Is religion slowing us down?

[Frostbite]

There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership, but today, would manking be more technologically advanced if it weren't for the intellectual hurdles caused by religion?

[Yahweh]

Cloning, anti-tolerance (I guess that'd be ethical), holistic therapy (which kills more patients than patients suffering of the same disease using conventional medicine), at the moment I cant think of too many more.

[Landis]

The illiterate masses still need religion to keep them in their place.
After Sept. 11th, there was an irrational widespread fear that gripped the nation. To cope, many people reverted to their religious beliefs. I think that is a good thing. Why? Because without the religious coping mechanism we could have seen mass hysteria on an unprecedented scale. Imagine 150 million people running screaming through the streets.
It is very hard to live without an imaginary friend who will protect you from all harm. Atheism takes a lot of fortitude and I don't think the masses are anywhere near being able to handle things they don't understand.
Of course, religion gets in the way of technological progress, (i.e. stem cell research). But Human Consciousness must evolve and right now, on the whole, we are no where near being able to give up our religions.

[Tony]

I think fanaticism is slowing us down.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes. Definately. Perhaps in the past it was useful, but today I think it unecessary, as well as doing more harm then good.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Landis
The illiterate masses still need religion to keep them in their place.
After Sept. 11th, there was an irrational widespread fear that gripped the nation. To cope, many people reverted to their religious beliefs. I think that is a good thing. Why? Because without the religious coping mechanism we could have seen mass hysteria on an unprecedented scale. Imagine 150 million people running screaming through the streets.
It is very hard to live without an imaginary friend who will protect you from all harm. Atheism takes a lot of fortitude and I don't think the masses are anywhere near being able to handle things they don't understand.
Of course, religion gets in the way of technological progress, (i.e. stem cell research). But Human Consciousness must evolve and right now, on the whole, we are no where near being able to give up our religions.

Good point, but without religion there wouldn't have been a 9/11 anyway. Or at least, the motive of the attack could've been political or economical.

[Skat Bo]

How does it get in the way of technological advances? Evrey advance can be accepted and blended into religion. You present evolution, I say God created us out dust (and a rib), so why isn't it possible to trace us down the path to dirt?

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Frostbite
There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership,

I'll challenge that.

History is written already, and religion is part of it, but "illiterate masses" didn't need it, as some pretend us to accept (sorry, Landis). In one book (think its "Demon-haunted world) Sagan tells of how the oldest community know was anything but religious. They relied on their knowledge/consciousness of nature to survive. Altough I acknowledge that religion is good for many people, it is so in the personal level, but historically it was estabilished rather for political domination and/or financial interests than guidance (altough the order of events is a bit more complex). Basically, if people were more educated (in several senses), there wouldn't be millions "running screaming through the streets" even if there was no religion.

If mankind had been centered on the knowledge of its environment and free of the "intellectual hurdles caused by religion", I think that the advancement of technology would be better right now. How does it get in the way? Just take the few hundred years of the middle ages, in which religion banned scientific research.

Originally posted by Skat Bo
... why isn't it possible to trace us down the path to dirt?

It is possible, if only religious leaders wanted to. Remember that the more ignorant is people, the more the "establishment" lasts. Fear/Love for God has been long used as an effective weapon for manipulation. Microscopic organisms and climatic mechanics were totally misterious in the past, so "God says" or "God is angry" came as a very comfortable and effective means to command entire nations. So getting in the way of technological advancement is a very natural thing to expect.

Disclaimer: I acknowledge that religion has some good things, so please, let's stay on topic.

[FireGarden]

It's not slowing me down.
Neither is the personal lack of it.

And it's not slowing down the Raelians!!
Although, I'm not entirely sure they're making progress. ;)
More haste less speed. (Sometimes)

How about moving people out of art and into science? Wouldn't we get a cure for cancer that much quicker?
What about all that intellect wasted in chess grand masters?

I think it's correct to say that we're living in the period of fastest technological growth. So what if people are asking questions about cloning? I don't think that slows us down much. And anyway, maybe we don't need to perfect it by the end of the year.

Have you heard of Frank Herbert's "Bureau of Sabotage"?
It's a government organisation whose purpose it is to slow things down.
Why not look before we leap?

