Irritating To The Believer

[Johnny Pneumatic]

What are the Hard Questions you'd ask a Xian?

[scribble]

Why not head over to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com and Check through their lists of strange things in the Bible. You'll find no end.

While the old testamant ones are usually the more fun, most christians will say the entire old testament is irrelevant since the birth of christ. One of my favorite new-testament things to go for at that point is Jesus cursing the fig tree. I'm sure you can find it on the site.

[sparklecat]

If you're going for Bible problems, John 18:20 where Jesus lies is a good one. If it's a Biblical inerrantist, you can take the OT as well... God killing Jeremiah's wife was always one I hated. As to actual concepts, you could attack the concept of Hell, the idea that the Bible is inspired, unfulfilled prophecies such as Tyre, etc.

[QuarkChild]

Didn't Jesus promise to return in the lifetime of the disciples?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
What are the Hard Questions you'd ask a Xian? Do you have your own life in order? Of course it's understandable that it works both ways, and maybe we shouldn't be casting the stones either? It's almost like we would have to adopt Christianity in the truest sense, in order to get them off our backs. ;)

Hey, and how do you know God's not just kneading the dough with you guys?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you have your own life in order? Of course it's understandable that it works both ways, and maybe we shouldn't be casting the stones either? It's almost like we would have to adopt Christianity in the truest sense, in order to get them off our backs. ;)

Hey, and how do you know God's not just kneading the dough with you guys?

It's a hobby, for reasons you alude to.

If God's screwing with my life, I would request respectfully he/she keep doing so. I live in a disgustingly rich country, and I'm upper-middle class within that country. Right there, I've got way more than I can possibly justify.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you have your own life in order?
Do you have your own life in order? is that a question that you'd ask a xtian, or are you suggesting that not having your life in order, is a reason to leave the xtians alone?

actually, I DO tend to leave the xtians alone, anyway, unless they want to do stupid xtians things like try and convert me, curtail my rights, impose censorship, teach 'creation science' in my community, etc, etc.

Of course it's understandable that it works both ways, and maybe we shouldn't be casting the stones either? It's almost like we would have to adopt Christianity in the truest sense, in order to get them off our backs. ;)
who said "Know your enemy"? Many Christians just don't know the inconsistancies and weakneses in their own bible, but you'll usually find they are very vocal when, they find chapter & verse that supports their own prejudices.
Hey, and how do you know God's not just kneading the dough with you guys?
God is the ultimate good. God will punish you if you don't keep his commandments, therefore, if he were just 'kneading the dough', he would vanish in a puff of logic.
Peter

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

Do you have your own life in order? is that a question that you'd ask a xtian, or are you suggesting that not having your life in order, is a reason to leave the xtians alone?Yes, this is the question I would ask them if they approached me about my life.


actually, I DO tend to leave the xtians alone, anyway, unless they want to do stupid xtians things like try and convert me, curtail my rights, impose censorship, teach 'creation science' in my community, etc, etc.

who said "Know your enemy"? Many Christians just don't know the inconsistancies and weakneses in their own bible, but you'll usually find they are very vocal when, they find chapter & verse that supports their own prejudices. Or, perhaps they don't know what it means to be "good Christians." First and foremost I would say, is not to be hypocrites. In fact I think the Bible is very explicit about this.


God is the ultimate good. God will punish you if you don't keep his commandments, therefore, if he were just 'kneading the dough', he would vanish in a puff of logic.
Peter If God is the ultimate good, then God should also apply to one's good judgment, therefore if you're going to pay the price for anything, it would be for going against one's good judgment. Which isn't to say the ten commandments are not sound principles to abide by either, at least according to my good judgment.

[Riddick]

did you know 75% of north americans are christian?

[uruk]

did you know 75% of north americans are christian?

And 85% of North Americans buy extended warranty plans.

[triadboy]

The one I love is that EVERYBODY except xians are going to hell. No matter how wonderful their lives were they're in hell. All muslims, hindus, jews, buddhists, etc. - hell. Only xians go to heaven - and yet all (except islam) are older religions than xianity. It's the height of stupidity.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Riddick
did you know 75% of north americans are christian?
and the other 35% are not very good at statistics
P

[Riddick]

Originally posted by triadboy
The one I love is that EVERYBODY except xians are going to hell. No matter how wonderful their lives were they're in hell. All muslims, hindus, jews, buddhists, etc. - hell. Only xians go to heaven - and yet all (except islam) are older religions than xianity. It's the height of stupidity.
this is like being mad at the tooth fairy because only the tooth fairy offers you a little reward when you lose a tooth.

is it the tooth fairy's fault. surely we can place blame on her.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The tooth fairy avoids blame by the same strategy god employs: remaining non-existent.

[Keziah Mason]

Re: Riddick's sig...

So, is that a nice Christian sig or what? Please detail how it glorifies God. I hear that's important to Christians.

[Gregor]

I don't know why 75% of Americans [sic] are allegedly Xian. Because only 144,000 male virgins are going to heaven. According to Revelations, the only people that will live in the golden cube that is heaven are 144,000 male virgins from the original 12 tribes of Israel.

So, what's the point?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Keziah Mason
Re: Riddick's sig...

So, is that a nice Christian sig or what? Please detail how it glorifies God. I hear that's important to Christians.

Giving the bird is allowed when it's aimed at non-believers.

In fact--I think you get points for it.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Riddick
did you know 75% of north americans are christian?

Ah! And Riddick returns!

I'm guessing his logic is that since more than 1/2 of North American's are Christians (And we're not even getting into different denominations here), that Christianity, simply, must be THE ONE TRUE RELIGION! (tm) No contest, not counting the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus..Sikhs (And their own respective denominations, et al).

I guess the world must've been physically flat at one point - and then the laws of physics suddenly changed and the world became round!

[Keziah Mason]

Originally posted by Ralph


Giving the bird is allowed when it's aimed at non-believers.

In fact--I think you get points for it.

Yeah, but it just reeks of hypocrisy.

In my previous experience, believers irritated by questions just say we're going to hell. This is the first bird I've seen. A new trend?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Gregor
75% of Americans [sic]

?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Riddick
did you know 75% of north americans are christian? Of course, a fairly large number of those Christians say that a fairly large number of those other Christians are going to hell anyway.

[Lord Emsworth]

Origianlly posted by Riddick
this is like being mad at the tooth fairy because only the tooth fairy offers you a little reward when you lose a tooth.

Of course, if she was the one who knocked the tooth out, then

Origianlly posted by Riddick
is it the tooth fairy's fault. surely we can place blame on her.

[CSSMariner]

Just being an open, successful and happy atheist here in N. Central Texas is enough to irritate the hell out of most Texan true-believers. The Baptist Religion is second only to football in Texas.

When I responded to one female "truth-spouter" (the sister of the man from whom we were purchasing our new home in rural Texas and therefore a new neighbor) who said to me, "You are of course a Christian" that "I was just a people," she responded, "We will just have to work on that."

I said to her then that all I really wanted from her was to receive in return the same respect I demonstrated to her for her beliefs. That was all it took with her, and we have become good neighbors and even friends. I think that approach totally disarmed her.

However, it is normal here when one meets a new person to be asked, "Where do you go to church?" I just tell most of them that I do not do the church thing, which generally keeps them quiet.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Riddick
did you know 75% of north americans are christian?

Well, game/set/match to the Xtians!

"We're #1, we're #1, we're #1!!!"

Yea, and according to a Gallup poll released in March 5, 2001, 45% of Americans agreed that, "God created humans in their present form."

We all know what opinions are like, don't we?? ;)

Barkhorn.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Keziah Mason
Yeah, but it just reeks of hypocrisy.

In my previous experience, believers irritated by questions just say we're going to hell. This is the first bird I've seen. A new trend?
my finger isn't very "xianlike" i need to put something else in there

some of you ask such daunting questions, it completely takes the fun out of it. others ask questions i don't mind so much.

now to think of a new sig.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Riddick

this is like being mad at the tooth fairy because only the tooth fairy offers you a little reward when you lose a tooth.

is it the tooth fairy's fault. surely we can place blame on her.

But, you see, if God exists and God created the universe then God made the rules. So if God exists then he most definitely bears full responsibility for what Triadboy described.

Look at it this way, if I put a gun to your head and demand that you give me your wallet or I will shoot you and you fail to give me your wallet and I, thus, shoot you; who is responsible for your death? Me or you?

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
But, you see, if God exists and God created the universe then God made the rules. So if God exists then he most definitely bears full responsibility for what Triadboy described.

Look at it this way, if I put a gun to your head and demand that you give me your wallet or I will shoot you and you fail to give me your wallet and I, thus, shoot you; who is responsible for your death? Me or you?
gah, i will be responsible in an unwritten street common sense and you will be responsibile under common law.

i'm stuck between the teenage message boards where i own and here where i am owned. hrm. :v:

[Bikewer]

Here's mine:

If Jesus' sacrifice made it possible for humans to escape the burden of original sin, and enter into heaven.....And, if this is conditional on knowing about the whole thing and accepting Jesus as your saviour (or whatever, according to sect).....Why did the all-just, all-merciful God make it so difficult for folks to find out about it?

No mile-high neon letters in the sky, just obscure events in a little backwater of the Roman empire, that no one in the world much heard about for nearly a thousand years. Even to this day, we can surmise there are folks that live thier lives and die in total ignorance of Xianity.....

Of course, Christianity realized this problem, and various groups have made heroic missionary efforts, but travel was slow. I would imagine that many millions of people have died in complete ignorance of these events.

[MLynn]

It's the one question I would pose to modern-day Christians. They seem to be great at telling everyone else what to be and do, but they seem to be uneducated, insecure, and fail at loving people as they are commanded to do - where is the unconditonal love for human beings? I Corintians 13

[Keziah Mason]

I'm going to step back a bit to pose my question: What evidence is there that shows that a god exists? And to head off the inevitable, what evidence is there that shows the Bible is any different from all the other mytholgies that humans have invented? (Points deducted for circular reasoning!)

Originally posted by Riddick

now to think of a new sig.

Thank you Riddick. Being a good example is the best way to convince others.

[Yahweh]

Ressurrecting a thread...

At the moment, I am looking for biblical verses from the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Sodapop, and Ponyboy which show the teachings of Jesus Christ are not completely just.

Sparklecat says:
If you're going for Bible problems, John 18:20 where Jesus lies is a good one.
Could someone explain what Jesus lies about?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Ressurrecting a thread...

At the moment, I am looking for biblical verses from the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Sodapop, and Ponyboy which show the teachings of Jesus Christ are not completely just.

Sparklecat says:

Could someone explain what Jesus lies about?


I just answered your PM, but I'll respond here anyway :)


John 18:20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."


False. Jesus taught in boats, on mounts, to his disciples in private, etc.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Riddick
did you know 75% of north americans are christian?

