Irritating To The Believer

[Gregor]

Ceo

Memories. . .

BTW
You might want to tap the brake before citing to Roger Bacon, who was imprisoned by the Church for his heretical beliefs (which may or may not related to correcting the calendar).

Also, I posted a St. Augustine quote from a letter asserting his belief that natural learning is wasted time - you should only study the scriptures.

Isn't it time to rehash the arguments about whether Greek science was really science or was it technology?

 

[SilentNight]

and the other 35% are not very good at statistics
P

That same 35% cant add correctly either.

SilentNight

 

[Leif Roar]

You might want to tap the brake before citing to Roger Bacon, who was imprisoned by the Church for his heretical beliefs (which may or may not related to correcting the calendar).

From Britannica:

"Sometime between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was condemned to prison by his fellow Franciscans because of certain “suspected novelties” in his teaching. The condemnation was probably issued because of his bitter attacks on the theologians and scholars of his day, his excessive credulity in alchemy and astrology, and his penchant for millenarianism under the influence of the prophecies of Abbot Joachim of Fiore, a mystical philosopher of history."

Also, I posted a St. Augustine quote from a letter asserting his belief that natural learning is wasted time - you should only study the scriptures.

From Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science:

"One must not conclude from such remarks, however, that the church fathers totally repudiated scientific knowledge or demanded that it always conform to the dictates of scripture. The opening clause of the passage just quoted is often overlooked. Augustine is arguing only that in matters of religion there is little or nothing to be learned from the Greek physicists. In another context he argues that insofar as scientific knowledge is required, it must be taken from the pagan authors who possess it"

 

[triadboy]

From Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science:

" The opening clause of the passage just quoted is often overlooked. Augustine is arguing only that in matters of religion there is little or nothing to be learned from the Greek physicists. In another context he argues that insofar as scientific knowledge is required, it must be taken from the pagan authors who possess it"

Boy, you love that ONE essay don't you?

From The Dark Side OF Christianity (Helen Ellerbe) Chapter 4 titled "The Church Takes Over: The Dark Ages":

St Augustine echoed the Church's scientific understanding of the world:

It is impossible that there should be inhabitants on the opposite side of the earth, since no such race is recorded by Scripture among the descendants of Adam

Apparently he is more of a biblical adherant then you guys realized.

 

[Leif Roar]

Boy, you love that ONE essay don't you?

It's an article, not an essay, and yes, I think it's a pretty good essay.

More to the point, does it really matter where I got the counter-example from? Isn't it enough that there is a counter-example?

From The Dark Side OF Christianity (Helen Ellerbe) Chapter 4 titled "The Church Takes Over: The Dark Ages":

Apparently he is more of a biblical adherant then you guys realized.

At the time, it was hardly an unreasonable position to take. The question is really if he ever adhered to the bible over firm evidence to the contrary. There's a difference between considering the bible to be correct by default, and to consider it to be correct by definition.

 

[Gregor]

Leif

Thanks for proving my point.

Bacon was imprisoned for his beliefs. Admittedly, there is uncertainty over the exact reasons for his imprisonment, but there is no uncertainty that he espoused interesting scientific thoughts that were anti-thetical to the religious orthodoxy of his day.

David Duncan in "Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year" argues that Bacon's imprisonment was due to arguments that the church was wrong about certain things, including the calendar.

So, don't cite Bacon [ceo] as an example of Xianity fostering scientific investigation when the friggin' church imprisons a guy whose beliefs the church doesn't like.

And the same with St. Augustine (BTW - I'm not certain that we're discussing the same St. Augusting quote, and I don't have my source with me). We have a leading church father espousing anti-scientific statements. Don't cite generic "church fathers" as people who foster scientific investigation when written records contradict the issue.

* * *

And this discussion and even the publications are arguing the unprovable. Newton is the perfect example of this. Issac was a brilliant guy. Issac was involved in the Church. Why? The church was the only place an educated guy could survive. Is that a plus towards the church or a minus because the church prevented secular universities? Heck, we'll never know.

Issac thought deep thoughts. Would he have thought those deep thoughts under a Islamic society? I would believe so. This entire idea that scientific understanding expanded under Xianity, thus scientific understanding expanded because of xianity is false. There's no causation. Why do I say that? Well, the role of the church waned from 1600 to 1900. Yet scientific advance increased exponentially during this time.

The reasons for advance or decline are far too numerous to assume religion played any definitive role. We have anecdotal incidents of encouragment and discouragement.

 

[Leif Roar]

Leif

Thanks for proving my point.

