lpetrich

Something that Bede celebrates as an allegedly essential part of Xianity, or more properly, Bedianity.

lpetrich

Which is absolutely preposterous.

Although it is worth asking why the Islamic world ended up closing itself off to outside learning after 1200, while the medieval Church half-tolerated it until it was too big to stop.

Sojourner553

Dear Bede, before I begin, I just wish to point out that you are the one who has set the “tone” for this debate…

In this post, I am going to stay with Lindberg some more:

For the record: I do hold Lindberg as a well- respected authority. My point, was that I have not restricted myself to follow his analyses 100%--especially when I can give objective reasons for not doing so…

The same does not apply to you Bede: For you have stated Lindberg is not just “a” authority but “the leading authority of medieval science in the world today”! Just a quick reminder:

If you disagree with Lindberg, may I remind you of your words this would mean you were either hypocritical or devoid of critical thought where it applies to your prejudices

(If you will recall, these ARE roughly the same accusations, rearranged only slightly, that you have hurled at me).

But I’m getting ahead: Let’s take a look!
Any quotes from Lindberg to show your side??. Because before the fundamentalists took control of Islam, Lindberg says just the opposite:



pp 176-8 give a long list of achievements with adjectives/nouns such as

“sophisticated” and “distinguished” and “innovations” given to describe their SCIENTIFIC achievements.


Tut tut, Bede – you forget so quickly your own rules!:

Toby Huff is not “the leading working historian of medieval science in the world today” as you have so loudly proclaimed!!


Is this not a DOUBLE STANDARD on your part to switch to another authority where it CONFLICTED with Lindberg. Is it your own biases that don’t allow you to see the OBVIOUS!?

Example II: Hippocrates

You just make it all up – right, Bede. Is that the reason why I don’t see quotes – too restricting????

By the way, Lindberg does describe the four humors. But he also adds:

Really, Bede – have you read Lindberg very carefully -- or are you just picking and choosing at a high level what you want to hear?

You leave out the "why" Greek science did not exist in Western Europe prior to 1200? Was it not because largely Christian theology had replaced it?

Per Lindberg:

In referring to the decline of the Roman Empire to medieval times:

“Western Europe went through a process of de-urbanization; the classical schools deteriorated, and leadership in the promotion of literacy and learning passed to monasteries, [b] where a thin version of the classical tradition survived as a handmaiden of religion and theology… ( p 184)

There is no question that scholarship declined in quantity and quality [although not scientific it was still scholarly]. The new focus was religious or ecclesiastical: what came to occupy the best scholarly minds was biblical interpretation, religious history, church governance, and the development of Christian doctrine [b]”

[/quote]

Regarding “and after that natural science remained a separate subject rather than part of theology”

Per Lindberg, after “religious conservative forces made themselves increasingly felt”… “science became naturalized in Islam, instead of Greek science practiced on a Greek soil.”


Isn't this just a different way of saying that PRIOR to conservative religious forces taking over control of society: the Islamic natural sciences remained a separate subject rather than part of theology???


You CONSISTENTLY KEEP OMMITTING LINDBERG’S FIRST REASON FOR THE DECLINE OF ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION – “CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS FORCES MADE THEMSELVES INCREASINGLY FELT.”


Is it that blind eye towards bias, Bede, you so love to hurl at everyone else but yourself?@!

Look Bede, “ I appreciate you have this idea stuck in your head and can't get it out..” BUT TO LOUDLY AND RUDELY ACCUSE OTHERS OF WHAT YOU YOURSELF ARE DOING IS ARROGANCE AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL!!!

Tag – you’re it!


Sojourner

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Obviously my focus was on whether Lindberg covered the same TIME period. Indeed I had also written in the same post:
“Apparantly, Lindberg considers Christian religious politics outside the scope of his book. “

Seems to me, Either you honestly didn’t notice this; or else “chose” to distort it to something else.

Per sojourner:

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.

Per Bede:

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. [/QUOTE]

Actually, I agree that Lindberg does not criticize/judge much of anyone. That, I think, has added to his popularity. Here's how Lindberg puts it

“My purpose in writing this book has been to describe the ancient and medieval scientific tradition, rather than to access its merit or worth.”


Lindberg praises, he just doesn't criticize much.

But, let's apply what you wrote about praising and criticizing historical agents --

ie: Who do you think wrote this jewel????????????????

[QUOTE]


[QUOTE]

Now some analysis: Do I detect a(nother) DOUBLE STANDARD? That is, it is ok for YOU to be critical of Greek science and Islamic science and their causes– but “how dare” anyone do the same to early medieval Christian science???

