Sojourner553

THIS THREAD IS MEANT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE AN INTELLECTUAL INTEREST IN THE TOPIC.

Therefore I ask those who have nothing to contribute (exs: initiating "Troll" name calling, labelling all Christians as evil, etc) to refrain from this post and start your own if need be.

Thank you!
Sojourner

********************************************


Of course. But he goes through a series of circular logic to ask if there was a continuity of science: One has to dig out the answers burried within his Summaries -- where you find the relevent points only after a LONG list of qualifications (to ensure I suppose he could not be technically accused of inaccuracies).

Lindberg asks the question just because the medieval ages were not scientific, can we really argue these times were ignorant because afterall everyone agrees there was scholarship (albeit religious scholarship).

See how he reframes the question? Of course one can define the issue anyone one wants to. But we were supposed to be asking if they were pro-science -- ANOTHER TOPIC.


But I have shown proofs the Church was the cause. Maybe I should make this a new post.
I see it in summary as --

* the Church's attitude that looking beyond authorities was a potential sin against God.
*the monopoly of the Church on sources of knowledge
*the Church's partnership with secular authorities to stamp out all heresy (which defined religious heresy as opposed to their doctrines. Science was included in the "heresy").

There can be no other cause for the Dark Ages for it to have lasted so long because the Church did set the tone on the attitude towards knowledge and the sciences in particular.

* When you gave me your list of medieval scientists. I meticulously went through the list and summarized their accomplishments (many of which I took from Catholic religious site -- just so there could be no claim of bias).

What the trend showed were that most of these individuals were really religious scholars or historians (ie not scientists). Many of these individuals feared charges of heresy by Church/secular authorities.

I stated general scholarship and history did not equate to "science" and challenged you to find me a definition that proved it was. I gave some ancient Greek scientists and their accomplishments as a point of reference.

You obviously found this as an example of a question not "worth" your time to respond to...

Now there were a few exceptions (which I agreed to immediately) of good science minded MEDIEVAL Christians. Sylvester was probably my favorite. But he was appointed (ie did not come up through the Church ranks) and historians note: (1) his views were considered eccentric, (2)that he did not fit in with the mainstream nor (3) did his views continue after him.

Roger Bacon is another great example. What I see in the history was that his questioning (which someone this bright would probably question Church dogma in addition to forging ahead in the sciences) made him very unpopular with Church authorities--indeed he faced some imprisonment (probably for the former).

This one, no doubt, needs its own post to go into the details.




Here is why: Medieval authorities did not view diseases as having NATURAL causes!!! Without changing this attitude there could be no real progress in the science of medicine.

So sorry to hear you too are not sure you believe in demons... I hope you admit this is not a SCIENTIFIC view?#


I for one -- rely on experts for my FACTS -- but not necessarily for my ANALYSES!!!

As an analogy: As a business analyst, I often have had a project where I quickly have to talk to experts in a certain field. While they are wonderful sources for facts, often I disagree with them how they analyze/integrate their area into the big strategic picture.

The same applies here: Now to be consistent Bede, if I show you an expert that is more knowledgeable (with facts) in an area than you are -- are you allowed to disagree with his/her overall analysis--even if you can pinpoint the reasons why you disagree????

I think the double standard becomes apparent. The real issue it is YOU who don't like people disagreeing with you. I have always tried to give you a reason why I hold a position. If I don't keep repeating back -- it is only because we hit so many topics at once. I can and will do so if pressed to justify any one part of my position.


More important: You do not see me hurling out insults that you are basically an idiot (devoid of critical thought) because you do not agree with me. This is because it is YOU with the biases!


Actually this is your best point because there is so much grey area here. As I recall I agreed this could be a parody -- or exaggeration of a story possibly Francis Bacon had heard. [And by the way -- I had gone back and restated this as having a good probability of being a parody shortly after researching it in more detail].