[Zep]

We need to get our terms in order and agreed first.

All arguments here are presupposed on what we each individually mean by "religion". And on this do we all agree? I would suggest not, but to resolve that needs another thread if we aren't to hijack this one.

Zep

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Chupacabras
If mankind had been centered on the knowledge of its environment and free of the "intellectual hurdles caused by religion", I think that the advancement of technology would be better right now. How does it get in the way? Just take the few hundred years of the middle ages, in which religion banned scientific research.You are completely overlooking (or are unaware of) a couple of important facts:

(1) the Middle Ages was in fact an era of great scientific and technological innovation; it witnessed the rise of "science" as we currently understand the term; and
(2) it was probably due to religion that people in Western Europe became preoccupied with understanding their physical environment in a scientific sense, unlike the ancient Greeks whose theoretical work was largely unempirical and whose empirical work was largely atheoretical.

Historically speaking, Christian theology was probably essential to the rise of science (and partly explains why science arose in Western Europe and not elsewhere, despite the accomplishments of other cultures in mathematics and engineering).

[Gregor]

Ceo-esq

So much fodder, so little time.

1. Middle ages 500 C.E. to 1500 C.E. - I disagre completely that science developed in this time. I assert with Newton (b. 1642) that science truly began.

2. Western bias. The Chinese and Indians developed quite a bit of science. Check out their biology, physiology, chemistry, and astronomy. For that matter - there is a credible argument that the only reason that the West survived the dark ages is because the Moslems retained science and literature from the greek ages.

3. For science - check out Archimedes (282 B.C.). Probably the greatest scientist and inventor ever - including today.

4. In your defense, I read somewhere last year of a Jesuit priest that had a relatively compelling book and web site that Western political, scientific, and cultural success was due to the Church. I still disagreed, but it was well argued.

Well, gotta draft an MSJ - but I'd love to debate more.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Cloning, anti-tolerance (I guess that'd be ethical), holistic therapy (which kills more patients than patients suffering of the same disease using conventional medicine), at the moment I cant think of too many more.
Well an article I saw tody was on some christian groups who are against Bush's "Roadmap to Peace", in the belief that god promised that land to the Jews. Therefore they have the right to simply take it from the palastinians. This is of course also needed to fulfill some second comming prophecies or something.

It is not just in science that religion inhibits progress, it is also in social development and peace. Opposition to ending slavery, opposition to womens rights, gay rights. Attempts to sabotage or eliminate existing rights such as creative revisionism on the meaning of Seperation of Church and State.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
Well, gotta draft an MSJ - but I'd love to debate more. Good luck with the MSJ. May all your material facts be undisputed. As for the science/religion issue, I'm sure we'll discuss it more later.

[Landis]

Originally posted by Chupacabras


History is written already, and religion is part of it, but "illiterate masses" didn't need it, as some pretend us to accept (sorry, Landis). ....

....Basically, if people were more educated (in several senses), there wouldn't be millions "running screaming through the streets" even if there was no religion.



I agree with your second statement. However, as you said "History is written already". The masses of people are not now or ever in history been well-educated or founded in scientific method of reasoning. I didn't mean that the illiterate masses needed religion, only that the governing bodies needed it as a tool to control the masses and maintain order.

I think there is hope for the future if we can begin to put much more emphasis on the scientific method in our schools. Eventually, we can weed out the religious myth that permeates our society. But it is an evolutionary process. I've been greatly influenced by the writings of Ken Wilbur, a prolific writer, philosopher, pschyiatrist, Buddhist,etc. In his Book "Up From Eden" he details the evolutionary growth of human consciousness from our earliest mythological beliefs to present.
His conclusion, and I reluctantly agree, is that humans are only about midpoint in their evolutionary development. I don't expect there will be any "Age of Enlightment" in my lifetime. I wish we could eliminate religion from society and I will do my part to wittle away at its control and influence, but sometimes I feel like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Frostbite
There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership, but today, would manking be more technologically advanced if it weren't for the intellectual hurdles caused by religion?

Huh?

It wasn't "much needed."

Our progress was literally halted for nearly a thousand years by religion in Europe. There is little doubt we'd be significantly more advanced today if not for that period.

