Irritating To The Believer

[triadboy]

However, it doesn't support your statement that there was an edict from the Vatican which forced everybody to draw Jerusalem in the middle of the maps; nor does it support your contention that Carthopgraphy had been on the brink of further development, only to be impeded by the christianity.

I was speaking off the top of my head so I may have confused the 'edict' part with the fact that the Church controlled knowledge at that time and insinuated it would like Jerusalem in the middle of the maps. Why would all the map makers put Jerusalem in the middle if it didn't please the church?

While the works of Ptolemy was lost to Europe, the fact is that there were no major advances in carthography were made even in the areas outside of Christendom where his works survived. There's no reason, as far as I can see, to assume that any further advances would have been made in Europe if it had not been for the Christian religion and church.

Map making not only did not advance in the dark ages - it went backwards - clear to the mythical Garden of Eden.

However, your reasoning for assuming so is not solid, and its this reasoning I'm attacking. In short, I don't think you're being sceptical about it.

All I do is read lots of stuff. When I read the same thing over and over from different perspectives, I begin to believe it. The book burnings, bigotry, torturing, fear, imposed ignorance, etc were the tools Christianity used to assert their dominance. Once the church became dominant - the dark ages began.

 

[triadboy]

So one could just as easily argue: "The most scientifically productive period of the Middle Ages got underway just as Christianity was at or near the peak of its influence.

And what was Christianity's reaction to Science?

Christianity embraced the dark ages - because ignorance was their tool.

Christianity did not like Science destroying their God of the Gaps.

 

[triadboy]

I suspect that the main reason Christianity spread so quickly and so wide was simply the missionary commandment. As far as I know, Christianity was the first religion which actively sought to convert people on a large scale. Certainly, most of the religions Christianity replaced were "closed" religions which were just for a particular people or class, and whose proponents never tried to "spread the good word."

Now we have two world religions whose job it is to gain converts. The rest of us are screwed.

 

[Leif Roar]

I was speaking off the top of my head so I may have confused the 'edict' part with the fact that the Church controlled knowledge at that time and insinuated it would like Jerusalem in the middle of the maps. Why would all the map makers put Jerusalem in the middle if it didn't please the church?

Perhaps because the people who drew the maps were themselves Christians and adhered to the belief that Jerusalem was placed at the centre of the earth? There is absolutely no reason to assume there was any kind of pressure from the church for this to happen.

Map making not only did not advance in the dark ages - it went backwards - clear to the mythical Garden of Eden.

A lot of knowledge disappeared with the fall of the Roman empire - among those the Ptolemy works on map-making. This does not mean that the Church or Christianity were responsible, nor does it mean that the art of carteography was posed to make further advancements just prior to the Dark Ages.

All I do is read lots of stuff. When I read the same thing over and over from different perspectives, I begin to believe it. The book burnings, bigotry, torturing, fear, imposed ignorance, etc were the tools Christianity used to assert their dominance. Once the church became dominant - the dark ages began.

However, few historians seem to share your belief that the Church in any way created the Dark Ages. So I'm inclined to believe that you've either read very narrowly, or you've put more emphasis on arguments and views that supports your preconcieved notions than on those that disagree with them.

 

[Bubbles]

I am amazed that an institution like the church that has spent most of its history alternating between impotence and incompetence (and sometimes achieving both) can have so thoroughly crushed the sciences for so long!

Let me offer this thought: we would understand Christianity better if we considered it in comparison with the heresies it fought. I believe this to be reasonable because Western Christianity and Western Christian heresies came from the same culture, so there is no bias there (it is pointless to blame someone who live 1500 years ago for not being a 20th century rationalist). It also shows what people would have been believing had they not been orthodox Latin Christians.

What were the primary heresies that Christianity faced? I will set aside Trinitarian and Christological points as I don't see them as relevant to the relationship between Christendom and science. The primary heresy I come up with is Dualism (Gnosticism, Manicheism, Kathari), which is far more hostile to the sciences than Christianity.

Now, will someone defend Platonism from the charge of being hostile to the sciences? If so, I would like to hear it. If not, I return to my contention that the lack of scientific interest in the dark ages owes more to Plato than to Popes.

I'm amazed at how easilly everyone passes over the 'complete collapse of the social order followed by waves of invasions' as if that could NEVER cause a few centuries of regression.

 

[ceo_esq]

Knowledge is not for everyone in a theocratic culture.

I suppose that depends on the theology. This is the culture that spawned the university, after all.

Anyhow, it goes without saying that the medieval period was heavily influenced by Christianity. But was any part of the Middle Ages actually characterized by theocratic governments? Granted, after the fall of Rome there was a period where there were no central governments that could rival the overall stability and reach of the papacy; however, that doesn't mean that Europe had a theocratic government or governments. Indeed, off the top of my head I'm not aware of any places (apart from the smallish Papal States) that were subject to theocratic temporal rule. And the Columbia Encyclopedia suggests that throughout much of this period the situation across Europe was really closer to Erastianism (the civil state interfering in church matters) rather than the other way around (theocracy).

Accordingly, I think to speak of medieval societies as generally "theocratic", without further qualification, is probably simply incorrect.

 

[ceo_esq]

And what was Christianity's reaction to Science?

Christianity embraced the dark ages - because ignorance was their tool.

