well. Instead, all natural phenomenon became viewed as
manifestations of the divine--either of God himself or demonic powers.

Contemporaries such as Ammianus Marcellinus (c.330 - 395 C.E.) wrote how
certain people in Rome "hated learning like poison" and that "libraries were
closed for ever like the tomb". (Mostafa El-Abbadi, The Life and Fate of the
Ancient Library of Alexandria, Part III, ch. 5 "The Fate of the Library and the
Mouseion", 1992, pp. 164-167). Concerned, pious individuals chose to withdraw
from society to live in ascetic religious communities--where they could
contemplate their salvation in the NEXT life

During this time, Christian doctrine forged a new alliance--essentially
combining philosophy with theology--ie throwing science completely out of
its doctrinal outlook. Christian education focused on liberal arts (such as
grammar and rhetoric) and textbook summaries of classical philosophy and
literature that conformed to Christian doctrine. (Norman Cantor, CIVILIZATION OF
THE MIDDLE AGES, Harper Perennial, 1992, p. 81)

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

But what about the Barbarians?

Today, historians tend to attribute EXTERNAL causes to the Dark Ages--
specifically the barbarian invasions. According to this picture, vicious onslaughts by barbarian invaders in western Europe, led civilized towns and cities to band together into feudalist communities for protection. Peasants, in exchange for this security, WILLINGLY gave up their individual freedom to the new feudal lords.

But instead, we find that the Roman emperors themselves instituted serfdom prior to serious barbarian invasions. Starting around the second century C.E., large number of slaves on large Roman estates began to be converted into serfs. This feudalization of society grew over time. The emperor Constantine declared that peasants and their children were bound to the land as serfs. High and corrupt taxation laws forced small landowners to sell their land and themselves (and hence their descendents) into serfdom after a bad harvest.

Salvian, a priest of Marseilles, France (c 440 C.E.) wrote passionately regarding how many in the Roman populace were forced into a state of slave-tenants on large feudal estates. According to Salvian, in such a corrupt system, ordinary men would no longer have any loyalty to Roman rule, but would actually prefer to live under the barbarians who treated them better than their Roman leaders (V, 36-7). Thus, instead of standing up to defeat the barbarians, frequently there was no effective resistance given against the invading barbarians. (VI, 80)

For whatever reasons, the barbarians did easily defeat the Roman armies, even though they were fewer in number and had less resources than the Christianized Roman society.

Still, after their arrival (especially in southern Europe), the invaders did NOT seek to IMPOSE their own cultures on the Roman territories they conquered. Instead, many of these barbarian tribes were already Christianized and very respectful of Roman culture. As such, there was more destruction aimed at pagan property, with Churches often spared.

Thus if invading barbarians were the cause of the demise of the Greco-Roman culture, why is it we see that the Orthodox religion and its churches and writings, were virtually unaffected from these barbarian invasions? How is it, that the invading barbarians somehow destroyed only the SECULAR culture of the Roman empire, while the RELIGIOUS culture stayed intact?

Indeed most of the barbarian invaders were Arian Christians: In southern Europe and northern Africa, most of the Germanic invaders
were Christian--although they had been converted into the Arian sect in the fourth century C.E., This included the Ostrogoths in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain and France, and the Vandals in Africa. The Franks, Angles, and Saxons in northern Europe were not converted
until around the sixth century C.E.

My sources state the barbarians had a high respect for Roman culture and Christianity. Indeed, the Orthodox Church wielded enough authority and prestige to easily convert the Arians over the next centuries into Orthodoxy Christians. (The Franks although pagan, were also easily converted into Orthodox Christianity.)

Was it that the threat of violent invaders scared the Romans from studying their classical, secular culture? This seems unlikely. Virtually ALL ancient civilizations have had to face the threats of aggressive neighboring countries ready to overrun and destroy their cultures. Even when faced with an insurmountable enemy--as was the case with the Greeks against the Persians and the Romans, and the Jews against the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans-- the learning and CULTURE of these groups had survived. This was because later generations were interested in preserving this culture-- from father to child--even
in the face of persecutions against them.

As we shall see in the next post, learning and scholarship continued now fully under the leadership of the Orthodox Church (to become the Catholic Church in the West).

So what happened to science?

Sojourner

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Preservation of Religious Classical Texts

Beginning in the sixth century C.E., a few educated Christians, alarmed that
classical knowledge was quickly becoming lost, began the process of preserving
ancient classical works by translating these into Latin onto durable
manuscripts made of parchment. Boethius (d. 524 C.E.) translated works of
Aristotle, although none of these survived. His Neo-Platonic philosophical
book, THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY, was popular throughout the Middle Ages.
Boethius fell out of favor with the Arian barbarian king Theodoric and was
executed, after speaking in support of the Byzantine Orthodox emperor, Justin.