Also, don't forget, the 'illiterate masses' remained illiterate because that is what the rulers wanted. They could claim divine authority as long as the only people that could read the bible (the source of their power) were the ones that wanted to prop them up the most.

Edit-
2. Western bias. The Chinese and Indians developed quite a bit of science. Check out their biology, physiology, chemistry, and astronomy. For that matter - there is a credible argument that the only reason that the West survived the dark ages is because the Moslems retained science and literature from the greek ages.

Don't forget the Irish monks of Skellig!

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Fade


Huh?

It wasn't "much needed."

Our progress was literally halted for nearly a thousand years by religion in Europe. There is little doubt we'd be significantly more advanced today if not for that period.

Also, don't forget, the 'illiterate masses' remained illiterate because that is what the rulers wanted. They could claim divine authority as long as the only people that could read the bible (the source of their power) were the ones that wanted to prop them up the most.

Edit-


Don't forget the Irish monks of Skellig!

Yeah, that's my point. But furthermore I'd be curious to know to what level does religion still slow us down in the 21st century. I mean, if it weren't for religious hate crimes, I guess we could allocate more effort into scientific progress, right?

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Gregor
Ceo-esq

So much fodder, so little time...


Gregor, thank you, exactly my point. It was up until 1492, well into Renaissance, when Columbus was finally given the chance to dare that the Earth wasn't flat (financed by Isabel la Católica, BTW). Even after that, Galileo was forced to retract before the church and Voltaire's body stolen from his grave (in 1814), for example. Do you know when the Inquisition ended?

I feel it should be interesting to note that many of the advancements in science, humanism, etc... were made by people with deep religious formation (included the Medici family and Darwin himself). The problem with advancement comes at the institutional level.

Originally posted by Landis
I didn't mean that the illiterate masses needed religion, only that the governing bodies needed it as a tool to control the masses and maintain order.

Uh... Agree with you. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

One of the main points about religion and progress, is that religion is a strain in the mind. At least in the western world, religion necessarily makes you feel guilty or uneasy about things that are simply natural (ie: nude photography). People eventually are affraid of asking, and that's where it all stops.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Chupacabras


It was up until 1492, well into Renaissance, when Columbus was finally given the chance to dare that the Earth wasn't flat (financed by Isabel la Católica, BTW).


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhh no not this one. Contrary to popular belief it was well accepted by pretty much everyone with an education that the world was round by the time of Columbus. The Ancient Greeks had been aware of it as well.

Columbus' unique theory was on the size of the world. He thought Asia was 3,000 miles West of the Old World. Everyone else thought it was two or three times that, so there was no feasible way to reach Asia by sailing west.

Everyone else was RIGHT.

Columbus was WRONG, and the silly, arrogant fool was saved from a watery grave by the unexpected presence of a continent in his way.

(Although some people think his theory about Asia may have been the result of rumours he heard from fishermen who'd been plying the Atlantic for ages... but that's quite a way-out theory.)

Like a true "woo-woo", Columbus never admitted he was wrong. That's why they're called the "West Indes" - Columbus thought he was a few hundred miles east of India, instead of several thousand as is actually the case.

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhh no not this one. Contrary to popular belief it was well accepted by pretty much everyone with an education that the world was round by the time of Columbus. The Ancient Greeks had been aware of it as well.

Yes, you are right, the world's circumference was alread known by the comparision of shadows at two distant points. However, the most succesful traders didn't dare to go near the horizon, for a reason, and I think it was most likely fear. I was rather trying to make a point that Columbus couldn't get financing for his trip due to oposition to novel ideas.

... Columbus was WRONG, and the silly, arrogant fool was saved from a watery grave by the unexpected presence of a continent in his way.[/B]

Very well put! And he also proved to be a very bad government.

[Fade]

Frostbite, I was arguing that religion was never needed. The only time I would ever argue that religion was something "needed" (Or more accurately, the only time it isn't outright destructive) is those times when the world was a huge, scary place, and a tight knit people was fundamental for survival. After the Great Civilizations came into being, religion changed from "something we use to survive" into "something Powerful People use to oppress Less Powerful people."