Did you know that 86% identified themselves as Christian in 1990?

:jaw:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by sparklecat
John 18:20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."


False. Jesus taught in boats, on mounts, to his disciples in private, etc. Jesus offers this reply after "The high priest ... asked Jesus concerning his disciples, and concerning his doctrine" (John 18:19). Unfortunately, the precise content and phrasing of the questions to which John 18:20 is intended to respond isn't given in the account, which makes it somewhat difficult to conclude that Jesus' answer is inappropriate or (worse) false. If he was asked about, say, particular doctrines he taught in his public ministry (including in synagogues and the temple) his response might then reasonably be construed to mean "I've taught that publicly, and I've never said anything 'off the record' to contradict such teaching."

In addition, the Greek word sunagoge rendered as "synagogue" in English, apparently means "gathering", and seems to have been used rather flexibly in the New Testament (including uses of its cognate verb to mean simply "to gather"). Interestingly, the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary indicates that the term "synagogue" had a now-obsolete sense in English meaning simply "a gathering or assembly" - regardless of composition, location or purpose - and cites examples of this usage in texts from the 14th through the 19th centuries.

Particularly when one considers that sunagoge or its cognates are used elsewhere in the New Testament to indicate informal assemblies of various sizes and in various contexts (including what one would normally consider "private" gatherings of the disciples, as in Acts 4:31), it seems probable that sunagoge is flexible enough to apply to teachings imparted directly to the Twelve, or sermons on mounts, and perhaps even teachings aboard boats.

Accordingly, in light of all of the foregoing, I'm inclined to view the "Jesus lied!" interpretation of John 18:20 as rather strained and weak, although perhaps I wouldn't dismiss it entirely.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Riddick
did you know 75% of north americans are christian? Did you forget to count Mexicans and Canadians? They're North Americans too.

According to data from the CIA World Factbook, 84% of the current United States population is Christian, 95% of the current Mexican population is Christian, and, as of 1991, 82% of the Canadian population was Christian.

Based on relative population data from the same source, by my quick (un-doublechecked) calculation, roughly 87% of North Americans are Christian (of whom roughly 51% are Catholic and 49% are non-Catholic Christians).

[rustypouch]

My one question is very similar to Yahweh's, and I have never recieved a satisfactory answer.

Why should I believe in the xian diety, holy book and mythologies over any of the hundreds, if not thousands of others that have ever existed?

[Christian]

Originally posted by rustypouch
My one question is very similar to Yahweh's, and I have never recieved a satisfactory answer.

Why should I believe in the xian diety, holy book and mythologies over any of the hundreds, if not thousands of others that have ever existed?

Good question. And this is too: Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?

I have never received a satisfactory answer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Christian

Good question. And this is too: Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?


Because Europeans were more successful at conquering and spreading their culture. Duh.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Tony


Because Europeans were more successful at conquering and spreading their culture. Duh.

Why?

So your answer is luck? It is easy to be a monday morning quarterback.

What are the odds that this specific religion be the most succesful?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Christian


Good question. And this is too: Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?

I have never received a satisfactory answer.

Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure.

Why is Islam a rapidly growing religion?

Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure.

[Christian]

Originally posted by triadboy


Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure.

Why is Islam a rapidly growing religion?

Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure.

Ok, but some who holds a position like yours would say that most religions use coercion, ignorance and peer pressure? Why would Christianity take the lead?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
What are the odds that this specific religion be the most succesful? 1 / the number of religions.

The odds that, of all the religions, one of them is the most successful, is of course 1. There is nothing necessarily special about Christianity just because it happens to be in the #1 spot at this particular moment in time.

Remember, at one time there were only 12 Christians in the whole world. Did that make Christianity any less valid?

The truth is not determined by a popularity contest.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Christian


Ok, but some who holds a position like yours would say that most religions use coercion, ignorance and peer pressure? Why would Christianity take the lead?

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire, the religion got a MAJOR boost in the "race" for the most popular religion.

[Bubbles]

As far as the question of why Christianity would be wildly successful and not some other religion, I think I would make an analogy to poker. Let us imagine that I shuffle a deck of cards and then deal myself five. I could pronounce the hand miraculous as the odds of my getting it were something like 1 in 2.6 million. However, as I was bound to get some combination of 5 cards and every combination is equally unlikely, some wildly unlikely outcome had to result. Some religion was boud to be wildly successful. Chrsitianity, among others, was. That by itself proves nothing.

As regards the 'Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure" statement, I would assert that, to steal a phrase, Christianity ceased to be meek when it inheritd the Earth.

I do think that there is a general problem with trying to rationally explain arational things. Being rational is great when buying a car, but who in their right mind would want to be entirely rational about getting married? I think chossing a metaphysics / religious system is far more like falling in love that it is like making a purchase. I think any sports fan would understand me: who would rationally choose to chear for the Clippers? It's just something arational like falling in love.

Bikewer, if you want your questions to be addressed from a moderate to liberal Chrisitian perspective, I would be happy to. If you don't, I won't bog down the thread with it.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Beleth
1 / the number of religions.

The odds that, of all the religions, one of them is the most successful, is of course 1. There is nothing necessarily special about Christianity just because it happens to be in the #1 spot at this particular moment in time.

But for most if it's existance it has been #1. To this day, it has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

Isn't luck a very simplistic explanation?

[Christian]

Originally posted by triadboy


When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire, the religion got a MAJOR boost in the "race" for the most popular religion.

Yes, we know this. From a purely materialistic view, we do find a string of events don't we.

Again, isn't this simplistic. Why has that boost lasted for so long. Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Bubbles
As far as the question of why Christianity would be wildly successful and not some other religion, I think I would make an analogy to poker. Let us imagine that I shuffle a deck of cards and then deal myself five. I could pronounce the hand miraculous as the odds of my getting it were something like 1 in 2.6 million. However, as I was bound to get some combination of 5 cards and every combination is equally unlikely, some wildly unlikely outcome had to result. Some religion was boud to be wildly successful. Chrsitianity, among others, was. That by itself proves nothing.

Oh, but this analogy is not fitting. Christianity has so many elements, a book, teachings, practices, etc. All these things influence future outcomes.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Christian


But for most if it's existance it has been #1. To this day, it has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

Isn't luck a very simplistic explanation?

You might want to make that " western human history "...

And yes ' Force ' is a good choice of word, here..

[Tony]

Originally posted by Christian


But for most if it's existance it has been #1.

You'll have to show evidence of this.

To this day, it has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

Again, you'll have to show evidence of this.

Isn't luck a very simplistic explanation?

No more than saying it's because the religion is true.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Christian


Why has that boost lasted for so long.

Are you really this stupid? Western Civ. is practically built on Rome, is it any mystery that the Roman cults would ALSO exist to this day?

Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

This doesn't make any sense.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Tony
No more than saying it's because the religion is true.


This is true, and please note that I have not said that it is true because it is #1. (attaching that position to me would be strawman)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian


Yes, we know this. From a purely materialistic view, we do find a string of events don't we.

Again, isn't this simplistic. Why has that boost lasted for so long. Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

Not simplistic at all. Political considerations have ensured that for much of the last couple thousand years, monarchs and other leaders have had a vested interest in keeping Christianity as the predominant force in the world. Simply put, religion has usually had politics on it's side and Constantine's choice of Christianity ensured that Christianity would be the religion of choice for Europe, and since it was the main religion of Europe, when Europe colonized the new world, Christianity came with it.

Since Europe and subsequently the US have been the major powers in the world for much of history, it is only natural that the predominant religion of those powers would be extremely important in world affairs too.

All in all the growth and predominance of Christianity has much more to do with politics than the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Tony
[B]

Are you really this stupid?

Let me ask you, do you believe that any person who is a Christian is stupid?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


All in all the growth and predominance of Christianity has much more to do with politics than the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

I have said nothing about the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

Suppose we accep this as true, still that doesn't answer the question why would it be Christianity, why not Buddhism? Why not the countries that have a head start in civilization?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Christian


I have said nothing about the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine. But you sure are implying it. You seem to ascribe some meaning or purpose to the current popularity of Christianity. To me that implies that either you think that it's popular because it's true, or it's popular because of divine intervention.

Seems to me a christian can't believe that their religion would be where it is without some kind of divine intervention. After all, it started as a tiny little cult. If it wasn't true, it would have died out like so many other flash in the pan religions. It HAD to survive because it's right.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

But you sure are implying it. You seem to ascribe some meaning or purpose to the current popularity of Christianity. To me that implies that either you think that it's popular because it's true, or it's popular because of divine intervention.

This is how you understand it, but I don't think you should attack a position you believe the other person is implying. Isn't that a strawman?

Seems to me a christian can't believe that their religion would be where it is without some kind of divine intervention. After all, it started as a tiny little cult. If it wasn't true, it would have died out like so many other flash in the pan religions. It HAD to survive because it's right.

This would be a theory, one theory.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian


I have said nothing about the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

Suppose we accep this as true, still that doesn't answer the question why would it be Christianity, why not Buddhism? Why not the countries that have a head start in civilization?

you have not said anything about the correctnes of Christianity in so many words, but your question
Good question. And this is too: Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?
when read in the context of you other posts seems to imply that you think that Christianity is so powerful because it is true. If I am wrong and you were merely asking a rhetorical question, I apologize.

As for the question about Buddhism, it doesn't really have a lot to do with the age of the civilization as much as the agressive spreading of that civilization. Buddhism may well be the most powerful religion in China and China may well be an older civilization than Europe, but China has never been as aggressive about spreading that culture, through either force or trade. Early in their history, they had no interest in sharing their civilization with other cultures that they considered barbaric. Byt he time that attitude changed, we barbarians had eclipsed them in wealth and power. If that attitude had been different early on, we might well all be Buddhists.

This leads, by the way, to another factor in Christianity's spread. It demands (or has been interpreted to demand, anyway) aggresive proselytizing. Buddhism has never, so far as I know, been interpreted in such a way that demands it's adherents to convert others to it. Christianity has been. Combine this with the spread of western culture over the centuries and it owuld be mazing if Christianity WEREN'T such a major force in the world.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, but some who holds a position like yours would say that most religions use coercion, ignorance and peer pressure? Why would Christianity take the lead?
It was either Christianity or another religion. Just so happens Christianity made it out on top.

It if were introduced at some other time or place in history, or under different circumstances, the popularity of the religion may have turned out differently. Perhaps 1/3 of the planet would be Ngongo, and Christianity would remain an obscure religion between a small tribe of people (if it survived).

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Christian


This is how you understand it, but I don't think you should attack a position you believe the other person is implying. Isn't that a strawman?



This would be a theory, one theory. I was attempting NOT to set up a strawman. Oh well...