But again, this IS a grey area: We all know that there was no equivalent of local newspapers during this time, so it is really impossible to verify much of this type of thing. Unlike you, I have a tremdous respect for Francis Bacon's impact on the philosophy of science (blazing the pathway that led to the scientific method -- and a real cause of it -- not the Church). You seem to think it was more relevent he had admitted to some bribary charges early in his career. I see it as Form over Substance (sort of like saying the entire Catholic Church is invalid because some priests had improper relationship with the flocks.) Anyway, I also found it odd he would put a date on it, if he did not think it originated with some historicity to it. But I agree these qualifications should be mentioned with the story.
(I thought I mentioned this at the time...)

I think you are saying, I MUST agree that all of it is false. Why? To me, a parody often means is contains a kernal of truth -- that is exaggerated.


These were indeed exceptional men who forged the path for modern science. They were Christian (Now, I have NEVER argued that Christians cannot make good scientists, have I? It seems to me you are shifting the subject over to this ground.)

The issue is: were their doctrines viewed favorably by the Church -- or do we see them concerned their "scientific" outlooks might be viewed as heretical.

In the past, you seem to fall back on the apology that ANY view that questioned Church religious dogma was justifiably branded as heretical. I keep emphasizing that early science would impede on Church dogma and therefore an individual who had any proclivity towards the sciences would have a high probability of Church entanglements. (Indeed, as mentioned earlier, a good number of the individuals on your scholarly Christian list feared their writings could be viewed as heresy by the Church.)



Do you think this is the only board I have been on: Been there. Done that. I could share with you some of my posts on About.Com. One individual stated he was the individual to whom the Dr. Laura letter was written (You saw this, I assume: I have seen it many times including FUNNY TIMES.)


I've also had my share of abuse here on his board from stating that there is nothing in Christianity that prevents one from being a great scientist. If I were truly biased, I would think this would be my attitude.

Have you really looked seriously if you are the one with the bias? Seems to me, you are the one with the site to defend (not the part that Christianity should not be opposed to the sciences though -- that part is great!)


Yours

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

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

Bede

Sojourner,

First off, Lindberg is the leading working historian of medieval science in the world today and he does not say the medieval church was anti-science. That means you are arguing not against me but against the leading professional. Further, you are reading into matters that Lindberg clearly considers unrepresentative and unimportant more than they can carry because they confirm your prejudices. You ignore 99% of his work to focus in on only that which you want to hear.

You are right that the church long had a monopoly on learning but this was not the church’s fault – it saved learning from the collapse of the Roman Empire when the tribes that replaced it had no interest. While Anglo Saxon chieftains were insisting that all a man needed was a sword and a good woman, the church insisted there was more to life than that. Read Beowulf and you will get a good impression of the priorities of the barbarians. They caused the Dark Ages with their oral culture, nomadic life style and abandonment of Roman civilisation. The church was what kept learning alive in that time when the only ‘science’ the lords cared about was how to make a better sword. Note, that I am not judging the barbarians or saying their ideas of what is good in life are better or worse than ours, merely pointing out you are totally wrong to blame Europe’s adoption of their culture on the church which was the sole survival from Rome. As Lindberg says the contribution of religious culture was on of preservation and transmission in this period – without it Western Europe would not have had more science, but less.

This only changed when Charlemagne and other leaders like Alfred the Great decided that the best way to glorify their realms was by learning. Charlemagne got the Pope to crown him Emperor and what better way to recreate the Roman Empire than to build a Byzantine Church on the Rhine and promote Latin. The church had no problem with his setting up a secular school and a Carolingian Renaissance of sorts began.

We must consider what the church was for and what it was doing. It’s business is and always has been salvation. It is not a scientific think tank. In its own field of theology, secular science took second place as you would expect. To blame the church for being too interested in God is as stupid as to blame a plumber for not devoting enough time to nuclear physics. While many Church fathers made the point that Christianity came first, nearly all, including Augustine, were quite happy to allow secular learning in its place. This is not being anti-science it is being neutral.