Bacon was imprisoned for his beliefs. Admittedly, there is uncertainty over the exact reasons for his imprisonment, but there is no uncertainty that he espoused interesting scientific thoughts that were anti-thetical to the religious orthodoxy of his day.

David Duncan in "Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year" argues that Bacon's imprisonment was due to arguments that the church was wrong about certain things, including the calendar.

So, don't cite Bacon [ceo] as an example of Xianity fostering scientific investigation when the friggin' church imprisons a guy whose beliefs the church doesn't like.

And the same with St. Augustine (BTW - I'm not certain that we're discussing the same St. Augusting quote, and I don't have my source with me). We have a leading church father espousing anti-scientific statements. Don't cite generic "church fathers" as people who foster scientific investigation when written records contradict the issue.

The point of my post was not that the Bacon case showed that the church was pro-science or that the words of St. Augustine showed him as someone who fostered scentific investigation. The point was that the Bacon case is not a clear example of the Church opposing science - yes, he was imprisoned for his beliefs, but it is not at all certain that he was imprisoned for his scientific beliefs. Likewise, while St. Augustine might not have been particularly in favour of scientific studies, there are quotations from him which shows that he wasn't particularly opposed to it either.

In this thread, neither I nor ceo_esq has made much in the way of claims; rather we've argued against the claims that Triadboy has made, as many of his claims are either clearly erronous or insufficently supported.

 

[Gregor]

ceo cited bacon as an example of a scientist encouraged by the church.

and someone has asserted early xian support for science.

 

[Leif Roar]

ceo cited bacon as an example of a scientist encouraged by the church.

No, he didn't. He put forth Bacon as a scholastic thinker who was also a theolog, and whose scholastic work was performed within a Church setting. Which he was, and which it was.

Anyway, that Bacon was imprisoned by the Church does not mean that the Church could not also have encouraged his scientific work. There is, after all, no reason why the Church must have only hindered or only assisted Bacon's work.

and someone has asserted early xian support for science.

And? Are you saying that there was no early christian support for science?

(Edited to fix language.)

 

[triadboy]

...as many of his claims are either clearly erronous or insufficently supported.

I can supply all kinds of support for church directed book/library burnings and frightened adherence to scripture. Your claim of scientific appreciation by the church during the Dark Ages doesn't hold up.

 

[Leif Roar]

I can supply all kinds of support for church directed book/library burnings and frightened adherence to scripture.

And you completely ignore the fact that the church both produced books and maintained libraries.

Incidentally, how many book burnings / library burnings by the church (or inspired by the church) do you know about during the medieveal period? I'm not familiar with any.

Your claim of scientific appreciation by the church during the Dark Ages doesn't hold up.

Please take a good, close look on this thread, and detail just what "claims of scientific appreciation by the church during the Dark Ages" I have made, and how they do not hold up.

Just for contrast, here are some of the claims you have presented in this thread.

Map-making was making real progress until the edict came down from the Vatican to change all the maps so Jerusalem was at the center.

You had no evidence of there being any such edict, nor any evidence that map-making was making any progress that was hindered by the church.

The dark ages was caused by the church

Unsupported by anything by the most tenous argumentation and correlations. Little if any support for such a view among modern historians.

The book burnings, bigotry, torturing, fear, imposed ignorance, etc were the tools Christianity used to assert their dominance.

Have not shown any evidence or support for this notion.

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

Considering the church's role in supporting and creating centres of learning, this statement seems completely unsupported by the facts.

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.

Several people suggested just that without getting into any hot water for doing so.

Copernicus received invitations to publish it, but he felt quite apprehensive of persecution for his revolutionary work by the establishment of the time. The cardinal Nicola Schonberg of Capua wrote him for a copy of his manuscript, and this made Copernicus, who saw in this a certain nervousness of the Church, even more frightened of eventual reactions.

There seems to be no historic evidence that the reason Copernicus delayed publishing his theory was fear of the church. Anyway, no evidence or support for this view has been presented by you.

The astronomer and professor at Bologna Cecco d'Ascoli was burnt alive by the church in 1327 for daring to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world.

He was not an astronomer, and the reasons he were burnt at the stake were not that he "dared to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world."

The philosopher and dreamer Bruno was burnt at the stake by Rome in 1600 for daring to suggest that the earth goes round the sun.

You have presented no evidence or support for the notion that it was "daring to suggest that the earth goes around the sun" played any significant role in his trial for heresy. (Do you think perhaps the fact that he'd openly questioned Jesu divinity might have had something to do with it instead?)