What's your theory as to why Christianity is popular then? Personally, I think it was blind luck. The Roman's adopt it, Europe then adopts it, all social and political power ends up tied to it, Europe fends off Mongols (who, had they not enforced freedom of religion, may have made the world whatever the hell they were (animists? Buddhists?)), Europe has the renaissance, that allows expansion through new technology, and christianity is then forced at the end of a gun on the natives wherever europeans go.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

you have not said anything about the correctnes of Christianity in so many words, but your question

when read in the context of you other posts seems to imply that you think that Christianity is so powerful because it is true. If I am wrong and you were merely asking a rhetorical question, I apologize.

But there are so many possible explanations. Let me give another. The facts are not correct, but the message is compelling. Why would you infer only one explanation? bias?

As for the question about Buddhism, it doesn't really have a lot to do with the age of the civilization as much as the agressive spreading of that civilization. Buddhism may well be the most powerful religion in China and China may well be an older civilization than Europe, but China has never been as aggressive about spreading that culture, through either force or trade. Early in their history, they had no interest in sharing their civilization with other cultures that they considered barbaric. Byt he time that attitude changed, we barbarians had eclipsed them in wealth and power. If that attitude had been different early on, we might well all be Buddhists.

This leads, by the way, to another factor in Christianity's spread. It demands (or has been interpreted to demand, anyway) aggresive proselytizing. Buddhism has never, so far as I know, been interpreted in such a way that demands it's adherents to convert others to it. Christianity has been. Combine this with the spread of western culture over the centuries and it owuld be mazing if Christianity WEREN'T such a major force in the world.

But you are speculating. Why would this speculation be any better than someone else's saying that the message is just more interesting?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
when read in the context of you other posts seems to imply that you think that Christianity is so powerful because it is true.
Yes, and Communism is quite a powerful force as well.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I was attempting NOT to set up a strawman. Oh well...



I understand that, and I believe you. I want to make clear that is not my position.

What's your theory as to why Christianity is popular then? Personally, I think it was blind luck. The Roman's adopt it, Europe then adopts it, all social and political power ends up tied to it, Europe fends off Mongols (who, had they not enforced freedom of religion, may have made the world whatever the hell they were (animists? Buddhists?)), Europe has the renaissance, that allows expansion through new technology, and christianity is then forced at the end of a gun on the natives wherever europeans go.

Ok, I'm out of time, and I really want to make a point. I think a good point. Please wait for tomorrow.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian


But there are so many possible explanations. Let me give another. The facts are not correct, but the message is compelling. Why would you infer only one explanation? bias?

Why do you infer that I only infer one explanation? Let me give you another. I Infer many possible explanations but only mention the one I think most likely.

We could go 'round like this all day long.



But you are speculating. Why would this speculation be any better than someone else's saying that the message is just more interesting?

Why indeed. History is not so precise a field as science and some degree of speculation is inevitable in the field. But, in history, such speculation must always be derived from fact. Entire books could be (and likely have been) written on this subject. To simplify it as best I can, so it will fit in a post on an internet board, my speculation is based on the following facts:


Christianity is the predominant religion of Europe and the Americas
Europe and the US have been the most aggressive forces in spreading their culture across the globe in the last couple of thousand years
Religion is part of that culture


Thus, Christian Religion is so powerful and widespread because it is the religion adopted by the most powerful and widespread culture of our time.

These are the facts that my speculation is based on. If you wish to speculate otherwise, feel free to post the facts that whatever alternate speculation you wish to put forward is based on.

[Bubbles]

It is very difficult to think objectively about the past. By that I mean that, once we know how something DID turn out, it is natural to think that it HAD to turn out that way. Paul and Constantine did convert to Christianity. Things turned out the way that they did.

Neither conversion was logically necessary. Either or both could not have happened. Had they done so (or not done so, as you wish to phrase it), things would have turned out in some way differently. Perhaps, rather than talking about the Christian juggernaut, we would be talking about some other religion. There is no way to even talk about the odds of such unique events and outcomes.

Did Christian teaching, practice, etc. contribute to the outcome that did occur? Of course! The success or failure (defined in terms of number of followers and social influence) would be effected by those things. In that sense, the poker hand analogy is simplistic. However, the analogy was simply to point out that, like a particular poker hand, the ascendency of any one religion (from a secular perspective) is tremendously unlikely. However, some hand will be dealt and some religion will be the predominant one. I offered nothing more than that.

Getting past that, what are the reasons that Christianity would have gained the dominant position in Western culture that it did, in fact, gain (I don't pretend that the following is a complte list)?

1) Christianity is true, and God has caused true teaching to triumph over false teaching. This view is, in and of itself consistent.

2) Christianity is false, and evil supernatural forces have caused false teaching to triumph over true teaching. This is equally consistent, and, if one allows the first one must allow the possibility of this.

3) Complete dumb, blind luck. On the surface, this does seem silly. However, if you honestly look at your life, how much of it is just dumb, blind chance? I can honestly say that most of the consequential things that have happened in my life were mostly chance. Events (and consequently ME), could have all very easilly turned out very differently. History isn nothing but the summary of a bunch of individual events and choices.

4) Psychological / Social relevance. The teachings and practice of the church seemed 'right' to people. I don't say that people analyzed Christianity and decided it was TRUE (that would come later), but rather that it seemed relevant and meaningful. This is, I think, a more nuanced view than #3. In the same way that I could (in theory) calculate all of the forces on a flipped coin and determine the end result, the social and psychological forces active in Roman society in the early Christian era presumably would, to some degree 'encourage' Christianity.

Naturally, the explanations are not mutually exclusive. 3 and 4 do, to some degree, coexists. 1 and 4 would as well. Of course, some of this depends on where one stands on the 'free will' argument.

Let me offer one more thought: Is it not possible that Christianity has had a great 2000 years, but that 2000 years from now it will be as popular as the New Kids on the Block? Success in the present in no way necessitates success in the future. It is difficult to extrapolate eternity from a few short milliniums of human history.

[AK-Dave]

Originally posted by Christian

To this day, it [Chritianity] has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.
I would tend to agree with this statement. Chritianity has done more to hold back science and knowledge over the last thousand years than probably any other force in human history. Look at the current efforts with regards to stem cell research and teaching evolution. For past examples, look at all the books and scientists burned throughout the ages for daring to look for answers outside of the church.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by AK-Dave

I would tend to agree with this statement. Chritianity has done more to hold back science and knowledge over the last thousand years than probably any other force in human history. Look at the current efforts with regards to stem cell research and teaching evolution. For past examples, look at all the books and scientists burned throughout the ages for daring to look for answers outside of the church. AK-Dave, this is substantially a myth. For a rather detailed critical discussion of the influence of Christianity on science, please refer to this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24015).

At any rate, anyone interested in an analysis of the historical growth of Christianity from the perspective of the social sciences would do well to refer to Professor Rodney Stark's volume entitled The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton University Press, 1996). It received, incidentally, a highly favorable professional review (http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_23/ai_55208060) from The Skeptical Inquirer.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Seems to me a christian can't believe that their religion would be where it is without some kind of divine intervention. After all, it started as a tiny little cult. If it wasn't true, it would have died out like so many other flash in the pan religions. It HAD to survive because it's right. [/B]

Christian is forgetting that ALL religions started small. Their was a time when only a few people believed in nature spirits, Allah(the Islam version), Zeus etc.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
[B]AK-Dave, this is substantially a myth.


Your right ceo_esq, The Church was thankful to Galieo, Darwin etc. A vacuum was never a heracy. Don't make me go on.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas



Your right ceo_esq, The Church was thankful to Galieo, Darwin etc. A vacuum was never a heracy. Don't make me go on. Seriously, though, I'm happy for you to "go on", but I suggest reading the thread I linked before doing so, in order to avoid reinventing the wheel.

If you had done so, you'd already know that a vacuum was a "heresy" to Aristotle, not to the Church. If it had not been for the rejection by the Church of the impossibility of a vacuum, as well as a number of other frankly anti-scientific aspects of Aristotelian dogma (see, inter alia, the Condemnations of 1277), science would be a lot worse off. As the eminent historian of science Edward Grant (http://www.indiana.edu/~alldrp/members/grant.html) has written in The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. 1996) (part of the estimable Cambridge History of Science Series):By emphasizing God's absolute power to do anything short of a logical contradiction, the articles condemned in 1277 had a curious, and probably unintended, effect: they encouraged speculation about natural impossibilities in the Aristotelian world system, which were often treated [thereafter] as hypothetical possibilities. The supernaturally generated alternatives, which medieval natural philosophers considered in the wake of the condemnation, accustomed them to consider possibilities that were beyond the scope of Aristotle's natural philosophy, and often in direct conflict with it. The contemplation of hypothetical possibilities that were naturally impossible in the Aristotelian world view was so widespread that speculation about them became an integral feature of late medieval thought.

...

[Christian theological notions of an omnipotent God creating the universe] became a convenient vehicle for the introduction of the introduction of subtle and imaginative questions, which often generated novel answers. Although these speculative responses did not lead to the overthrow of the Aristotelian world view, they did ... challenge some of its fundamental principles and assumptions. They made many aware that things could be quite otherwise than were dreamt of in Aristotle's philosophy. ... We can be certain ... that the condemnation expanded the horizons of Aristotelian natural philosophers[.]Anyhow, the other thread is still open if anyone wants to pick up the conversation there.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

ceo, The Church taught, or should I say forced Aristotle's views on the world. I wonder if it would have lasted so long without them.

[Gregor]

Yes

We fought this one rather round and round. I disagree with the conclusion that it is a myth, and I recall the Stark discussion. We had those arguing that Xianity encouraged western development. We had those arguing no proof of encouragement. Finally we had those arguing for hinderance.

I seem to recall reaching some stalemate over the notion that there was nothing about the Xian religion that encouraged the development of science. I think those in the hinderance camp have tough sledding over proof to support the argument that Xianity hindered science - Copernicus and Gallileo notwithstanding.

In conclusion, I've still never read an argument that a particular Xian tenet encouraged science. The arguments about Aristotle's rediscovery & etc. are irrelevant to the tenets of Xianity. I also accept the concept that any dogmatic (and especially government sanctioned) belief in anything with out evidence (and some beliefs that are contradicted by evidence) hinders the pursuit of greater knowledge.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
ceo, The Church taught, or should I say forced Aristotle's views on the world. I wonder if it would have lasted so long without them. I really have to wonder where you are getting this. According to Grant, prior to the 12th century the Western "scientific" heritage consisted of a handful of Aristotle's logical treatises, some medical works, two-thirds of Plato's Timaeus, a few works on the motion of stars, and a series of encyclopedic handbooks by authors such as Pliny and the Venerable Bede. That was basically all there was in circulation, and it provided only a meager metaphysical basis for science.