Heresy had nothing to do with science until Galileo so that point is irrelevant. While you seem to believe only free societies produce science, we have seen how 18th century France disproves that. If you stayed away from theology and politics, you had near total intellectual freedom in the Middle Ages and probably would have done in the Dark Ages had their been any secular intellectual culture to speak of. So you could do science without fear of interference and a great many did.

The medieval thinkers I mentioned were nearly all important steps on the road to modern science and they never had problems with the church due to their scientific thought. The Greeks were every bit as speculative and although you like to pick winners and are habitually biased towards ancient Greeks, you must admit – MODERN SCIENCE NEVER AROSE IN GREECE AND THE WAY THEY WERE GOING NEVER WOULD HAVE DONE. On the other hand, Christian Europe, uniquely in the world, did develop science. While you can claim this was not due to Christianity, if the church was anti science, science would not have happened in an overwhelmingly Christian society where everyone was brought up and educated in its beliefs.

You say Sylvester was an exceptional oddball outsider – BUT HE WAS ELECTED POPE!!!!! How could he possibly have been closer to the church than actually appointed head of it? He alone screws your system up. If the Pope is the leading scientifically minded person of his day how can any sane person say the church was anti-science. And what about Robert Grossteste, Isodore of Seville, Bede (two saints and bishop)? Are these people not scientific enough for you? Bacon was not persecuted for scientific beliefs. Yes, I know you want to imply he was but this is twisting facts to suit your beliefs. A scientific outlook was NOT deeming heretical by the church and natural science was the cornerstone of medieval university education.

You are wrong about medieval authorities not believing disease had natural causes. As Lindberg writes (a statement of fact, not analysis) “the vast majority of Christian leaders looked favourably on the Greco-Roman medical tradition … the use of which was legitimate and perhaps even obligatory.” I thought you had read this book or did you only read the bits you agree with? I note you do quote bits that agree with your thesis out of context without making it clear that the author would disagree completely with your work. You also write: “The medieval practice of bleeding had its origins from Christian monks who, sworn to celibacy, were greatly concerned how to SUPPRESS their sexual urges.” This, as you know is untrue – bleeding started with Hippocrates, who you praise as a great scientist, and then try to pass off his mistakes as being Christian.

On Francis Bacon, for some one who goes on about the need for proof, your standards have become a bit lax here. Bacon wants his ideas to appear and original so he denigrates his predecessors. You have clearly bought his line hook and singer. This is what I mean by your not thinking critically – you cannot prove his story but think it must have some truth as it agrees with his propaganda you have bought into.

Enough to be getting on with. I expect you will claim again I have ignored your best points – if so, then do please let me know.

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Sigh:

You oversimplify. The reason Lindberg is respected as a resource is because the DETAILS are all there. That is not the issue. I have said this many times.


Here are some examples of the details:

To paraphrase (p 320) he states a philosophical tension did emerge between viewing diseases as having a NATURAL vs SUPERNATURAL cause. Most people (including
literate people) were not philosophically inclined, and therefore did not “noticed the tension”; and (3) that “for those who did, there were various ways of easing or resolving the tension.”

“ The sources of tension are obvious enough. As medieval Christianity matured, it became common for sermons and religious literature to teach that sickness is a divine visitation, intended as punishment for sin or a stimulus to spiritual growth. The cure, in either case, would seem to be spiritual rather than physical. Moreover, within medieval Christianity there developed a widespread tradition of miraculous cures, associated especially with the cult of saints and relics. And to complete the picture, we have the concrete evidence of religious leaders denouncing secular medicine for its inability to produce results.” (Ibid)

He did state later that a disease or event could be viewed as having BOTH natural and supernatural origins. Some Christians felt (such as Clairvaux lectured a group of monks in the 12th century that it was not proper to get medical help from doctors. But the vast majority saw divine providence (ie God) working a miracle through the doctor, making it legitimate.