The man who did the most to establish monasteries as institutions of learning
was Cassiodorus, who was then the chief secretary to Theodoric. Cassiodorus
had proposed the creation of the Christian university in Rome, although this
never became a reality. (This was largely due to the war resulting from the '
Byzantine emperor Justin's attempt to retake the West Instead, he set up a Christian monastery in Calabria, whereby great classical works were transcribed into encyclopedic works. The vast majority of these transcriptions were religious writings from the early Church Fathers (such as Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory the Great)-- as opposed to Greek and Latin pagan classic.

This system by Cassiadorus, was later taken up by Bishop Isidore of Seville.
Born from an old Roman family that moved from North Africa to Spain during the
sixth century, Bishop Isidore directed the compilation of a vast array of
classical knowledge, including that which Boethius and Cassiadorus had already
preserved.

Bishop Isadore's works were publicized in 636 C.E., after which time they
became institutionalized by the Catholic church. These then became
the basis for all teaching in the West for the next 800 years.

Although Isadore's work is riddled with fantasies and superstitions, he is
remembered for not confining his writings to the liberal arts - but instead
attempting to survey all of Greco-Roman knowledge, including medicine, botany,
astronomy, and architecture. Isadore's body of knowledge was essentially broken
down into three areas: The first dealt with the seven liberal arts--grammar,
rhetoric, dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. The second
section dealt with medicine, law, and history. The last section dealt with the
Bible and its interpretations, along with Church doctrine and institutions. The
most central areas dealt with God, God's relationship to man, and finally, man's
relationship with State authorities.

During the seventh and eighth centuries, the Isadorean body of writings
were faithfully copied by some of the religious monks. By this time, monks had become the only group which had both the time and resources to transcribe these works. (As each book had to be copied by hand, a first class Bible could take a group of monks an entire year to copy.)

These monks acted primarily as transmitters of the Graeco-Roman classical
knowledge. Their purpose was to preserve, as much as possible, the Christian
works from an earlier civilization, which had already receded into obscurity.
Most monks focused their attention on the quality of their translations and
in compiling their histories and commentaries within a strict Judaic-Christian
framework. The vast majority (possibly as high as 99% of the total output by
some estimates) of manuscripts during the early medieval period was devoted
to purely Christian Orthodox writings--such as the Bible itself, the writings
of early Christian fathers, histories on the saints, liturgical and bishopric
writings, and hymnals. The remaining estimated 1% was then dedicated towards
secular classical topics. (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 157)

How the Bible was Looked Upon as the Source for All Learning

Although secular centers of learning perished in the West, the churches formed
their own Latin-Christian centers for establishing laws, history, and of course
matters of theology. Still, these monastic and episcopal schools were not
universities, and the curriculum stressed religious introspection and obedience-
- as opposed to intellectual speculation and growth. Consequently, all history
and all learning became interpreted in terms of unquestioned Christian
"orthodox" doctrine, as set down by church fathers such as St. Augustine and St.
Jerome.

Sermons and miraculous stories on the lives of saints became standard
textbooks for the students. For example, Pope Gregory the Great's book on the
lives of the saints (DIALOGUES, 6th century C.E.) was very popular. One story
told how a religious youth named Honoratus invoked the name of Jesus and made
the sign of the cross--which miraculously halted a large boulder that was
rolling down a mountain towards his monastery. In another story, a monk named
Placidus fell into a lake, but was saved when another monk named Maurus walked
on water and pulled him out by his hair. And in other story, a nun ate lettuce
without crossing herself, and subsequently swallowed a demon who possessed her.
She was saved after an abbot exorcised the demon from her.

During this time, theology completely replaced science as the method for
explaining the natural world! People looked to the Bible not only for guidance
in moral and religious affairs, but also for direction in the sciences--
medicine, geography, and astronomy.

As one example, there was a work by an anonymous Christian author entitled
the PHYSIOLOGUS. Purporting to be a treatise on natural history, it instead
was a mystical excursion demonstrating Christian "truths". In it was the
fable of the unicorn, whose great strength saved it from capture, but who
would calmly sit down next to the "true" virgin. It was said that all cub
lions were actually born dead to their mother. Three days later, the father
lion roars in their face--resurrecting it to life just as Christ was resurrected
on the third day.

As another example, a popular sixth century work the TOPOGRAPHICA CHRISTIANA
used biblical passages as its basis for studying and understanding the earth,
sky and weather. Following are some of the "truths" discovered in this work:

* The verse in Job 37:18: "Were you with him when he spread out the great
sky, helping him hold it up?"--was taken to mean that the earth was a flat
rectangular box. (The author appeared to have envisioned the continents
fitting inside a gigantic box whose walls contained the waters from the
large seas and oceans.)