The Church's first encounter with Greek natural philosophy or proto-science was basically Platonic and Neoplatonic, approaches which the Church found relatively benign. It wasn't until the 13th century that Aristotle's natural philosophical works made their powerful appearance in the Latin West, and almost immediately came into conflict with Christian theology. Of course, in comparison to what was available before, there's a lot of good natural philosophy in Aristotle. But coincidentally or not, the metaphysical ideas of Aristotle that were rejected or modified as a result of their encounter with the Church happened to be some of the ideas that were least conducive to a scientific worldview ("final causes", the rational impossibility of vacua in the the natural cosmos, and many others).

The upshot is that that the Church encouraged its scholars to take a much more critical look at Aristotle's metaphysics than Aristotle himself ever did. The Church obviously didn't embrace Aristotle wholesale (unlike the Islamic world). I'm not sure why you think the Church "forced Aristotle's views on the world". The opposite is probably closer to the truth. Please provide some sources for this contention. I suspect you still haven't looked at the other thread, because you would have found this explained in at least a dozen places.
Originally posted by Gregor
In conclusion, I've still never read an argument that a particular Xian tenet encouraged science.If I recall correctly, I did advance arguments in that vein in the other thread. One of the most important such ideas was the notion that the universe was formed and tends to operate according to a rational order imparted to it by its Creator, and that it is not only theoretically possible for human beings to discern that order through observation of the natural world, but theologically desirable as well. Now that concept may not have received varying degrees of attention at different times and places in the Christian world, but certainly it was a major preoccupation of the Scholastic natural philosopher-theologians after the 12th century, and you only need to read Isaac Newton's works to see what an enduringly powerful motivating force it was.

Also, one should bear in mind the ramifications for science of not having such ideas deeply rooted in your culture (as in pre-modern China; see the other thread).

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
We fought this one rather round and round. I disagree with the conclusion that it is a myth, and I recall the Stark discussion.By the way, there are a number of things that AK-Dave said that I think are indisputably myths: among others, the notion that the Church "burned" many scientists for pursuing scientific activities. Do you remember in the other thread how DialecticMaterialist pulled out all the stops trying to come up with examples of this? In the end, he couldn't adduce even a single instance of the Church having executed a scientist for his scientific pursuits.

To his credit though, at least DM had a fairly good sense for when it was time to hit the books and do some actual research, rather than parroting bogus received notions about the history of Christianity, as AK-Dave apparently prefers to do.

[evildave]

What? Me?

I never have anything 'irritating' to say.

OK, maybe one or two little things... but people are generally just so sensitive about the tiniest little details, and become offended at the drop of a pin. I've usually mortally offended the person just for not being what they want me to be: A mindless, drooling zombie who worries about make-believe things. I've got plenty of other real stuff to worry about, thank you.

I'm not always gentle or polite. Why bother, sometimes? You'll pray for me? Gre-e-e-eat. Thanks a lot. Will you dance in circles and make oo-oo sounds, too?

Heck, you think it's weird to see someone compulsively clean things before touching them? Then you see a really badly afflicted religious type, and it's the same thing. Watch out! The cooties/demons will getcha! Boogedy-boo!

Of course, I just avoid these sorts. They tend to have explosive temperament, and they've always got something black and rectangularand heavy to hit people with.

I really like it when people tell me "God says so". Really? When did he (sorry, 'He' - gotta capitalize those deity related pronouns, or people get miffed) email you about this?

Answering the question "Do you know Jesus" with "Heysoos? Yeah, he welded my muffler, man!", "No, have you let him in you heart?", "Ah, no way, I don't go that way!"

Of course, calling Jesus 'Mary's Bastard', the 'Savior on a Stick', 'Jehova's Love Child', 'Pilate's Whipping Boy', 'Cracker Bod Christ', 'The divine that bleeds wine', the 'Treeminator', and various other SNL copier machine guy names usually doesn't win friends among the believers who take all that religion stuff a little too seriously.

Other mildly irritating things. (http://members.sti.net/evildave/index.html)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Christian
Again, isn't this simplistic. Why has that boost lasted for so long. Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

Because the fear of hell is a strong convincer.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by sparklecat



I just answered your PM, but I'll respond here anyway :)


John 18:20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."


False. Jesus taught in boats, on mounts, to his disciples in private, etc.


Dude, that's pretty weak...

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Tony


> Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the
> most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?


Because Europeans were more successful at conquering and spreading their culture. Duh.


This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity. The "Western Tradition", is science, not Christianity-and-science, though it's hard for some to accept.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Beerina
This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity.Please provide some citations in support of that statement.

Preferably from, shall we say, at least two major pieces of reasonably contemporary scholarship dealing with the history of science during that period?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Please provide some citations in support of that statement.

Preferably from, shall we say, at least two major pieces of reasonably contemporary scholarship dealing with the history of science during that period?

The science of cartography was raped by xian leadership. 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.

[Bubbles]

Originally posted by Beerina



This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity. The "Western Tradition", is science, not Christianity-and-science, though it's hard for some to accept.

Actually, Christianity saved western culture during the dark ages. When society fell apart, it was the church (specifically monasteries) that preserved the achievements of the past. It is because of the work that the church did (though, admittedly it wasn't what they set out to do) that western Europe recovered instead of becoming a footnote in history (of course, then it would be someone else's history).

Also, if you want to blame someone for the failures of post-Roman / pre-Middle Ages science, I think Plato would be a better target. It was, as much as anything, Western Europe's switch from Plato to Aristotle that spawned the scientific achievements.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


The science of cartography was raped by xian leadership. 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.

Do you have any references for this? I've tried to search the web, but I've been unable to find any references to any edicts from the Church that put Jerusalem at the center, and I've also been unable to find any references to a period of progress in the art of map-making between Ptolemy around 150 AD and the renassiance. (In particular, there doesn't really seem to have been made any great advances in the art of map-making in the millenium after Ptolemy even in the Arabic world.)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy


The science of cartography was raped by xian leadership. 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. Hmm. That's not exactly responsive to my query to Beerina, but so be it. A likelier reason why progress in cartography stagnated (to the extent it did) between the beginning of the Middle Ages and 1300 or so is the temporary loss of Ptolemy's Geographia, not because the discipline was "raped by xian leadership". I'm aware that many medieval maps (though generally only after the Crusades) began to show Jerusalem at the center, but I wasn't aware that this was a formal requirement.

Nevertheless, it's difficult to parlay the notion that cartography faltered during the Middle Ages into an argument that the Church caused a thousand-year hiatus in scientific progress, especially when the latter proposition no longer holds much currency among professional historians of science.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Bubbles
Actually, Christianity saved western culture during the dark ages. When society fell apart, it was the church (specifically monasteries) that preserved the achievements of the past. It is because of the work that the church did (though, admittedly it wasn't what they set out to do) that western Europe recovered instead of becoming a footnote in history (of course, then it would be someone else's history).

From my understanding - I disagree with this. The dark ages was caused by the church. Knowledge is not for everyone in a theocratic culture. Didn't the muslim scholars preserve much of the knowledge lost during this time?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


From my understanding - I disagree with this. The dark ages was caused by the church. [SNIP]

Then I have to ask - how, in your understanding, did the Church cause the dark ages? The Dark Ages are generally held to be the period from about 400 AD to 1000 AD, and the generally held view among historians is that it was the fall of the Roman empire that caused the following period of cultural decline. In 400 AD the Church was not the political powerhouse it was to become, so I must say I fail to see how the church could be held responsible for such sweeping political and social changes.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Then I have to ask - how, in your understanding, did the Church cause the dark ages? The Dark Ages are generally held to be the period from about 400 AD to 1000 AD, and the generally held view among historians is that it was the fall of the Roman empire that caused the following period of cultural decline. In 400 AD the Church was not the political powerhouse it was to become, so I must say I fail to see how the church could be held responsible for such sweeping political and social changes.

I hate posting from work. Here is a site that speaks of the DARK AGES of religious power.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Do you have any references for this? I've tried to search the web, but I've been unable to find any references to any edicts from the Church that put Jerusalem at the center, and I've also been unable to find any references to a period of progress in the art of map-making between Ptolemy around 150 AD and the renassiance. (In particular, there doesn't really seem to have been made any great advances in the art of map-making in the millenium after Ptolemy even in the Arabic world.)

I actually have this in a book at home, but a quick Google landed this:


3. Dark Ages (500-1450)
The Dark Ages in Europe followed the collapse of the Roman empire and the 'decline of western civilization', the rise of christianity but more directly the decline of the sciences: "The lamp of scientific knowledge was obscured by the light of religious ecstasy". Knowledge and maps, resided in the hands of religious scribes, who tended to support references in the bible rather than depicting geographic facts, and supporting the idea of a 'flat' earth e.g. "it is he that sitteth on the circle of the earth" (Isiah 40.22)

The earth was drawn as a circle with EAST (Orient) to the top and Jerusalem in the centre.

"This is Jerusalem., I have set it in the midst" (Ezekiel 5.5)

The known world was bordered by Cold (N), Heat(S), Ocean (W), Paradise (E); maps of this time are known as "T-in-O" maps. Letter O for the circle of the earth, T formed by Mediterranean (vertical) and Don and Nile (horizontal), separating Asia, Europe and Africa.

Modern scientific cartography and higher civilisation was maintained in the arabic (and Chinese) world and through navigators. See for example the works of the 12th century arabic cartographer, Idrisi at the court of King Roger of Sicily.
Portolan charts which showed coastal areas in great detail, were built on the principles of triangulation, using compass bearings from two different locations (the compass first appeared in the 12th century). As travel increased in the 15th century, religiously enforced concepts began to break down.


http://www.gis.unbc.ca/courses/geog205/lectures/historyofcart/bottomframe.html

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I've also been unable to find any references to a period of progress in the art of map-making between Ptolemy around 150 AD and the renassiance. (In particular, there doesn't really seem to have been made any great advances in the art of map-making in the millenium after Ptolemy even in the Arabic world.)

I'll try and find the book that references this subject. They were making GREAT progress before God got tangled up in it.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Hmm. That's not exactly responsive to my query to Beerina, but so be it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beerina
This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please provide some citations in support of that statement.

I was throwing something out (off the top of my head) that showed Christianity thwarting knowledge - which is what the dark ages is all about.

The dark ages coincide with the rise of Christianity. Coincidence? I think not.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Do you have any references for this?

Found it! Got lucky and saw a reference to Daniel Boorstin in another book I was searching.

Daniel J Boorstin directed the nation's library from 1979 - 1987. He wrote some great history books The Creators and The Discoverers. These are a must read.

Now I must type.

From The Discoverers (p 100)

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)


It goes on and on through history. This is not an anti-Chrisitan book - it is a history book. Great writing! In fact, I think I'll reread it! Thanks for reminding me about it!

[Bubbles]

If I may ask a stupid question, why does it matter where Jerusalem was on the map? I mean, we all know that they knew that the world was round. I can take a globe and turn it such that any point of my choosing is facing towards me, but that does nothing to make the map better or worse (it may make it less useful to me, but that is another matter).