The thinker and writer Campanella was tortured for subscribing to the Copernican theory.

You have presented no evidence or support for the claim.

In the following centuries, mariners were forced, once more, to rely on "oracles" and the ship's Bible.

Shown to be untrue.

 

[Gregor]

Leif

You're wrong (ref: Bacon).

The clear implication of citing proto-scientists in the church was to argue causation - it's the same failed arguments made on both sides of this issue. Ceo (and now I assume you have taken up the standard) was using Bacon as support for the proposition that the Church encouraged scientific progress.

I simply reminded him that I wouldn't cite to Bacon, as his situation appears to me to more strongly stand for the religious hinderance proposition.

The only position I've taken in this debate is it's impossible to prove either case.

 

[Leif Roar]

Leif

You're wrong (ref: Bacon).

At times. But what in particular am I wrong about here?

The clear implication of citing proto-scientists in the church was to argue causation - it's the same failed arguments made on both sides of this issue. Ceo (and now I assume you have taken up the standard) was using Bacon as support for the proposition that the Church encouraged scientific progress.

No, he was using Bacon as a counter-example of the claim "Christianity embraced the dark ages - because ignorance was their tool." Note that the claim was that christianity did so; not the chuch. To point out that many of the scholastic discoveries had been made by clergy does not seem out of place.

I simply reminded him that I wouldn't cite to Bacon, as his situation appears to me to more strongly stand for the religious hinderance proposition.

How so? He was allowed to perform a lifetime of scholastic work, and his stay in prison seems to have been a couple of years at most. What makes you think he was hindered more than he was helped?

The only position I've taken in this debate is it's impossible to prove either case.

 

[Gregor]

I'm sure his stay in prison was a wonderful experience. With questions like yours, there's no point in continuing on.

Thanks, anyway.

 

[triadboy]

And you completely ignore the fact that the church both produced books and maintained libraries.

Now THAT'S funny!

 

[triadboy]

You had no evidence of there being any such edict, nor any evidence that map-making was making any progress that was hindered by the church.

I admitted the 'edict' wasn't provable. (At the time I couldn't reference my library) HOWEVER, I did supply this evidence:

From Daniel J Boorstin The Discoverers (p 100)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Europe did not carry on the work of Ptolemy, Instead the leaders of orthodox Christiandom built a grand barrier against the progress of knowledge about the earth. Christian geographers in the Middle Ages spent their energies embroidering a neat, theologically appealing picture of what was already known or was supposed to be known.

After the death of Ptolemy, Christianity conquered the Roman Empire and most of Europe. Then we observe a Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia.

We have no lack of evidence of what the medieval Christian geographers thought. More than six hundred mappae mundi, maps of the world, survive from the Middle Ages.

At the center of each map was Jerusalem. "Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her" (Ezekiel 5:5)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would map makers all of the sudden start putting Jerusalem in the center? If it wasn't a Vatican edict - it may as well have been.

 

[ceo_esq]

The clear implication of citing proto-scientists in the church was to argue causation - it's the same failed arguments made on both sides of this issue. Ceo (and now I assume you have taken up the standard) was using Bacon as support for the proposition that the Church encouraged scientific progress.

I simply reminded him that I wouldn't cite to Bacon, as his situation appears to me to more strongly stand for the religious hinderance proposition.

The only position I've taken in this debate is it's impossible to prove either case.

I cited Bacon and the others in this limited context merely in opposition to triadboy's conflation of medieval Christianity (or medieval Christian theology) and scientific ignorance.

The curious thing, though, is that in order for Bacon to stand for the religious hindrance position, logically he'd need to have been persecuted, repressed, or otherwise been hindered by the Church because of the scientific content of his work and writings. Is that really how it appears to you? I must confess that the decided majority of general-reference or history-of-science sources I consulted - mostly during last year's discussion - on Bacon either (1) did not clearly indicate why Bacon got in trouble or (2) suggested that non-scientific factors were either entirely or primarily responsible. (Granted, I don't have the Duncan work, which would be interested to see.) This would seem to establish a reasonable (though obviously rebuttable) presumption, pending persuasive new contrary evidence, that Bacon does not belong on the "religiously-hindered" rolls.

Anyhow, the last line of your post raises an interesting point.

When you say "it's impossible to prove either case", I assume that "The Church was terrible for science" is the first case, but what's the other one - the case that "The Church was good for science", or simply the case that the first case is untrue?