* It was generally held that there was an upper level above the earth that
held an enormous tank of water. (Support for this was seen in Genesis 1:7:
"God made the firmament and divided the waters that were under the firmament
from the waters that were above the firmament" and Psalms 148:4: "Praise
him, heaven of heavens and waters that are above the heavens" )

As angels were believed to move the stars and planets, the author (quoting
from Psalm 104:13 "He waters the hills from his chambers") also saw evidence
from this verse that the angels created rain by opening the plugs in these
heavenly tanks of water from time to time.

St. Augustine had of course also used the Bible to discover "truths"
regarding the nature of the world. For example, when referring to Ptolemy's
reference to a possible fourth continent on the opposite side of the earth
(ie, the antipodes), Augustine declared that

"It would be ridiculous to suggest that some men might have sailed
from our side of the Earth to the other, arriving there after crossing
the vast expanse of ocean."

Augustine was relying on the Old Testament for his analysis--which told how
after Noah's Ark had survived the great Flood, that God had divided the world
among three races--corresponding to each of Noah's sons-- Shem, Ham, and
Japtheth. Clearly, (Augustine reasoned), it followed that there could ONLY
be three inhabited continents of the world (ie Europe, Asia and Africa),
based on this passage--as opposed to a new continent on the opposite end of
Europe.

Legacy of St. Augustine's Model of "Original" Sin

There was the general feeling during the Middle Ages that mankind had
acquired the maximum limit of all possible human knowledge during Roman
classical times--but had lost much of this. All important Christian
doctrines were believed to have already been set down by the great,
classical Christian geniuses, such as Augustine and Jerome. Most medieval
scholars therefore spent their efforts in RE-INTERPRETING past Christian
doctrine and issues, as opposed to reaching out into new, creative areas.
Indeed, this attitude for learning NEW knowledge was held out as futile--
as most medieval scholars believed that God had set limits as to how much
man "COULD" know. In addition, it was believed that even the DESIRE to
transcend these limits could lead one to sin--as demonstrated by the MODEL
of Adam sinning by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil!

We thus see the legacy of St. Augustine's theology on the mindsets of
medieval men during these centuries! According to the new paradigm, ALL
suffering and injustice in life was interpreted as "just" punishment from God
for Adam's "Original Sin." The human race was perceived as helpless children.
(Augustine had used the analogy of a "suckling baby"). Mankind was thus
hopelessly dependant on the grace of God, and could never hope to achieve
anything of importance on his own. It followed, that a strong, all-powerful
authority was needed to police the children to protect them from themselves.
Mankind was hopelessly wretched in sin. In this state, there could be no
individual freedom or inquiry. Mankind did not really deserve to be able to
improve his own miserable lot in life. It was by God's grace that He allowed
"some" men to achieve salvation.

All-powerful authorities (as later embodied by Church officials), were
deemed to be divinely designated by Heaven to perform their duties.
Augustine summed up his doctrine with the following lines:

"The ancient world and the Fathers have spoken: the debate is over!"

The message for mankind was clear: Obey and don't ask questions!

I expect to be hearing from Bede… Really wish I didn’t have to wait a couple of days to see it, Bede!

Sojourner



PS. Anyone wanting to read this and more may find it at this site.

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

Section V.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Now I see where you are headed here.

Bede

Sojourner,

Sorry, this is too long. I have a job and a degree to do and so you just copying and pasting your website here and calling it a discussion will not do. Please could you summarise your position, maybe giving the key strands of evidence that we can talk about. A good deal of what you write (feudalism, reciting the stuff on Boethius and Cassiodorus etc) is just the standard 18th century recitation of late antiquity which could have come straight out of Gibbon. If I wrote the same way about the period 100BC to 100AD it would seem pretty unpleasant too but this was the Golden and Silver Age of Latin literature.

You are trying to show how current historians are wrong to show that the Dark Ages were down to barbarian invasions and that you know better. To do this you have to explain why the Dark Ages did not occur in the Greek East without reference to the fact that the Roman Empire survived there and fell in the West. All that stuff on Christianity applies equally to the East and West so does nothing to explain why the Dark Ages only happened in the areas subject to barbarian takeover where the old Empire ceased to exist.

A quick example: you give us loads on Alexandria - a city in North Africa (ie nowhere near Western Europe) which continued to be a centre of scholarship until the Persian invasions in the 7th century. I think you are trying to show how Christianity put a stop to scholarship there and use this as an example of how Christians do that sort of thing. Trouble is, it is not true that scholarship (secular or otherwise) ended, or even slowed down after Christianity. As Richard Carrier said on these boards:

"we have numerous references to scholastic activity in Alexandria up to the end of the 6th century, but after the 7th never again is there any reference to any school or scholarship there. In the 6th century, almost all doctors trained in Alexandria."