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Bubbles
If I may ask a stupid question, why does it matter where Jerusalem was on the map? I mean, we all know that they knew that the world was round. I can take a globe and turn it such that any point of my choosing is facing towards me, but that does nothing to make the map better or worse (it may make it less useful to me, but that is another matter).

First you have to see a map with Jerusalem in the center to understand how idiotic it really is. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Some of these maps also had the Garden of Eden, Leviathons in the sea, etc. Basically the cartographers of the Dark Ages, used things in the Bible to develop their maps. The intricate coastlines Ptolemy drew were gone. Find The Discoverers and read it - I promise you'll enjoy it. Then get The Creators.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
In 400 AD the Church was not the political powerhouse it was to become,

Don't underestimate how powerful the church was. It was the officially sanctioned religion of the empire. Plus you have the church fathers who were positively adament about stamping out anything contrary to their beliefs.

[TAILGUNNER]

Whys everybody hung up on a book rewritten in the middle ages

its not like it went on to become a best seller or anything:D ;)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


I was throwing something out (off the top of my head) that showed Christianity thwarting knowledge - which is what the dark ages is all about.

The dark ages coincide with the rise of Christianity. Coincidence? I think not.

But the main spread of Christianity, and the church's power developed throughout the dark ages, not preceding it. The church expanded and gained political power partly as a replacement of the roman empire; expanding into the power vacuum that the Empire's fall had created.

In short - that the rise of Christianity coincided with the Dark Ages does not support your statement that it caused the Dark Ages.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


Found it! Got lucky and saw a reference to Daniel Boorstin in another book I was searching.

Daniel J Boorstin directed the nation's library from 1979 - 1987. He wrote some great history books The Creators and The Discoverers. These are a must read.

Now I must type.

From The Discoverers (p 100)

[/i]

It goes on and on through history. This is not an anti-Chrisitan book - it is a history book. Great writing! In fact, I think I'll reread it! Thanks for reminding me about it!

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.

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.

I'm not saying that Christianity did not play some part in causing the Dark Ages, nor am I saying that Christianity didn't to some degree impede Cartheograpyh. I'm not a historian. 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.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


Don't underestimate how powerful the church was. It was the officially sanctioned religion of the empire. Plus you have the church fathers who were positively adament about stamping out anything contrary to their beliefs.

While the Church was certainly a powerful entity prior to the Dark Ages, it was not nearly as powerful as it was to become, and I doubt it was powerful enough to cause the major political and social upheaval that resulted in the Dark Ages. You've also not supported your statement that the Church did so in any way whatsoever.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
The dark ages coincide with the rise of Christianity. Coincidence? I think not. Does that correlation even exist, though? What does it mean to say that the Dark Ages coincide with the "rise" of Christianity?

First of all, as was already pointed out, to the extent the term "Dark Ages" is still used at all by modern historians, it now usually refers to the period from roughly the collapse of the Roman Empire until the mid-8th or 9th century (source (http://www.bartleby.com/65/mi/MiddleAg.html)), during which time the Latin West was subjected to almost continuous waves of barbarian invasions. (Christianity during this period - and the papacy in particular - was not nearly as powerful or influential then as it would later become.)

Also, it is now recognized that that the 12th through 14th centuries witnessed a flowering of European culture not just in terms of art, architecture and education but also many crucial and outstanding accomplishments in science (natural philosophy), mathematics and logic.

I said this in the other thread, but I'll repeat: The influence of the medieval Church is generally regarded as having peaked around the time of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It seems reasonable to allow that the period extending one hundred years before and after the Fourth Lateran Council (i.e. the early 12th through the early 14th centuries) corresponds to the two centuries during which the Church was most powerful. Yet it was precisely during the Scholastic period that Western Europe caught up with, and overtook, the rest of the world in science-related learning (and, indeed, in intellectual culture generally).

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. Coincidence? I think not." I wouldn't make such an argument, of course, because stand-alone arguments like that are weak.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


While the Church was certainly a powerful entity prior to the Dark Ages, it was not nearly as powerful as it was to become, and I doubt it was powerful enough to cause the major political and social upheaval that resulted in the Dark Ages. You've also not supported your statement that the Church did so in any way whatsoever.

I think the church took advantage of a vaccumm and filled it. The Dark Ages probably lasted a lot longer than necessary because you didn't need t read and write to work in a field and give your money to the local church.

Maybe Christianity became so big because on the face of it, it isn't such a bad way to live. Remove the deity and the local church from the equation and it's a pretty good set of rules. No killing, lying, boinking the neighbor....not bad.

Unless you were brought to the attention of the local rep of the church, I imagine you were pretty much left alone. But then, as bad as life was in the dark ages the rules were probably just making official what people did already. In a small fragile community, one thief and adulterer could bring the whole place down.

How old are the 10 Commandments anyhow? Were they an example of revisionist history/story-telling or is there a record of them somewhere that shows how old they are?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Maybe Christianity became so big because on the face of it, it isn't such a bad way to live. Remove the deity and the local church from the equation and it's a pretty good set of rules. No killing, lying, boinking the neighbor....not bad.

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."

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


But the main spread of Christianity, and the church's power developed throughout the dark ages, not preceding it. The church expanded and gained political power partly as a replacement of the roman empire; expanding into the power vacuum that the Empire's fall had created.

In short - that the rise of Christianity coincided with the Dark Ages does not support your statement that it caused the Dark Ages.

Christianity became a formidable force with Constantine and Eusubius in the 4th century.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
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]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by triadboy
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 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/churchNs.html) 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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ba/BaconRog.html), Jean Buridan (http://www.bartleby.com/65/bu/Buridan.html), Nicholas Oresme (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=58775), Albert of Saxony (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=5493&tocid=0&query=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]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
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 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ba/BaconRog.html), Jean Buridan (http://www.bartleby.com/65/bu/Buridan.html), Nicholas Oresme (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=58775), Albert of Saxony (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=5493&tocid=0&query=saxony), and so forth).


Don't forget William of Ockham (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=58131), whose shaving implement is so often mentioned around here. ;-)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
...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]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Even if The Church was responsible for science starting does that make it true?


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

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
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 (http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm))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]

Originally posted by 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.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11060b.htm):

"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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


*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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11060b.htm):

"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 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ga/Galileo.html)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Heck, neither did Copernicus, who was quite admired in the Church.

Didn't he have his findings published AFTER his death?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


Didn't he have his findings published AFTER his death?

Yes and no. While his main work, De revolutionibus, was not circulated until around the time of his death, he had published elements of the heliocentric theory several years before that, both in his Commentariolus and in the Narratio Prima, published together with and under the name of Georg Rheticus.


(Edited to fix italics.)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar

...published together with and under the name of Georg Rheticus.



I wonder what he was afraid of?
;)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy

I wonder what he was afraid of?
;)

There's no reason to assume that he was afraid of anything. From the Britannica, note particularly the last sentence, and that they don't mention "condemnation by the church" anywhere:

"To accept the theory's premises, one had to abandon much of Aristotelian natural philosophy and develop a new explanation for why heavy bodies fall to a moving Earth. It was also necessary to explain how a transient body like the Earth, filled with meteorological phenomena, pestilence, and wars, could be part of a perfect and imperishable heaven. In addition, Copernicus was working with many observations that he had inherited from antiquity and whose trustworthiness he could not verify. In constructing a theory for the precession of the equinoxes, for example, he was trying to build a model based upon very small, long-term effects. And his theory for Mercury was left with serious incoherencies.

Any of these considerations alone could account for Copernicus's delay in publishing his work."

[triadboy]

Originally posted by csense
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.

I have a hard time criticizing a discipline trying to discover 'truth'. It is much easier criticizing an institution that teaches mythology as history.

[triadboy]

The enunciation of the heliocentric theory by Copernicus marked the beginning of the scientific revolution, and of a new view of a greatly enlarged universe. It was a shift away from the comfortable anthropocentrism of the ancient and medieval world. A scientific theory that reflected so profoundly on humanity was not welcomed by the church, and it was only after the publication (1540) of Narratio prima (A First Account), by an enthusiastic supporter named Rheticus, that the aged Copernicus agreed to commit to print the theory already outlined in 1514. An undocumented, but often repeated, story holds that Copernicus received a printed copy of his treatise on his deathbed. He died on May 24, 1543.

http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xcopern.html

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xcopern.html

So, basically, you're basing your view that Copernicus waited so long to publish De revolutionibus because of opposition from the church on a throwaway, unsupported statement on a web-page maintained by a physicist?

I think we can safely say that your source is not authorative on the subject.

Edited to fix italics.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
So, basically, you're basing your view that Copernicus waited so long to publish De revolutionibus because of opposition from the church on a throwaway, unsupported statement on a web-page maintained by a physicist?


That was just the first site I found. I'm sure there are more. This is something I was taught in High School.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


That was just the first site I found. I'm sure there are more. This is something I was taught in High School.

To paraphrase Tolkien: Do not go to the web for advice, for it will say both yay and nay and maybe and you're a jerk and HOT PORN and I'm a Nigerian Widow and will pay you 10% if you will only let me use your account to transfer BILLIONS OF US DOLLARS out of the country.

The question is, can you find any substantial sources that supports your claim?

Edited to fix the paraphrase.

[triadboy]

http://humphrys.humanists.net/science.religion.html

You won't like this site either.

[triadboy]

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa101498.htm

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
*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.

*sneezes*

It is strange how apologists talk so much about Copernicus, and so little about Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64). He was a greater scholar than Albert "the Great," and he realized the error of the Ptolemaic system long before Copernicus did. He was a thinker; and his thinking, as a priest, led him to see that the Papal power was based upon the atrocious fraud of the Forged Decretals, that General Councils were higher than Popes and must reform the Church, and that the Christian philosophy of God and the Universe was puerile. You never heard of this heretic? No, he swung around and became a most zealous champion of the Papacy, a Papal Legate and a cardinal. He no longer insisted on trifles like the position of the sun; he reckoned that, while it was true that reason taught him some very awkward things, "intuition" put a man right with the Church; and he left it to a more courageous man, Giordano Bruno, to go to the stake for his philosophy of God and the universe.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_28.html

[Leif Roar]

Neither of the two URLs you've posted above support the notion that Copernicus delayed the publication of De revolutionibus because he feared the reactions from the Church.

Secondly, these links are hardly unbiased, nor are they sources that have any particular historical authority, so they can hardly be said to be substantial sources.


(Edited to change "Weight" to "authority")

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


*sneezes*

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_28.html

I suggest you read the paragraph again. It actually says a lot less than it appears to be saying (and furthermore, it doesn't substantiate nor show any references to what claims it does make - which again makes in less than a substantial source.)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


I suggest you read the paragraph again. It actually says a lot less than it appears to be saying

I just happened to come across this.

An earlier post said:

*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.