He declines to discuss whether a disease could be viewed as having ONLY a nature cause – which was the Hippocratic tradition and is the scientific tradition today.

Per Lindberg. the church should be seen “as a powerful cultural force that INTERACTED with the secular medical tradition appropriating and transforming it.”

Again he declines to judge this. In his words he says it is "simplistic" to brand the church as a force for either “good or ill” in medicine (p 323).

He goes on to praise the translation of Greek medical works into Arabic: When this was completed, “The magnitude of the gap between Islamic and Western access to this Greek medical literature can be illustrative by reference to the Galenic corpus: only two or three of Galen’s works were available in Latin before the eleventh century” whereas 129 Galenic were known to exist in Baghdad. (Ibid). This Greek medical literature “served as a foundation on which a sophisticated Islamic medical tradition would be built.”


Here he greatly praises the Arabs interest in medicine. He also accurately lists the problems with early medieval society’s attitudes towards NATURAL causes of medicines .

Still, he chooses not to be critical of medieval Europe even during this time. They were solving different problems (ie religious ones.) At another time, he indicates it was expected that it would take time after Aristotle was introduced in medieval Europe for it to be reconciled to Christian dogma, etc, etc.

In this way, Lindberg is trying to gently reconcile science and religion. When he talks on the subject, he sticks primarily with the later medieval period.

“During the early middle ages, Europe had a limited intellectual life and possessed only a thin and fragmentary version of ancient philosophy. From these primitive beginnings, medieval Europeans managed, by the end of the fourteenth century, to create an advanced philosophical culture.” P 364.

Again, OUR SCOPE IS THE EARLY MEDIEVAL PERIOD.

I would argue that it was the attitudes and actions of the Church that contributed to the “limited intellectual life” during this time. Lindberg doesn't care to connect any dots here.

He stays, basically apolitical. Even in the latter medieval period, Lindberg does not even have an entry for INQUISITION in his index.

(to be continued -- to bust up the topic areas for readability).

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

You said "Even in the latter medieval period, Lindberg does not even have an entry for INQUISITION in his index." That made me laugh. Given that the Inquisition has nothing whatsoever to do with science or medicine in the period Lindbarg covers, why are you surprised? Do all books have to mention the Inquisition even if they are on unrelated subjects? Remember Lindberg is the expert, if he thought it important he would have mentioned it.

Let's define EARLY as pre-1200. That means before the Arab translations really kicked in.

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Since Lindberg is a KEY authority for you Bede, to be consistent, you need to have the same views as he has (that is, if you insist I must have all the same views too.)

In this post, I want to explore in detail Lindberg’s attitudes on of Islam with the sciences.

Unlike you, he sings great praise for Greek science, and also finds Islam made many new original contributions to the sciences (a good definition of science by the way -- always striving to improve.)

I quote:


It is even more interesting to note the causes Lindberg attributes to the decline of Islamic Science:


Why do I mention this?

(1) Remember your thesis that the sciences could only have developed within a “Christian-like” religion. (Other writings of yours have indicated you do not view Islam as a valid candidate – even liberal/moderate Islam that did force the integration of Greek science into conservative Islam.

Care to reconcile this for us. (This counts as a “big” question, thank you.)


(2) Note the references to the “cause” of the decline of Islamic science resulted from a forced integration of the Greek sciences into Islam due to the increase in power of “religious conservative forces.”

(Note: He does have peace listed too. I will have a later post to address this: why over roughly 800-1000 – this should not have been the real cause of the Dark Ages.

To me, I would have liked to see Lindberg answer why these same forces were not present DURING THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MEDIEVAL PERIOD.

I told you when I make a statement, I will back up what I view are the causes and here it is:

* Why is Lindberg silent when we see the VERY SIMILAR forces forcing the integration of Greek science now into a conservative CHRISTIAN (ORTHODOX/CATHOLIC) religion.