I might add that John Philoponus, a true giant of Natural Philosophy, was head of the Alexandrian school in the sixth century (incidently, he was also a Christian!). So, we find that in Alexandria, Christianity did not lead to a decline in secular learning. Incidently, their had been civil unrest, riots, rebellions and every manner of tumult in Alex long before Christians were part of it. In 273AD almost the whole city was destroyed in a massive sedation. You seem to imply that the place was a haven of academic tranquility until those nasty monks arrived, a good example of how you can give a false impression by omitting facts as well as including them.

So, keep it short and compact. We are supposed to be debating - not writing books to each other.

Yours

Bede

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

Vorkosigan

... Christians were part of it. In 273AD almost the whole city was destroyed in a massive sedation

sedition? Although the thought of a whole city destroyed by chemically-induced torpor...

Very good discussion, on both sides, am following with great interest and learning much.

Vorkosigan

brighid

I am not going to add anything to the actual discussion here because I simply do not have the knowledge of the other participants. I have been reading with great interest.

What I wanted to add is in relation to Bede’s declaration that cutting and pasting from a pre-existing site of Sojourners own making is not an adequate method of rebuttal or debate. If Sojourner has already done the work on this subject and has made an argument for this but houses that research on another site I see absolutely no reason why his previous work is not valid and or proper in defense of his argument, simply because he cut and paste it here. How are his arguments less valid because he didn't just come up with these conclusions? That seems rather silly and unless the research can be proven to be faulty and the conclusions fallacious I don’t see why it shouldn’t be addressed respectfully and properly.

Brighid

Bede

Brighid,

My complaint is simply practical because I cannot deal with huge amounts of writing, especially when quite a lot of it is not relevant to the discussion. A full rebuttal to Sojourner's website would require a whole book. So I would like to see Sojourner distil her work into something more appropriate for a discussion forum where brevity and succintness are virtues. Otherwise I could just post huge chunks of my website in reply and that would get us nowhere...

If you go to a lecture and the speaker just reads out their book, I don't expect you would be happy (although some speakers do this!).

And Sojourner is a she not a he.

Yours

Bede

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

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

Bede

A couple of quick rebuttals to some of Sojouner's points as I have now had a chance to read through. I would still like her to condense it all a bit, though.

She says "Contemporaries such as Ammianus Marcellinus (c.330 - 395 C.E.) wrote how
certain people in Rome 'hated learning like poison' and that 'libraries were
closed for ever like the tomb'."

It is not 'contemporaries like AM', but AM himself - don't run away with the idea he represents anyone's views but his own (although . The passage is question comes from 14:6 of his history and is quite famous. Here is a <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ammianus-history14.html" target="_blank">short extract</a>:

Rome at the time was till in large part pagan and earlier on, AM complains about how they worship statues (AM was a pagan too, but thought himself a bit above that sort of thing). These are not Christians he is complaining about. OK, some of them might be, but his complaints have nothing to do with Christianity at all. Sojourner implies strongly that the hatred of learning and the shutting of libraries was because they had all become religious fanatics. In fact, AM is complaining that had all become party animals. Indeed, this does look like a case of sedation rather than sedition.

Later on, Sojourner states:

"Thus if invading barbarians were the cause of the demise of the Greco-Roman culture, why is it we see that the Orthodox religion and its churches and writings, were virtually unaffected from these barbarian invasions? How is it, that the invading barbarians somehow destroyed only the SECULAR culture of the Roman empire, while the RELIGIOUS culture stayed intact?"

I am confused by this statement. What happened was that the barbarians had their own 'secular' culture which they retained but also gradually converted to Christianity, thus taking on board Roman religious culture. The idea that they had 'respect' for Rome sits oddly with their refusal to live in Roman cities that largely went to ruin, the break down of the roads and communication systems, the refusal to recognise central administration and the substitution of Roman with tribal law. Christianity cannot be blamed for any of these things - Sojourner correctly states that the church had wedded itself to the Roman state and now she was widow. If she could have preserved the Empire in the West, she would have done so.

She complains: "The vast majority (possibly as high as 99% of the total output by
some estimates) of manuscripts during the early medieval period was devoted
to purely Christian Orthodox writings--such as the Bible itself, the writings
of early Christian fathers, histories on the saints, liturgical and bishopric
writings, and hymnals."

Church preserves it own writings! The horror. Surely it should have stopped trying to be a religion and turned into some sort of general knowledge database on the off-chance that in a few hundred years things will have sufficiently improved so that people were interested in it again. It is not the job of the church to preserve what Sojourner thinks it ought to have. We should instead be very grateful that they did preserve the one million words of pagan Latin that they did. This is surely an odd thing to do if they were as anti intellectual as Sojourner makes out. These monks had a day job and to criticise them for doing it seems to me most unfair.

Enough for now. I will hopefully manage a short post on Newton v Descartes during the weekend.

Yours

Bede

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

edited a few times to get links/refs right.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>