My post seems to say Nicolaus made his discoveries as a priest and (in essence) recanted for the Cardinalship.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Neither of the two URLs you've posted above support the notion that Copernicus delayed the publication of De revolutionibus because he feared the reactions from the Church.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus

In 1536 his work was already in a definitive form, and some rumours about his theory had reached the scientists of all Europe. From many parts of the Continent, 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.

[triadboy]

Copernicus had first conceived of his revolutionary model decades earlier but delayed publication because, while it explained the motion of the planets (and resolved their order), it raised new problems that had to be explained, required verification of old observations, and had to be presented in a way that would not provoke the religious authorities. The book did not see print until he was on his deathbed.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386884&query=copernicus&ct=

[triadboy]

How many more do you need?

[ceo_esq]

Another thing to bear in mind is that a number of higher-ups in the Church (cardinals and such, Schonberg included) were familiar with Copernicus' unpublished theses, and it was they who finally persuaded him, after years of trying, to publish.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
How many more do you need? How about even one that indicates that Copernicus' ideas, which were circulated even prior to their publication, ever got him in trouble or would have gotten him in trouble?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
How about even one that indicates that Copernicus' ideas, which were circulated even prior to their publication, ever got him in trouble or would have gotten him in trouble?

His ideas rejected the 'central-ness' of Earth. They went against the Bibles assertion that the Earth was the center of everything.

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.

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.

Around 1513, Copernicus first wrote down his discovery that the earth goes round the sun. This discovery, one of the greatest in the history of human thought, would be violently opposed by ignorant Christian churches for the next three hundred years.

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


It doesn't take a genius to read those tea-leaves

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
His ideas rejected the 'central-ness' of Earth. They went against the Bibles assertion that the Earth was the center of everything.

Which particular assertions would that be?


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.

Astrologer, not astronomer. As to why he was sentenced for heresy, there seems to be various explanations given.

http://59.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CE/CECCO_D_ASCOLI.htm
http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ce/CeccodAs.html

I'd particularly like to direct you to the second of those three links, as it seems it directly attacks what I presume is your source for your statement.


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


Again, a quick search on the web brings up dissenting views:

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/campanella.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03221b.htm
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Weber%20-%20History/Campanella.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Campanel.html
http://www.ilnarratore.com/anthology/campanella/campanella.html

Note, neither of these sources are really substantial (but then neither were yours). I only present them here as contradictory sources which you should have found yourself.


(Edited to remove a pointless dig.)

(Edited to add)

Oh, almost forgot about your reference to Giordano Bruno:

http://www.cin.org/zenit/bruno.html
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/bruno.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/brun-f16.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html


Seriously, you need to take a close look on the sources you use, and consider if they are sufficient. I would say that they are not.

(Edited to fix quoting.)

[Leif Roar]

I came across a very interesting article on the subject of historical conflict between christianity and science - "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science" by Lindberg and Numbers (who, from what I am able to ascertain, appears to be authorities on the history of science.)

The article can be found at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html


(Edited to fix layout.)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I'd particularly like to direct you to the second of those three links, as it seems it directly attacks what I presume is your source for your statement.

Gee, you use biased sites too. ;)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I came across a very interesting article on the subject of historical conflict between christianity and science - "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science" by Lindberg and Numbers (who, from what I am able to ascertain, appears to be authorities on the history of science.)




It was not a matter of Christianity waging war on science. All of the participants called themselves Christians, and all acknowledged biblical authority.

If a scientist acknowledges biblical authority - doesn't that taint the results?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy

If a scientist acknowledges biblical authority - doesn't that taint the results?

F = ma

Hmmm... No, looks pretty untainted to me.

The scientific work stands on its own, no matter what position the author holds on religious subjects. Only if the argumentation or logic concerning his scientific works are based on biblical authority would it be a flaw in the work.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


Gee, you use biased sites too. ;)

It's quite possible that some of the sites I've referred to were biased - I haven't done more than a cursory check on them. However, my reason for referring to the sites above were different for your reason for referring to your sources. You tried to back a claim, while I only showed that you there were dissenting sources you had neglected.

Also, there's a difference between having a bias and disagreeing. The article in question doesn't strike me as particularly biased - rather it seems to me to be a fairly objective attack on the errors and flaws in White's work on the subject.

[ceo_esq]

As I mentioned before, the cases of Campanella and Bruno were already examined here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870038595) (you might have to scroll a bit down the thread). Neither one helps triadboy's case. Why are we going through this exercise again?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The scientific work stands on its own, no matter what position the author holds on religious subjects. Only if the argumentation or logic concerning his scientific works are based on biblical authority would it be a flaw in the work.

Let's say a scientist from the middle ages determines the Earth is much older than the Bible would lead one to believe. What would be the reaction of the Church to such a claim? It's his word against the word of God.

Consider Galileo's plight.

“Scripture gives no false information.” – St Augustine

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)

The lifeblood of Alexandria – as of other cities – was trade, particularly the export of grain and papyrus to the rest of the Mediterranean, and developments in astronomy allowed sailors to do away with the consultation of "oracles" and priests and be able to risk year-round navigation out of sight of the coast.

As early as 300 BC Aristarchus had argued for a heliocentric theory, a sun-centred universe, though many thinkers continued to support an earlier Aristotelian system which had the Earth at the centre of several 'spheres' – despite various observed 'anomalies' in the movement of the planets.

400 years after Aristarchus, Ptolemy worked out a system of 'epicycles' to explain away the irregularities and maintain the geocentric, Aristotelian view. The Christians seized upon this Ptolemaic system with relish and their thinking never moved beyond that point.

In the following centuries, mariners were forced, once more, to rely on "oracles" and the ship's Bible. Hazards of the sea consumed unfortunate sailors and, with so many cities in headlong decline, maritime trade collapsed.

Banned by church, it was the rediscovery of the heliocentric theory by Copernicus which got Galileo into trouble in the 1600s.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/science.html

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
“Scripture gives no false information.” – St AugustineDid you not read the passage I cited above, where St. Augustine suggests that Scripture should not be interpreted as providing authoritative information about non-spiritual matters that human beings are capable of discovering through reason and experience (read: science)?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Did you not read the passage I cited above, where St. Augustine suggests that Scripture should not be interpreted as providing authoritative information about non-spiritual matters that human beings are capable of discovering through reason and experience (read: science)?

Yes I read it. Here's another item about St Augustine from The Discoverers:

...St Augustine himself had argued that the literal meaning of Scripture should always be taken as correct, unless the contrary was "strictly demonstrated." Since man's everyday experience "tells him plainly that the earth is standing still," and, from the nature of the case, the rotation of the earth and its revolutions around the sun could not be "strictly demonstrated,' the literal Scriptures must be defended. King Soloman's observation that the sun "returns to its place" must mean precisely what he said.

He seems to be using scripture for non-spiritual matters.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


Let's say a scientist from the middle ages determines the Earth is much older than the Bible would lead one to believe. What would be the reaction of the Church to such a claim? It's his word against the word of God.

Any particular reason why you're resorting to hypotheticals?


Consider Galileo's plight.


We have considered the case of Galileo before. It was not the simple case of "The Church opposing unpleasant truths" as you want it to be.


“Scripture gives no false information.” – St Augustine

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)


"Although it is not difficult to find instances of conflict and controversy in the annals of Christianity and science, recent scholarship has shown that the warfare metaphor to be neither useful or tenable in describing the relationship between science and religion."
-- Lindberg and Numbers, Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html)

I really suggest you read the above article.


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

This is simply not the case. From Britannica:

"Although astrolabes have been traced to the 6th century, they appear to have come into wide use from the early Middle Ages in Europe and the Islamic world. By about the mid 15th century, astrolabes were adopted by mariners and used in celestial navigation."

"Plausible records indicate that the Chinese were using the magnetic compass around AD 1100, western Europeans by 1187, Arabs by 1220, and Scandinavians by 1300."

Celestial navigation doesn't need a heliocentric world-view to work anyway, so why your source tries to establish a link between "The Christians" agreeing with the Ptolemic model with epicycles (like everybody else at the time) and this assumed lack of navigational aids is beyond me.

(Edited to add the last two paragraphs)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html)

I really suggest you read the above article.


The article is backed by the ASA:

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

I have a hard time believing "Scientists" who relate to the Word of God. Gee, do you think they are bias in their reporting of history? <sarcasm>

This pretty much cements your agenda.

I would love to hear your personal religious beliefs. Of course, you won't reveal them because they are so ridiculous.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


The article is backed by the ASA:


I have a hard time believing "Scientists" who relate to the Word of God. Gee, do you think they are bias in their reporting of history? <sarcasm>


Poisoning the well, are we? The article stands or falls on its own merits, no matter who backs it. Do you have any issues with any of the arguments presented in the article?


This pretty much cements your agenda.

I would love to hear your personal religious beliefs. Of course, you won't reveal them because they are so ridiculous.

I'm agnostic and not do not subscribe to the authority of the bible, Jesu' divinity, the Christian concept of God, the existance of the devil or any of the other tenets of the Christian faith. While I am listed as a member of the Norwegian church, that is a matter of convenience rather than faith or theology, as I consider that the church has a useful social function. I do not go to church, I do not study the bible, I do not pray, I do not believe in faith-healing or miracles.

My "agenda" is to point out the errors and flaws in your argumentation for the simple reason that you are wrong, and I loathe to see such shoddy research and argumentation as you present here. You claim to be a skeptic, but you are certainly not skeptical in your approach to this subject; you unquestionably accept one particular view on the matter, base your statement on opinion pieces and ignore all arguments and evidence that's contrary to your claim. In short, you behave precisely in the same manner as does a biblical literalist discussing evolution versus creationism. And I expect better from someone who alleges to be a skeptic.

Skepticism starts at home.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy


Yes I read it. Here's another item about St Augustine from The Discoverers:



He seems to be using scripture for non-spiritual matters. Boorstin is making him look that way, but it's hard to tell. I can't find the original citations anywhere.

However, even if true, what does it mean? We know Augustine, the Church following his example, advocated a non-literal interpretation of the Bible when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world shown by available science, mathematics, reason or experience. For Augustine (a non-scientist living in the late 4th and early 5th century), heliocentrism likely did not yet fall into this category, so a literal interpretation would have seemed prudent to him until shown otherwise.

Edited to add:

"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.'"

- St. Augustine

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy


The article is backed by the ASA:



I have a hard time believing "Scientists" who relate to the Word of God. Gee, do you think they are bias in their reporting of history? <sarcasm>
Who cares what the ASA thinks? The author of that piece, David Lindberg, is probably one of the world's 4 or 5 top experts on the history of early science (writing in English). The bibliography on the History of Science Society (http://www.hssonline.org) website calls his The Beginnings of Western Science "The best, most comprehensive introduction to the history of science in the ancient and medieval West." (It's also a good read.) The sooner you introduce yourself to his work the more quickly you'll learn something relevant to this thread.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The sooner you introduce yourself to his work the more quickly you'll learn something relevant to this thread.