I can't think of a single culture that didn't include this paradigm, to some degree. It is basically the root of my dislike of religion. I have never seen it further ANY good thinking. I have never seen a religion put forth an answer that is useful, and correct. I have never seen a religion make the world a better place.

The only thing I have encountered that has done any of these things is science itself. The rational pursuit of truth, through means of logic and empiricism, is the only way we, as human beings, have ever really advanced. Is it any wonder that there has been more innovation and progress over the last few decades than there was in all times previous combined? The start of the information age was the final dagger in the heart of anti-Science. Sure, religion is still here, there, and everywhere, but any fool can see it's boundaries are shrinking. As we instantly communicate on a global level, and depersonalize our views, we see begin to see the greater truth. We begin to see that our foolish belief systems are just that, foolish beliefs.

This concept is one that few understand, due to the intellectual vacuum they live in. There isn't much public discussion outside the bounds of the internet. Great thinkers often had to go to enormous lengths to find the other great thinkers that were also surrounded. The internet has altered, on the most fundamental level possible, our way of life. In my mind, the internet is the one thing that will ensure our culture survives forever, barring horrific climactic changes, because it exists everywhere, in every country, and has so effected so many millions of people.

We are living in a time of enormous change. It's mind blowing, taken all at once.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
2. Western bias. The Chinese and Indians developed quite a bit of science. Check out their biology, physiology, chemistry, and astronomy. For that matter - there is a credible argument that the only reason that the West survived the dark ages is because the Moslems retained science and literature from the greek ages.

3. For science - check out Archimedes (282 B.C.). Probably the greatest scientist and inventor ever - including today.
I think we need to define our terms here. By “science” I mean a systematic method, both rational and experimental, used in organized attempts to formulate explanations of nature and derive a world view based on such explanations, subject to correction through methodical observation. Science is something more than speculation about the natural world, than logical systems, than technological sophistication; classical civilizations as well as China and other cultures possessed these, yet never made the transition to real science.

Although it was no doubt important to the West that Islam inherited and preserved classical learning, it’s very difficult to point to any way in which Arabic thinkers contributed much innovation to that legacy or put it to practical use in the five centuries following the fall of Rome. Certainly, it did not appreciably hasten scientific or technological development in the Islamic world.

The Greeks made many advances in abstract thought, and even a few in technology, that are intrinsically related to science, yet their civilization stopped short of developing real science. Archimedes, whom you cite as an example, is probably the closest thing to a scientist the Greeks produced. But he is properly remembered more as an applied mathematician and an inventor than a true scientist, and of course there weren’t many Archimedeses. (I wonder, too, how you reconcile your statement that there was no true science before Newton with your reliance on Archimedes to demonstrate that the ancient Greeks possessed true science.)

The reasons for this are subtle and debatable, but the phenomenon itself seems to me to be beyond serious dispute. Princeton sociologist and historian Rodney Stark writes:Of course, these millennia of technological and intellectual progress were vital to the eventual development of science, but it is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. In this regard it is instructive that China, Islam, India and ancient Greece had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology. But only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. (Source: Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery (2003).)Or, as the eminent historian of science Stanley Jaki puts it:[The standard] historiography of science has still to face up honestly to the problem of why three great ancient cultures (China, India, and Egypt) display independently of one another, a similar pattern vis-à-vis science. The pattern is the stillbirth of science in each of them in spite of the availability of talents, social organization, and peace - the standard explanatory devices furnished by all-knowing sociologies of science on which that historiography relies ever more heavily.

(Source: Stanley Jaki, The Savior of Science (1988).) The explanation offered by Jaki (who holds the title of Distinguished Professor of the History and Philosophy of Physics at Seton Hall University) is that Christian theology gave the necessary conceptual impetus to classical learning to enable it finally to cross the threshold of modern science. But even scholars who cannot side with this thesis (for example, Stanford historian and philosopher of science Amos Funkenstein) agree that for whatever reason, real science did not develop in the classical world:I do not know that a nontheistic society could not generate a rational-technological culture similar to ours; that the Greeks could not have invented the calculus of the science of dynamics or bridged the gap between theory and praxis due to their mentality (Spengler) or slave economy (Farrington) or religious propensities (Jaki); I only know for certain that they did not.