At any rate, partly as a result of this forum, I've had to read a goodly number of the major historical surveys to appear in English on these matters in the last 10 or 15 years, most of which I cited in last year's thread. In the major contemporary scholarship (partial bibliography in the other thread), you hardly ever see anyone support (even diplomatically) the position that Christianity was bad overall for science, so I have to assume that anyone who believes that is basing it on reasons that have been rejected or discredited by contemporary historians.

Conversely, a solid contingent argues that science owes a significant and perhaps historically unique debt to Christianity, while practically all the rest of the recent scholars to address the issue point out that the science/religion conflict (both conceptually and in practice) has been massively exaggerated.

 

[Bubbles]

It seems to me you are comparing apples and oranges.

In the Mills statement you have an institution - the church - who believe in invisible creatures, strange curses put on mankind, completely ridiculous phenomenon like virgin births and resurrections, people who can make "the sun stand still", an assnine explanation for the variety of languages...The Tower of Babel incident, an amazingly short timespan for the universe, etc. (I could go on and on and on)

...fighting against a discipline that uses experimentation and a prior knowledge base to systematically (carefully) come to a conclusion. THEN they throw the conclusion out to others to examine and disprove! Only after it withstands world analysis does it become a 'theory'.



Theology tries to discover what happens in the "afterlife". Which is a place for frightened people who can't face their own mortality.

I am not in any way comparing apples and oranges. At least, if I am comparing apples and oranges then every comparison of non-identical things is forbidden. In that case, we should give up speaking and thinking (one wishes that some who have given up the second would cease with the first).

To disregard your moronic claim of 'Theology tries to discover what happens in the "afterlife"', I will use the scholastic definition (as I understand and remember it):

The natural scientist considers an object as what it is in particular. A geologist studies a rock as being a rock.

The philosopher considers things not as what they are in particular, but what they are in general. A philosopher would being with the rock as being something that 'exists' and endeavor to find what it means to say that something 'exists'.

A theologian considers an object in how it relates to God.

Each science begins with a certain set of assumptions. Each works with a certain set of facts (for instance, I would argue that free will and original sin are so obvious that you would have to resort to philosophy to argue against them). Each draws conclusions. Each makes mistakes. Each is, to some degree, self correcting.

Now, what I think you would say is that I have a Creed while you have facts. In truth, I have a Creed that I believe. I know it is a Creed and that I believe it and that I have not proven it. You have a Creed and think that is a fact that you have proven. I may be dumb enough to believe the Nicene Creed, but at least I'm smart enough to know that it is a Creed.

I'm sure you could go on and on. You seem quite good at that. Let me set this out: Christianity once held that things like the Noachian Flood and the Tower of Babel were historical events. Most of Christendom now believes that not to be true. I would argue that this indicates one and only one thing: when the facts have indicated that a change in a position was needed, the Church no less than the sciences has been willing to do so. Has Christendom been slower than it could have been? You could make that argument. However, if the question is whether it is in any substantive way a valid search for truth, the only question is whether it does make progress. The answer, by your examples, is clearly yes.

You state that belief in resurrections and virgin births is rediculous. Why, if I may ask, is that? I suppose that you will say that 'DEAD PEOPLE STAY DEAD!' and 'PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD SEX DON'T GET PREGNANT!' or something like that.

That certainly is general experience. You do realize that it was also general experience 2000 years ago. Whether true or not, the nature of the claim is that they are singular events. As such, it is foolish to argue that it is not what happens generally.

I don't know why you made the claim you did about the 'afterlife'. I assume you don't believe in such a thing. You may well be right: I will allow the possibility of anything whose impossibility I have not proven. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I will say this: I am not afraid of death (I am still deciding whether I prefer death to getting old). Death, so far as we know, does not hurt at all. Dying, as we do know, often hurts like the Dickens. I am afraid of dying, but not death. I do believe in the afterlife. Of course, you might say that deep in my psyche I have a fear of death that I am not consciously aware of that leads me to believe in the resurrection. If that is true, how do you know that your subconscious has not deluded you?

I do have one general thing to say. Chesterton (a favorite writer of mine) asserted this: There is one thing in Europe that has gone toe-to-toe with Paganism. It is Christianity. Everything else, even anti-Christianity, is of Christian origin. I mention the quote because of one obvious fact: It is the historically Christian countries that have made the great leaps forward in the sciences. I do not offer that statement in as descisive, but can you throw it away as irrelevant?

 

[triadboy]

To disregard your moronic claim of 'Theology tries to discover what happens in the "afterlife"',

But that is exactly what 'religion' is! Buddhism has nirvana. Hinduism has reincarnation. Islam has virgins. Christians have wings and harps. (on and on)

I would argue that ... original sin are so obvious that you would have to resort to philosophy to argue against them

Please begin the case that original sin is obvious. You will soon find you are so twisted around nothing is obvious.