I read the article by Lindberg and Numbers. I agreed with some of the things they said and I disagreed with some of it. They definitely try to dampen the disagreements produced by the Science/Religion conflict.

The 'warfare' analogy by White may have been a little strong, but White may have been so outraged by the audacity of the Church leaders to impose their 'science' on everyone. However, this article portrayed the antagonism too lightly. My guess is reality is somewhere in between.

You act like all scholarship about the Science/Religion conflict derives from White. I don't believe that.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
However, this article portrayed the antagonism too lightly. My guess is reality is somewhere in between.I agree that this article glossed over some conflicts, but it did acknowledge that serious conflicts had existed at different times with regard to particular issues - just that the conflict was far less significant than usually presumed, and such conflicts as did exist but weren't treated in this short article were simply beyond the article's intended scope.

I really think you'd like The Beginnings of Western Science, and it's one of the major works out there for a general audience on the subject ... it covers a lot more aspects (not just the presence or absence of religious conflicts, either).
Originally posted by triadboy
You act like all scholarship about the Science/Religion conflict derives from White. I don't believe that. I don't believe it either, although I can accept that he was influential.

Edward Grant, whom I cited earlier, has a long chapter towards the end of his most recent book - God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001, also part of the Cambridge History of Science series) - called "The Assault on the Middle Ages", in which he examines how, from approximately the end of the Middle Ages through the 20th century, the pejorative misconception of the medieval period as an age of irrationality and ignorance was constructed, developed, and promoted. The myth of the war between Christianity and science is one of the by-products of this long process.

[Bubbles]

QUOTING

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)
________________

I will accept the premise of that statement. Let me go somewhere else with it.

What follows is a statement of the history of science on issue X (a hypothetical issue):

1) For centuries, the scientific community was unanimous on issue X that theory A was true. Later, the scientific community realized that A was untrue and embraced B, now unanimously believed to be true.

Let me phrase that slightly differently:

2) Historically, the scientific community tenatiously defended the proposition that theory 'A' was correct, fighting every alternate theory. But after fruitlessly defending a failed theory, the scientific community soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new theory as an 'advance in human knowledge.'

Now, would you argue with the accuracy of statement 1 (In general, of course)? Would you disagree that statement 2 is nothing more than statement 1 in harsher language? Would you argue with me in stating that there is no substantive difference between statement 2 and the Mills quote?

A few other thoughts:

The term 'central' is being used ambiguously. Christian tradition has tought that God created partly in order for there to be beings that can freely choose to love him. Now, this statement may or may not be true, and it is not my intention to arguew that question. IF, however, that statement in believed to be true, then one wouold believe in a centrality of PURPOSE for the Earth. Whether or not the Earth is SPATIALLY central is irrelevant. The size of the universe does no more to PROVE mans' cosmic insignificance than does the size of a whale.
________________

Quoting
________________

I have a hard time criticizing a discipline trying to discover 'truth'. It is much easier criticizing an institution that teaches mythology as history.
________________

Have you considered the possibility that theology and philosophy just might be no less attempts to discover truth than science? Now, the facts are different in the three cases, but I assure you that people undertake studies in each area for the reason that they desire to more fully know what is true. Of course, you will gladly point out all of the times that Christianity has been wrong, bring up all of the disagreements in the history of philososphy, and then act like this is TOTALLY different from the historey ofd science in which idea after idea has been proposed, accepted, defended, and then discarded. . .

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Bubbles
QUOTING

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)
________________

I will accept the premise of that statement. Let me go somewhere else with it.

What follows is a statement of the history of science on issue X (a hypothetical issue):

1) For centuries, the scientific community was unanimous on issue X that theory A was true. Later, the scientific community realized that A was untrue and embraced B, now unanimously believed to be true.

Let me phrase that slightly differently:

2) Historically, the scientific community tenatiously defended the proposition that theory 'A' was correct, fighting every alternate theory. But after fruitlessly defending a failed theory, the scientific community soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new theory as an 'advance in human knowledge.'

Now, would you argue with the accuracy of statement 1 (In general, of course)? Would you disagree that statement 2 is nothing more than statement 1 in harsher language? Would you argue with me in stating that there is no substantive difference between statement 2 and the Mills quote?

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'.

I have a hard time criticizing a discipline trying to discover 'truth'. It is much easier criticizing an institution that teaches mythology as history.
________________

Have you considered the possibility that theology and philosophy just might be no less attempts to discover truth than science? Now, the facts are different in the three cases, but I assure you that people undertake studies in each area for the reason that they desire to more fully know what is true.

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

[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]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

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

That same 35% cant add correctly either.

SilentNight

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Gregor

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 (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html):

"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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
From Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html):

" 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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by 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.


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]

Originally posted by Gregor
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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
...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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by Gregor
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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
And you completely ignore the fact that the church both produced books and maintained libraries.

:D Now THAT'S funny!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
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]

Originally posted by Gregor
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]

Originally posted by triadboy


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]

Originally posted by Bubbles
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.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Bubbles
Actually, there have been a great many religions through history that have had little or no belief in life after death.
I would love to hear about one.

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.
I was just joking, Bubbles. I know you can't play the harp.

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?
How did they come to that realization? What message was transmitted from the beyond to convince them? Life after death is a yearning for an intelligent animal that struggles to come to grips with its own mortality.

Either way, religion is, like philosophy, an attempt top find absolute truth.
Religion is mythology misunderstood.

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?).
Our existence has nothing to do with a child-like yearning for a life after death.

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.
Then you don't understand original sin. Ask your priest to explain it to you. It IS NOT an obvious fact of human experience. The eastern religions don't have the concept of original sin. It is an idiotic "fact" of the Judeo/Christian religion. (I don't know if muslims live in original sin - I'll have to check that out. I assume they do though)

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.
I'm sorry, I didn't know which splinter group you were caught up in.

It is theoretically possible for someone to be raised from the dead, ...
Yes, but not by means of divine intervention.

...and it is theroretically possible for a woman who has never had sex to have a child.
You have me going here: What are you speaking of - some kind of turkey-baster device? The sperm has to get in somehow right? Your tricking me aren't you? I give up - please explain.

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!"
Not stupid - ignorant. There is a big difference. Miracles to one person are perfectly explainable to another.

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.
You said you were afraid of dying - "Bubbles: I am afraid of dying". You said you are not afraid of death. But if you ride a motorcyle head on into a Threshing machine they will both be the same.

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.
I agree that scientific advancement did happen in Xian countries - no thanks to the xians. Here's an example - do you remember when Sputnik was launched by the Russians? Their technology caught us off-guard. Our country - on the other hand - had fallen behind because of the dampening of the sciences by the religious faction in this country. IMMEDIATELY, science books were reviewed and revised. Science was made the number one priority. We managed to work our way out of the opiatic religious haze, we had prayed our way into. So yeah, science managed to get back on track - no thanks to religion. But now you sit back and say, "Look what science did in a religious country". You sicken me, Bubbles! (Just kidding about that last part. I've just never said that before) :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Triadboy: It is an idiotic "fact" of the Judeo/Christian religion. (I don't know if muslims live in original sin - I'll have to check that out. I assume they do though) Just thinking out loud.. We may need someone knowledgeable in these things to comment, but since Muslims do not have a redeemer ( i.e. Jesus ) how would they deal with the concept of original sin?




P.S. 'Always enjoy your spin on things.. I know it gets difficult sometimes when the other side's argument consists mostly of ' it's obvious '...

Hope you'll stick around.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Triadboy: Just thinking out loud.. We may need someone knowledgeable in these things to comment, but since Muslims do not have a redeemer ( i.e. Jesus ) how would they deal with the concept of original sin?

Agree. I have no idea. Maybe they stay in sin until they get to the fluffy couches and virgins in heaven.

P.S. 'Always enjoy your spin on things.. I know it gets difficult sometimes when the other side's argument consists mostly of ' it's obvious '...

Hope you'll stick around.

Thanks Diogenes! This is the only place I go. (I miss your old avatar. I was a cub scout too)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy



Thanks Diogenes! This is the only place I go. (I miss your old avatar. I was a cub scout too..

Ah, the innocence of youth..

I'm thinking about bringing it back.. Just being lazy about it..

Might be a good time to add a 97% merit badge.. Might not show up too good though..

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by triadboy


Agree. I have no idea. Maybe they stay in sin until they get to the fluffy couches and virgins in heaven.


I’m no expert on the topic, but I’ve read the Koran and can’t remember anything like original sin popping up (Is it just me or does the God of the Koran ask an unnecessary amount of rhetorical questions?).

Doing a quick search… Islamic web sites seem to point to their lack of original sin as a major doctrinal difference with Christianity. They claim their position on sin is more inline with Judaism.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


I admitted the 'edict' wasn't provable.


Yes, you admitted as much - but it was still a claim you made with little in the way of support or references, so I see no reason no to inclued it on the list. I'm still waiting for you to make a list of what claims I've presented here, and in what ways they are wrong.


(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)

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


Yes, the Boorstin quote is substantial support, but it doesn't support the much stronger claim you made which was that "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."


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.

Why should map makers all of a sudden start putting north on the top of the page? Not all standards or habits are decreed from above. You have absolutely no grounds to imply that there was such an edict - you have no evidence for that whatsoever.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


:D Now THAT'S funny!

Since that's your only response, I take it you can't detail any book burnings organized by the church during the medieval period?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by 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.

I think you're reading more into my question than what I meant. You stated that "his situation appears to me to more strongly stand for the religious hinderance proposition." My question was really what reasons you make this verdict on, as it's not obvious to me that the obstructions that Bacon encountered from the church were more significant (as to his work) than were the direct and indirect assistance he got from the church.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that his prison-term was trifling or of no significance - only that I don't see that it was necessarily of more important than was the benefits he gained from the Church; and I am therefore curious as to why you consider that to be obvious.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Since that's your only response, I take it you can't detail any book burnings organized by the church during the medieval period?


Here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm) is a good site detailing Catholic censorship efforts in history - not a lot of burnings per se, but they do admit to stringent efforts to clamp down on the written word. And keeping in mind this is a Catholic site, the accounts here may be a bit conservative.


And a brief mention on PBS's "NOVA" site: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/manuscripts.html)
The codex dates to before the Spanish conquest of Mexico and has survived numerous abuses, including more than a thousand years of exposure to tropical weather and, in the 16th century, book burnings by the Spanish clergy.