Also,
Is there also not just the slightest hint of “judgment” when you claim only a CHRISTIAN-like religion could have been a precursor of modern science.

Sounds to me like Lindberg would never support your thesis, Bede.

If you followed your own rules, you'd find a new thesis!

Sojourner


[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Since Bede states he is not sure he believes in demons -- I don't think he can count himself in the MINORITY of (scientific) materalists that also exists IN MODERN TIMES!

Does that make modern times unscientific? Or does it mean we should look at pockets of groups instead of assuming uniformity throughout society?
I think the latter!

Bede likes to claim uniformity -- so he simplistically claim Christianity is responsible for science today.

Of course this ignores scientists are comprised of a large percentage of atheists and Jews; how the vast majority of the population is virtually ignorant of sciences; and indeed a large percentage of the population are believers in the pseudosciences -- like astrology and yes of course, belief in demons....


Sojourner

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

lpetrich

Bede laughs at Hippocrates for his four-humors view of physiology, and indeed it is grossly wrong, but that view is the sort of "mechanical", naturalistic viewpoint that Bede considers to be Xianity's gift to the world.

Also, Hippocrates had supposedly commented that epilepsy is considered the disease of the Gods because nobody really knows what causes it -- in fairness, an epileptic seizure might seem like some god or some demon is zapping the patient.

And Bede is rather slippery about what he means by Xianity -- which is why I call his beliefs "Bedianity".

Bede

Sojourner,

1) As I said, if headbagers are posting to this thread I will not.

2) You are welcome to use other authorities as I do. Many of them shed light on areas than Lindberg covers only briefly. If I had confidence you knew the material I would not criticise you for misrepresenting Lindberg but given you accuse him of religious bias and use words like 'sing the praises' I am suspicious.

3) Ancient Greek natural philosophers like the writers of the Hippocratic corpus are not 'true scientists'. This is not criticism, simply a statement of fact as much as to say they are not true martians. Lindberg is very careful to distinguish between scientist and natural philosopher though I must admit that in my posts here I am often rather lazy about that. If you are interested in Greek culture then the Fox and Hopkins books I mentioned are both good and also cover early Christianity (both authors are atheists BTW) although Hopkins is, like many professors, nuts. GER Lloyd is the standard work (2 vols) on Greek Science and cheaply available.

4) I am critical of medieval science but in replying to you I am seeking to redress your own mistakes and so only taking one side. I also find that if I use moderate language you start claiming you have caught me out and comparing it to lazier statements I might have made earlier. This is annoying.

5) Looking back, I was not very clear about Islam and will think a bit about that. Essentially, we cannot say that these 'conservative' forces arose spontaneously (and I am not denying they arose) - we need to look for causes for why they became dominant after five hundred years in abeyance. I would suggest, with many authors, that external invasion is the most likely cause of this. Bernard Lewis has written a book "What went Wrong?" all about the decline of Islamic civilisation which has just come out in paper back. The early chapters might be of interest.

6) Check your personal messages .

7) I mean it about the head bangers.

Yours

Bede

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

Bede

A quickie on Bacon, Francis. I have been combing his works for the Horse's Teeth story to see if there is any commentary on the veracity of the story. No luck - can't find the story in any of the three editions of Bacon's essays or his other works. Then I did a Google and found this:

<a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/horse.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/horse.htm</a>

It looks like even the attribution to Bacon is a myth - unless Sojourner knows better. As we have a probably falsely attributed, unreferenced story without providence, I don't think we would be taking a wild stab in the talk to say it is untrue until further evidence appears. Certainly, critical study would demand its rejection from any work purporting to be historical. I hope Sojourner will now simply disown it and admit a mistake in quoting it as fact (provided always she does not have more information with which to enlighten us).

Yours

Bede

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

Sojourner553

Bede,

Thank you for the change in tone. I will adapt mine in response. I do not hold grudges, so what counts for me is what we see going forward. (I have noticed this in my line of business as well: Sometimes one has to get into the mud with the mudslingers, just to get their attention – and respect. It could also be portrayed as banging heads with the headbangers – hopefully just temporarily though. You got a flavor of how “I” choose not to be most of the time, Bede. I can always revert back. But I will not be the first to go this direction.)