There are other examples of what I interpret as some creeping bias:

* Lindberg claims in his summary there was a "continuity" of science leading from medieval times up into the Renaissance. How does he do this-- as he admits there is virtually no "natural" (vs. supernatural) outlook before the eleventh century C.E. in the sciences? He defines the "medieval period" as lasting broadly from 400 - 1300 C.E. His examples of scientific activity apply only to the LATEST medieval period 1100-1300 C.E. This means his argument for real "continuity" of medieval science fails, if one also insists on the existence of scientific studies in the earlier, much larger period from 400 to 1100 C.E.

* He also questions whether or not there was a true "decline" in scholarship during medieval times. But the key is how "scholarship" is defined:

"Did [the fall of Rome] spell the end of serious scholarship? Some, who have chosen to define "scholarship" as a continuation of Greek and Roman scholarship have judged so. But this is a serious mistake. There is no question that scholarship declined in quantity and quality; ...scholarship continued, but in new forms and with changed focus." (Lindberg, IBID, p 184)

In his details, Lindberg acknowledges "there is virtually no science or natural philosophy in early medieval religious and theological works". 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.

To me, this is reframing the question of whether medieval society was scholarly – instead of scientific. Yes, a bias – since scientific was the original question.

Lindberg refuses to judge this period, stating it would be “simplistic”. I find his attitude that to judge would be simplistic – itself simplistic.


Now it is possible, that Lindberg is refraining from comment on Christianity not because of any religious bias himself per se, but because he genuinely wishes to dampen any perceived conflict between the sciences and the early Orthodox/Catholic Church. But that is still a bias in my book, whatever the good intentions.

So I am allowing myself to deviate from some of Lindberg’s interpretations for the above reasons.

Do you allow yourself the same freedom, Bede? Or should I insist you follow Lindberg to the letter.
Examples:

*"MODERN SCIENCE NEVER AROSE IN GREECE AND THE WAY THEY WERE GOING NEVER WOULD HAVE DONE. On the other hand, Christian Europe, uniquely in the world, did develop science." (Lindberg disagrees).

* You also stated awhile back something to the effect that Hippocrates was not a true scientist. (Lindberg disagrees...)


This is a second big question. Thanks.

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Er. I was using the book THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN SCIENCE.

Subchapter heading in Chapter 10 (see p 234) RADICAL ARISTOTELIANSM AND THE CONDEMNATIONS OF 1270 AND 1277.

The other chapters take you up through the sixteenth century.

The Inqusition starts in the early thirteenth century (1215).

Did you read the book, Bede? I Someone around here claims its the best authority around. I would recommend it in the main. Smile.

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Rats! you got on before I finished the second part of the post that really goes with this.

(Do you ever sleep? Smile)

What makes this a fair question, is that Lindberg identifies the actions of CONSERVATIVE Islamic religious authorities as a major cause of the decline of Islamic science. This included the book burnings at their libraries.

My point was: Shouldn't therefore the actions of CONSERVATIVE Christian religious authorities deserve some equal space??

Apparantly, Lindberg considers Christian religious politics outside the scope of his book.

My point, is that it wasn't consistent -- if he were truly looking for causes...

BTW: To repeat from earlier, if you missed it:

Can you now tell me that conservative religious authorities have no impact on the sciences. Or does this ONLY apply to Islam? Explain...

(You may plan to incorporate in under Big Question #1 or #2 -- if not, make this #3, please Sir.)


Sojourner

PS. I do hope to move beyond Lindberg soon to talk about political causes of the Dark Ages.

But I will await your responses first on the above.



[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

If you'uns are talking about the period prior to 1200, what could fairly be called "science" back then? Are you really talking about the broader term "scholarship?" Perhaps it might be useful to the discussion to define the terms in a meaningful way. I would argue that there was not "science" at that time.