From a Spanish tourism site (down under the heading for "Granada"): (http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Spain/Where+to+Go)

Fabulous as it is, the Alhambra is not the only sight to see. When the Christian armies regained Granada they built their own city on the banks of the river beneath. Centered on the Renaissance cathedral, it also includes the Capilla Real, where the all-conquering Ferdinand and Isabel are interred, narrow bazaar-like streets built over the old Moorish souks and the old square of Bib-Rambla, where bullfights, book burnings and fiestas were once held.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Piscivore



Here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm) is a good site detailing Catholic censorship efforts in history - not a lot of burnings per se, but they do admit to stringent efforts to clamp down on the written word. And keeping in mind this is a Catholic site, the accounts here may be a bit conservative.


And a brief mention on PBS's "NOVA" site: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/manuscripts.html)


From a Spanish tourism site (down under the heading for "Granada"): (http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Spain/Where+to+Go)



Yes, but both of those references are about book burnings that occured well into the renaissance; and not during the medieval period, which is what the claim was made about. (Actually, the claim was made about the Dark Ages, but sometimes the term "Dark Ages" are applied widely.)

I'm not at all saying that the church never censored - I'm only questioning the actual claim that was made.

Edited to add:

I stand corrected. I see your first source do detail burnings as early as ~350 AD and onwards.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Yes, but both of those references are about book burnings that occured well into the renaissance; and not during the medieval period, which is what the claim was made about. (Actually, the claim was made about the Dark Ages, but sometimes the term "Dark Ages" are applied widely.)

I'm not at all saying that the church never censored - I'm only questioning the actual claim that was made.

Well, and I'll be the first to admit that the last two sites are pretty much hearsay- only I don't have access to original period documents- still, that the widespread suppression of ideas contrary to the Church's authority over any aspect of life, including the exploration of science, is a fact that seems pretty well undisputed. The church admits to it- they even revel in it. If books were actually burned or not, or what dates it occured, seems like quibbling.

[Benguin]

I would love to hear about one.

AFAIK, Sikhism believes in reincarnation but not any concept of heaven or hell. I'm not even sure they believe you are reincarnated according to your behaviour in the current shell, but I dunno.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Benguin


AFAIK, Sikhism believes in reincarnation but not any concept of heaven or hell. I'm not even sure they believe you are reincarnated according to your behaviour in the current shell, but I dunno. Am I missing something, or wouldn't reincarnation = life after death.. i.e. ' Afterlife '...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar

Since that's your only response, I take it you can't detail any book burnings organized by the church during the medieval period?

This is fromThe Dark Side Of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe, page 46.

The Christian church had similar impact upon education and learning. The Church burned enormous amounts of literature. In 391 Christians burned down one of the world's greatest libraries in Alexandria, said to have housed 700,000 rolls. All the books of the Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's 36 volumes, papyrus rolls of 27 schools of the Mysteries, and 270,000 ancient documents gathered by Ptolemy Philadelphus were burned.

Your turn.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Since that's your only response, I take it you can't detail any book burnings organized by the church during the medieval period?

I turned the page and found this. (p 48)

After Christians had spent years destroying books and libraries, St. John Chrysostom, the preeminent Greek Father of the Church, proudly declared, "Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth."

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Benguin
AFAIK, Sikhism believes in reincarnation but not any concept of heaven or hell. I'm not even sure they believe you are reincarnated according to your behaviour in the current shell, but I dunno.

I made the statement Theology tries to discover what happens in the "afterlife".

Bubbles called me a moron.

I curled up in the fetal position and wept.

The statement made by Bubbles...
Actually, there have been a great many religions through history that have had little or no belief in life after death.

...seems to say there is or has been "a great many religions" that have the concept of 'no afterlife' involved in their doctrines. I can't think of one! That wouldn't be much of a religion would it?


I know Buddhism has the concept of Nirvana which is 'nothingness' - but this is a good thing that is accomplished when one finally escapes the Wheel of Life (reincarnation).

I'm still waiting for Bubbles to tell me what religion is if not an afterlife pacifier for the frightened.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


This is fromThe Dark Side Of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe, page 46.

Your turn.

We covered that in the old thread. There's actually no historical evidence for this claim, which seems to have originated with Edward Gibbon.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy


I turned the page and found this. (p 48)



What source does the book give for that statement? I've been unable to find that quote with a clear reference anywhere.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


We covered that in the old thread. There's actually no historical evidence for this claim, which seems to have originated with Edward Gibbon.

The New Columbia Encyclopedia

and

The Chalice and the Blade (Eisler)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
What source does the book give for that statement? I've been unable to find that quote with a clear reference anywhere.

The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (p208) (Walker)

Here's another one:

The Fourth Council of Carthage in 398 forbade bishops to even read the books of gentiles.

The Renaissance of the 12th Century Haskins

Another:

Jerome, a Church Father and early monastic in the fourth century, rejoiced that the classical authors were being forgotten. And his younger monastic contemporaries were known to boast of their ignorance of everything except Christian literature.

The Death of Classical Paganism John H. Smith

You really should buy the book....unless you want me to type it here for you. :) It's called The Dark Side Of Christian History.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Well, and I'll be the first to admit that the last two sites are pretty much hearsay- only I don't have access to original period documents- still, that the widespread suppression of ideas contrary to the Church's authority over any aspect of life, including the exploration of science, is a fact that seems pretty well undisputed. The church admits to it- they even revel in it. If books were actually burned or not, or what dates it occured, seems like quibbling. Those "undisputed ideas" are in fact disputed - in particular, the idea that the Church engaged in widespread suppression of scientific ideas or scientific investigation is disputed by many of the major contemporary figures in history-of-science scholarship.

While few people except for some rare ideological obsessives would endorse any sort of book-burning today, the following query seems relevant here: of the books that were suppressed (whether or not actually burnt) by the Church and its agents, how many were books of a scientific nature? We did attempt to figure this out in the other thread, but didn't get too far: all we really had to go on was the 32nd edition of the Index of Prohibited Books and a remark by Henry Kamen (the pre-eminent living scholar of the Spanish Inquisition) that scientific books written by Catholics tended to circulate without difficulty, and that scientific books in general rarely made their way onto Church blacklists, which were usually reserved for racy or occult books. I'll reprint one of my relevant posts here:I examined the 32nd edition of the Index of Prohibited Books (http://www.univ.com.br/acmm/Diversos/Informacoes/filosofia/espiritismo_e_religiao/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum/ILP-autor/ILP-autor.html) (warning: takes a long time to load). The titles of books are given in the original languages. I speak French fluently, and have enough of a reading familiarity with Spanish, Italian, German and Latin, I think, to be able to tell which titles in those languages dealt with scientific subjects. I counted fewer than 40 science-related books on the Index - less than one percent of the total.

Indeed, the real number might actually be lower, since I included books I wasn't quite sure about, as well as books on the social sciences and books treating obviously pseudoscientific subjects (such as treatises on phrenology and a book entitled The Art of Curing Diseases by Expectation). There was nothing by Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, Kepler or Newton on the list. There were no books by Charles Darwin, either, although one by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin appeared. (I understand that in a prior edition of the Index, The Origin of Species was prohibited, although for whatever reason The Ascent of Man was deemed acceptable by the Church.) Only a couple of the science books on the list were by anyone you've ever heard of, so I gather that most weren't of enormous scientific significance.If anyone has any more specific information regarding how and to what overall extent scientific literature was repressed by the Church, whether in the Middle Ages or afterwards, speak up.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Those "undisputed ideas" are in fact disputed - in particular, the idea that the Church engaged in widespread suppression of scientific ideas or scientific investigation is disputed by many of the major contemporary figures in history-of-science scholarship.


Was there true 'science' in the dark ages? I've always considered some religious texts as the science of the day. The whole idea of a firmament to let the rains through or the 'waters from below' was the best science of the year 2000 BC. So in that case, if the Church destroys 'pagan' religious texts - aren't they destroying the 'science' contained within?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy


Was there true 'science' in the dark ages? I've always considered some religious texts as the science of the day. The whole idea of a firmament to let the rains through or the 'waters from below' was the best science of the year 2000 BC. So in that case, if the Church destroys 'pagan' religious texts - aren't they destroying the 'science' contained within? Good question. One could argue with some justification that there was no real "science" before the high Middle Ages. But I think you're missing the thrust of my query. I'm trying to figure out whether the kind of works suppressed or destroyed by the Church suggests that they were sufficiently significant to science that their absence (even temporary), in the aggregate, had a material negative impact on scientific progress. I'd set the bar pretty low, though - not talking about works of genius necessarily, but, say, an ancient Greek work on anatomy, a 7th-century botanical encyclopedia, or a 13th-century work on mechanics would all count for me. A pagan religious work that happened to contain a little science, unless it was something really groundbreaking and not available from other texts, would not count in my book as relevant to the progress of science.

[triadboy]

From The Dark Side of Christian History:

The losses in science were monumental. In some cases the Christian church's burning of books and repression of intellectual pursuit set humanity back as much as two millennia in its scientific understanding. Already in the sixth century B.C.E., Pythagoras had come up with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun. By the third century B.C.E., Aristarchus had outlined the heliocentric theory and Eratosthenes had measured the circumference of the Earth. By the second century B.C.E., Hipparchus had invented longitude and latitude and had determined the obliquity of the ecliptic. After the onset of the Dark Ages, however, it would not be until the sixteenth century C.E. that Copernicus would reintroduce the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

Also

The Church opposed the study of grammer and Latin.

Gregory the Great also condemned education for all but the clergy as folly and wickedness. He forbade laymen to read even the Bible. He had the library of the Palatine Apollo burned "lest its secular literature distract the faithful from the contemplation of heaven."


I submit - denying people education affects their scientific output. The Church was in essence burning books before they were written.

[ceo_esq]

I've just realized that The Dark Side of Christian History was written by a non-historian with no discernible credentials. Even after checking on LEXIS-NEXIS, I've been unable to find any published professional reviews in either the mainstream media or the scholarly press. Although that's a very bad sign for a book purporting to be a research work, it doesn't mean that the book's content is necessarily untrue, of course. However, it does mean that it can't be used in the context of a legitimate argument from authority, as evidence of contrary authority to any of the contemporary professional historians cited elsewhere in these posts.

Perhaps the persuasiveness here could be enhanced by citing the author's footnotes or endnotes as well.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I've just realized that The Dark Side of Christian History was written by a non-historian with no discernible credentials. Even after checking on LEXIS-NEXIS, I've been unable to find any published professional reviews in either the mainstream media or the scholarly press. Although that's a very bad sign for a book purporting to be a research work, it doesn't mean that the book's content is necessarily untrue, of course. However, it does mean that it can't be used in the context of a legitimate argument from authority, as evidence of contrary authority to any of the contemporary professional historians cited elsewhere in these posts.

Perhaps the persuasiveness here could be enhanced by citing the author's footnotes or endnotes as well.

Chapter 8 of this book seems to be available online here: http://65.109.176.35/warmcove/morningstar/chapter8.html

I'll let you reach your own conclusions about its worth as a serious historical work.

[triadboy]

I'll try to find something you both like better.