Now attitude: Bede, I do not really care if you are 100% against my viewpoint at times.
I assure you I am just as convinced that some of YOUR views are 100% wrong at times too. Your openness to accepting the possibility of demons is just one example of what I consider very bizarre for someone who claims to also hold a pro-science outlook. My style though is not to outright point out in an authoritative way how DARE you bring up the subject (ie the only person who brings it up is: a fool with a 20th century bias, has no critical ability, no knowledge of historical protocols in criticizing, yada yada). Instead my preference in style is to point out the inconsistencies of the view, in addition to analyzing yes any scientific/historical evidence where we have it available to us, and review others who have held these beliefs and where it took them.

Back onto the track of the medieval ages and science. I would argue there is no issue within this topic (scope) that is “off-limits” as you have tried to dictate. I do not purport to idolize any historian as being beyond reproach and questioning. The rational arguments stand on their own –regardless – of who lines up for or against them. I have no problem if you move between historians; as long as you allow me the same privilege. In short – let’s go after SUBSTANCE not FORM. Let’s try and agree on the facts as presented by the authorities, agreeing that we may not agree on the interpretation of these fact.

Lindberg has chosen not to judge medieval Christian times, merely to “understand” them. Still he has identified that the #1 cause for the decline of Islamic science to be do to conservative religious groups gaining power and #2 for wars.

My thesis is that it is valid to view the transition from classical Roman times unto the early medieval period using this same model.

Your point is that it was the wars, barbarian invasions that was EXCLUSIVELY the cause of the decline in the sciences during this transition.

By the way, I agree with you that wars can be a cause for the decline of the arts and sciences. But only because as an intermediate step the wars created an environment where conservative religious and/or political groups also took hold. Therefore the ultimate cause was the conservative politico-religious groups control over society.

Here is how Lindberg described their effect on the decline of Islamic society:

“Sometimes this took the form of outright opposition… 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)

In my next posts, I will be using this as a parallel to look at medieval Christian society.

I will also be listing some of the upheavals in society caused when the Orthodox Church aligned itself with the secular Roman government – showing intolerance with OTHER Christian sects and later following that with the bans on pagans. As you know I will provide quotes (I always show quotes – it’s harder to cheat that way – especially with ORIGINAL sources too from back then.)

I do not have the time tonight to go into this. Will return later.

Sojourner

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Bede, the site appears to be from a science-oriented Skeptic who states that he is "suspicious" of the attributions, not that they were really made.

Here was his exact quote

"I have strong suspicions that the attribution of this passage to Bacon cannot be documented.

It is a grey area as is much of history before modern times. For example, there is no evidence that Paul wrote 100% of the letters, but we rely on the attibutions that he did so.

I agree with you halfway (and I think have said so now maybe three times.) There is a good probability that it is a parody. Here is how your source put it:

"... it does sound like something a critic of scholasticsm would use to characterize or parody the empty silliness of their sober arguments. The parody is quite apt. Apparently scholastics did argue whether Adam had a navel and whether angels defecate. My skeptical comments should not be taken as an apologetic for scholasticism, for its "scholars" were prone to concoct arguments which made them look very foolish."

I have not quoted it as a factual story. I have listed it as I found it (True, after personally researching it more).

Here was my summary:

"Note: The above story/parody was found in a compilation of science essays attributed to Francis Bacon. As there is no independent verification that the event actually took place, there is a good likelihood this was a parody to make fun of Scholastics, rather than an actual event."

I see it appropriate to talk in probabilities in this case, due to the dearth of knowledge in general from this time from non-clerical sources. Still, I agree it does have the ring of a parody. But I cannot say it happened for sure, just as you cannot say it didn't happen for sure.

A parallel would be the recently discovered ossuary of James: There is really no proof (as of yet) whether it is real or not. I am inclined to believe it is. But the appropriate approach is to just document what we know...

BTW back to the story/parody: There are some things that give it a ring of authenticity. (I think we went over this once before, I had argued something like this) Wasn't it a common view during medieval times that men had one less rib than women because of the Adam and Eve story?? Please correct this if you have detail on it...

I realize autopsy was forbidden in early medieval times (as they had been in Greco-Roman times for roughly the same religious reasons). Still, physicians set bones on live people, and should have had accessibility to count ribs-- especially on thin people; and there should have been a lot of poor thin people during medieval times...

Just a thought experiment. It seems similar in context to me (ie counting teeth vs counting ribs). Of course this does not mean a student would be smoted for going against the paradigm.

But in prepartion for tomorrow's discussion (and tying in this point):

In looking for causes of early medieval times, I have always thought one good place to look is to understand the causes of how it shifted to the renaissance.

Sojourner

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