To me, looking at this, it's clear that the Church was not opposed to learning per se prior to 1200, and certainly facilitated it in many ways. Bede, who has probably rightly focused on intellectual trends, has left out the role played by the Church in preserving and extended artisanal traditions (alongside efforts in the outside culture as well), which were important for the formation of western proto-scientific ideas in the late medieval and early Renaissance period. But in the period prior to 1200, learning had not really risen the level where it could possibly threaten the Church's worldviews, and Europe did not host seven or eight powerful trading political entities with the income and technology to support a whole establishment devoted to knowledge production. So this period may not be a fair test of Church attitudes toward science...

Vorkosigan

Bede

Sojourner,

The inquisition had little to do with the condemnations in 1270/77 which were promulgated by Bishop Tempier of Paris. Academic theology (which usually meant really esoteric ideas) rarely interested the inquisition unless it happened give rise to a popular cult. Academics were usually self policing and most disputes were sorted out within the university itself (although appeal to higher courts was possible). Natural science hardly interested inquisitors at all until Galileo (which Lindberg does not cover).

So I think Lindberg is right not to mention it as it has nothing much to do with his subject. It doesn't get much space in any other current history of medieval science either (such as Edward Grant's).

I am looking at Lindberg as we have both got it but will use other sources too.

Yours

Bede

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

Bede

Sojourner,

On medicine:

First off, in ancient Greece the number of out and out materialists who would look only for natural causes was always tiny. As Robin Lane Fox shows in Pagans and Christians and Keith Hopkins in A World Full of Gods, you find temples to the God of Healing, Asclepius (by various names), in every town and city, a vast industry of quack and magical cures as well as secular medicine. In fact, the picture of divine and material ideas about health co-existed and complemented each other exactly as it was in medieval Europe. Your implication that the Greeks were somehow more rational than medieval people in medicine is false as medievals were just as comfortable with the apparent contradictions in medical practice as the Greeks. The Popes all had personal physicians and monks to pray for their health, just like the Ephesian who sacrifices to Hermes and then visits the doctor.

So what Lindberg correctly says about medieval attitudes also applies to Greeks and Romans (and Moslems too). While Christianity changed the names of the Gods/Saints etc you were supposed to pray to, it did not change or even much widen the practice of divine cures and miracles. Islam was able to translate and use Greek medicine because it was a literate, rich and stable society. Western Europe was none of these things and hence an intellectual practice of medicine was lacking. Once Europe became richer and more literate, as well as having integrated the outside invaders, in the 12th century, almost immediately we see this Greek knowledge being translated, disseminated and practised. The church did not prevent this and most of the people doing the work were clergymen.

On historiography:

Incidently, Lindberg does not greatly praise anyone – you just assume he approves of things that you do. He does not judge historical agents as good or bad and, as you say, considers such an attitude simplistic. In this, he is joined by every single professional historian on the planet. So accusing Lindberg of not criticising medievals is not the point – Lindberg is not in the business of criticising. His book is a text book with a massive amount of anti-Whig inoculation built in precisely because there are some many people like you around judging, criticising and praising.

As Vork has correctly pointed out, there was little science in the Dark Ages and I expect you want to explore why this was. But note that Lindberg (not to mention Edward Grant) does not for a second think that the reason for this lack of science was the church was inhibiting it. As you say:

This is the crux. I think it is utter tosh and so, I expect, does Lindberg. Let’s see if you can prove it without judging, criticising or anachronism.

On Islam:

Lindberg sings no ones praises – you just impute motives. And you definition of science is about as appropriate as defining religion as being nice to everyone.

I generally agree with the reasons given for Islamic decline. Science was simply a small part of the story of a great civilisation that pretty much collapsed into a shadow of its former self. The major cause was the twin disasters of Caliphates of Spain and Baghdad being destroyed by outside invaders. A culture suffering invasion when not under siege is never outward looking and always turns to what it regards as its most fundemental values. So the ‘conservative forces’ were in all likelihood a function of the external invaders.