I may be dumb enough to believe the Nicene Creed..

See how restrained I am - I didn't call you a moron.

Let me set this out: Christianity once held that things like the Noachian Flood and the Tower of Babel were historical events. Most of Christendom now believes that not to be true.

That explains why your church is mounting an expedition to find Noahs Ark!

I would argue that this indicates one and only one thing: when the facts have indicated that a change in a position was needed, the Church no less than the sciences has been willing to do so.

Have you talked to any Young-Earthers lately?

You state that belief in resurrections and virgin births is rediculous. Why, if I may ask, is that? I suppose that you will say that 'DEAD PEOPLE STAY DEAD!' and 'PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD SEX DON'T GET PREGNANT!' or something like that.

It's because dead people stay dead and people who haven't had sex don't get pregnant!

That certainly is general experience. You do realize that it was also general experience 2000 years ago. Whether true or not, the nature of the claim is that they are singular events. As such, it is foolish to argue that it is not what happens generally.

So you would agree that all the tales of gods born of virgins were accurately reported? And all the resurrections reported down through time actually occurred?....Or just your guy?

I am afraid of dying, but not death. I do believe in the afterlife. Of course, you might say that deep in my psyche I have a fear of death that I am not consciously aware of that leads me to believe in the resurrection.

It's not deep in your psyche - it's right there on your sleeve.

It doesn't HAVE to lead you to the resurrection. There are other religions for people afraid of death.

I do have one general thing to say. Chesterton (a favorite writer of mine) asserted this: There is one thing in Europe that has gone toe-to-toe with Paganism. It is Christianity.

Christianity goes toe to toe with everything that doesn't conform to its doctrine.

 

[Bubbles]

Actually, there have been a great many religions through history that have had little or no belief in life after death. On the matter of wings and harps, I can only repeat what C. S. Lewis once said, that those who can't understand books written for adults shouldn't talk about them.

You do realize the possibility that a number of religions believe in some form of life after death because there is such a thing, don't you? Either way, religion is, like philosophy, an attempt top find absolute truth. Whether it is successful or not, that is what it is. The question of the existence and nature of life after death is part of that (would you agree that the question of the existence and nature of life after death is important to the question of the meaning and purpose of our existence?).

I don't have a philosophical case for original sin. It is, like free will, an obvious fact of human experience. It is simply that all men are, to some degree, fools and that all men, under the right circumstances behave very badly.

It would be irrelevant for me to find people who claim to hold your basic views (whether that is true or not) but that have a specific position different from yours and use that to argue against your position. It is bad logic. Unlike you, I will not do so. There are people who are looking for Noah's ark. There are people who believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. That is not my position, so it is irrelevant for you to mention those people.

It is, of course, my experience that dead people stay dead and that people who haven't had sex don't get pregnant. You surely realize that actual experience does not equal logical necessity. To put the matter another way:

A: All things that can be thought

B: All things that are theoretically possible

C: Normal human experience

Surely you would agree that 'dead people stay dead' and 'people who haven't had sex don't get pregnant' belong in group 'C', not in group 'B'. It is theoretically possible for someone to be raised from the dead, and it is theroretically possible for a woman who has never had sex to have a child. It is in no way self-contradictory.

The comedy, you see, is that you begin by assuming that such things cannot happen, and are delighted when you prove that such things cannot happen.

I do not assert that every claim of the miraculous is accurate. I merely do not assert that such claims are innacurate because they are claims of the miraculous. Surely you see that if half of the claims of the miraculous were proven to be false it would not, in itself, prove the other half false.

I suppose I could claim that the people who claimed to experience the miraculous are stupid, credulous people. Then someone could ask me why I think them stupid and credulous and I could proudly reply "Because they claim to have experienced the miraculous!"


How do you know that I am afraid of death? You claim it as true, so I would like to know why you believe it to be true.

It was nice of you to trim the last quote so that the point that it made (which was, no doubt, lost on you) was missing. The point was related to the topic of discussion: the relationship between Christianity and the sciences. The development of the sciences in the last several hundred years happened primarilly in Christian countries. Will you deny that fact? The culture that Christianity produced is the culture that produced great scientific advance. The point of the quote, and the argument I was making with it, is that everything in the western world, whether it supports Christianity, opposes Christianity, or is indifferent to it, owes a great debt to Christianity. Christianity may have been a very inadequate mother, but that does not negate its maternal claim.