Christianity did not like Science destroying their God of the Gaps.

Triadboy, the Scholastic discoveries I was talking about were taking place within a Church setting, primarily by people who were also theologian-philosophers (Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan, Nicholas Oresme, Albert of Saxony, and so forth).

You keep making these blanket statements, especially ones speculating as to the Church's motives, without offering any historical justification for them.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Even if The Church was responsible for science starting does that make it true? Lets not forget where jesus says [paraphrasing] blessed is he who hath not seen yet still believes[paraphrasing]
Screw the scientific method, just believe everything.

 

[Leif Roar]

Triadboy, the Scholastic discoveries I was talking about were taking place within a Church setting, primarily by people who were also theologian-philosophers (Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan, Nicholas Oresme, Albert of Saxony, and so forth).

Don't forget William of Ockham, whose shaving implement is so often mentioned around here. ;-)

 

[triadboy]

...the Scholastic discoveries I was talking about were taking place within a Church setting, primarily by people who were also theologian-philosophers

And their 'discoveries' had to conform to church doctrine. If one were to suggest the earth revolved around the sun - this would go against the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. Either the 'discovery' is wrong or the Word Of God is wrong.

 

[Leif Roar]

Even if The Church was responsible for science starting does that make it true?

"It" being the Christian religion? No, of course not.

 

[triadboy]

I suppose that depends on the theology. This is the culture that spawned the university, after all.

I wonder how much meaningful scholarship was realized in these universities.

"A is for Adam...."

 

[Leif Roar]

I wonder how much meaningful scholarship was realized in these universities.

"A is for Adam...."

So why don't you try and find out, rather than automatically jump to the assumption that best fits your preconceived notion.

 

[Leif Roar]

And their 'discoveries' had to conform to church doctrine. If one were to suggest the earth revolved around the sun - this would go against the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. Either the 'discovery' is wrong or the Word Of God is wrong.

*coughs* Actually, Nicolaus of Cusa, a cardinal and amateur astronomer, was one of the first in medieval Europe to voice the idea that the earth orbited the sun. He didn't get into any hot waters over it either, as far as I'm aware.

 

[ceo_esq]

Even if The Church was responsible for science starting does that make it true? Lets not forget where jesus says [paraphrasing] blessed is he who hath not seen yet still believes[paraphrasing]
Screw the scientific method, just believe everything.

Let's clarify. I don't think anyone here is advancing an argument that the Church or Christianity is "true", just that Church theology is, on the whole, not inherently hostile to science.

Whatever Jesus meant in that pgrase, if he actually spoke it, it's pretty clear that the Church never understood him to be urging people to discard the scientific method (technically it didn't exist yet, but you know what I mean). At least as far back as St. Augustine, the Church was warning Christians not to view their Bible as a source of information about things capable of being discovered through reason and experience - such as the natural world - and encouraging them to use what resources they could to learn more about the world, lest they embarrass themselves as "scientific ignoramuses" in front of non-Christians.

From Augustine (circa 400):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

(source)

Apparently this aspect of Church philosophy was not inherited by modern fundamentalist evangelicals. In fact, it almost sounds as though Augustine was talking specifically about them, which I find amusing.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

How did he propose the idea? Being a cardinal, I doubt he came out and said God was not necessary, which I believe is basically how Galileo put it.

 

[Leif Roar]

How did he propose the idea? Being a cardinal, I doubt he came out and said God was not necessary, which I believe is basically how Galileo put it.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The astronomical views of the cardinal are scattered through his philosophical treatises. They evince complete independence of traditional doctrines, though they are based on symbolism of numbers, on combinations of letters, and on abstract speculations rather than observation. The earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed. The celestial bodies are not strictly spherical, nor are their orbits circular. The difference between theory and appearance is explained by relative motion."

 

[csense]

And their 'discoveries' had to conform to church doctrine. If one were to suggest the earth revolved around the sun - this would go against the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. Either the 'discovery' is wrong or the Word Of God is wrong.

It's true that the Church maintained that the Bible taught geocentricity. It was however based upon, and used to support, current scientific knowledge of the time.

It was Ptolemy, and his thirteen book treatise the Almagest, which propounded the geocentric theory, and most notably planetary motion, which would prove to be a major influence on Islamic and European astronomers for over a thousand years.

So, if you're going to criticize the Church, you might also want to direct that criticism toward science also, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Additionally, although the Church sought to support Ptolemy with scripture, their interpretation of these verses leaves much to be desired and it is generally accepted by Scholars that nowhere in the Bible does it state the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe...but, you're free to believe what you want.

 

[ceo_esq]

*coughs* Actually, Nicolaus of Cusa, a cardinal and amateur astronomer, was one of the first in medieval Europe to voice the idea that the earth orbited the sun. He didn't get into any hot waters over it either, as far as I'm aware.

Heck, neither did Copernicus, who was quite admired in the Church.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The astronomical views of the cardinal are scattered through his philosophical treatises. They evince complete independence of traditional doctrines, though they are based on symbolism of numbers, on combinations of letters, and on abstract speculations rather than observation. The earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed. The celestial bodies are not strictly spherical, nor are their orbits circular. The difference between theory and appearance is explained by relative motion."

WAY different and far safer than the way Galileo proposed it: E pur si muove