Big answer one: Islam is not a Christian like religion. As Lindberg explains, natural philosophy never had a home in Islam like the universities of Europe. As Toby Huff shows the fundemental Islamic metaphysics was ‘occasionalism’ which stated that every moment is controlled directly by God rather than being a function of laws ordained by God but allowed to run. This is what Christianity (largely following a Greek lead) believed. Finally, Islam did not recognise the idea that there is knowledge outside Islam whereas Christians were happy for secular spheres of knowledge to be independent. Huff highlights how Islamic law was the only game in town for Moslems while Christians had separate secular laws for secular matters. The same is true of natural science. This meant that Islamic science could get so far but no further – in its peak period of 700 (when Greek knowledge first arrived) to 1200 (when decline set in for good) it could not make the leap that Europe made between 1200 (when Greek knowledge first arrived) to 1700 (the same 500 year period later).

You ask:

 Why is Lindberg silent when we see the VERY SIMILAR forces forcing the integration of Greek science now into a conservative CHRISTIAN (ORTHODOX/CATHOLIC) religion.

Answer: Greek science did not exist in Western Europe until 1200 and after that natural science remained a separate subject rather than part of theology. Hence Lindberg is silent because it did not happen. Edward Grant conclusively proves this in God and Reason by a brilliant analysis on scientific and theological works. There was no overlap – NOMA (to be anachronistic) was rigidly enforced.

 Lindberg claims in his summary there was a "continuity" of science leading from medieval times up into the Renaissance. How does he do this-- as he admits there is virtually no "natural" (vs. supernatural) outlook before the eleventh century C.E. in the sciences? He defines the "medieval period" as lasting broadly from 400 - 1300 C.E. His examples of scientific activity apply only to the LATEST medieval period 1100-1300 C.E. This means his argument for real "continuity" of medieval science fails, if one also insists on the existence of scientific studies in the earlier, much larger period from 400 to 1100 C.E.

Answer: Well clearly he means continuity across the end of the Middle Ages into the Early Modern period. He does not mean continuity from Greece to Rome to the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period. This is not bias, just your misunderstanding his point.

 He also questions whether or not there was a true "decline" in scholarship during medieval times. But the key is how "scholarship" is defined.

Answer: Lindberg is a real historian so does not judge medievals as to how well they fit into a modern box. This is not bias but bog standard historical method. You however are showing serious anachronistic bias by not seeing this.

*"MODERN SCIENCE NEVER AROSE IN GREECE AND THE WAY THEY WERE GOING NEVER WOULD HAVE DONE. On the other hand, Christian Europe, uniquely in the world, did develop science." (Lindberg disagrees).

No he does not. He never claims modern science arose in ancient Greece and certainly never says that it would have done. He also agrees that modern science did arise in Western Europe around 1600.

* You also stated awhile back something to the effect that Hippocrates was not a true scientist. (Lindberg disagrees...)

No he does not. A true scientist is someone who uses the experimental method to prove hypotheses. He is not someone whom insists against all the evidence that all illness is caused by a mismatch between four humours and that bleeding will sort it out.

‘Conservative forces’:

You consider it axiomatic that the medieval church was conservative. This is something you need to demonstrate. You will say “What about the Inquicrusadawitchs?” as if this is ‘conservatism’ writ large. Trouble is we find the church was frequently letting it all hang out. Indeed the church from 1200 was in a dynamic state of change. The new orders of friars and monks heralded an intellectual and economic revolution which brought vast areas of land into cultivation, founded the universities, reformed doctrine and liturgy, created the world’s greatest architecture (ok, a matter of taste )and rejuvenated the church. The papacy changed and grew as new canon and civil law redefined human relationships. The fact of the Inquicrusadawitches is simply a red herring with no bearing on science or much other culture either. You say you dig down and connect dots. It is time for you to stop being blinded by the headline grabbing atrocities that obsessed nineteenth century antiquarians and today’s undergraduates and open your eyes to the Middle Ages in all their dynamic glory.

I may not always to be able to give a full reply within a day. Let’s try and pace ourselves!

Yours

Bede

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