(Source: Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century (1986).)

Originally posted by Chupacabras
Yes, you are right, the world's circumference was alread known by the comparision of shadows at two distant points. However, the most succesful traders didn't dare to go near the horizon, for a reason, and I think it was most likely fear. I was rather trying to make a point that Columbus couldn't get financing for his trip due to oposition to novel ideas.
The reluctance of Columbus' potential financial backers to sign on to the explorer's plan was due solely to their (justified) concern that Columbus was grossly underestimating the circumference of the earth.

The round-earth idea held no novelty in 15th-century Christendom; we know that eminent Christian scholars had already taught it for centuries by that time (including the Venerable Bede (http://www.bartleby.com/65/be/Bede-St.html), Hildegard of Bingen (http://www.bartleby.com/65/hi/Hildegard.html), John of Sacrobosco (http://www.bartleby.com/65/sa/Sacrobos.html), St. Thomas Aquinas (http://www.bartleby.com/65/th/ThomasAq.html), and St. Virgilius (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/VIRGILIU.HTM)). I think we may safely say that nothing in that story has anything to do with religious opposition to science, so perhaps we can give that example a well-deserved retirement.

[evildave]

Religion isn't slowing us down.

Quite the reverse, actually.

It's accelerating the human race towards extinction.


I strongly disagree that religion prevented people from "going nuts" in the streets. People were too busy watching the towers burn and collapse on their TV sets over and over to do that. People were a lot more "prone" to bitch about how someone needed to be bombed.

Afterwards, it was religion that jumped in to exploit strong feelings, and foment hatred for political power plays. To some degree, it worked, too.


We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?"
Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.
-- Pat Robertson, explaining on his 700 Club cable TV program why the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had occurred two days earlier (but oblivious as to why such nations as Sweden and The Netherlands, both many orders more secular than the U.S. could ever hope to be, are spared such tragedies), quoted from Beth Corbin, ed., Americans United Activist Release: "Pat Robertson Prays for Supreme Court Changes" (July 15, 2003)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ceo:

I think we need to define our terms here. By ?science? I mean a systematic method, both rational and experimental, used in organized attempts to formulate explanations of nature and derive a world view based on such explanations, subject to correction through methodical observation. Science is something more than speculation about the natural world, than logical systems, than technological sophistication; classical civilizations as well as China and other cultures possessed these, yet never made the transition to real science.

I believe Jared Diamond explained how this was due to enviromental rescources and political centralization in Guns, Germs and Steel.

Also this ignores the fact that for most of history, China was ahead of Europe in terms of science and technology. It is only recently that the west has pulled ahead.

China, India and the Muslim world was also ahead of africa, australia and the americas. Is that perhaps due to chinese taoism, Indian polytheism and Muslim monotheism?

Although it was no doubt important to the West that Islam inherited and preserved classical learning, it?s very difficult to point to any way in which Arabic thinkers contributed much innovation to that legacy or put it to practical use in the five centuries following the fall of Rome. Certainly, it did not appreciably hasten scientific or technological development in the Islamic world.

Aristotle?(from which the midievals got much of their early ideas concerning science and natural philosophy from). Arabic/Indians numbers? Much of modern medicine. And gun powder are some hand downs to name a few.



The Greeks made many advances in abstract thought, and even a few in technology, that are intrinsically related to science, yet their civilization stopped short of developing real science. Archimedes, whom you cite as an example, is probably the closest thing to a scientist the Greeks produced. But he is properly remembered more as an applied mathematician and an inventor than a true scientist, and of course there weren?t many Archimedeses. (I wonder, too, how you reconcile your statement that there was no true science before Newton with your reliance on Archimedes to demonstrate that the ancient Greeks possessed true science.)


Yes but nevermind the Greeks you speak if were what? 2000 years or so before the Middle Ages. I'd really consider time to be a serious factor here.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The explanation offered by Jaki (who holds the title of Distinguished Professor of the History and Philosophy of Physics at Seton Hall University) is that Christian theology gave the necessary conceptual impetus to classical learning to enable it finally to cross the threshold of modern science.


I must take three issues with that statement:

1) Science and christianity throughout history have been at odds with eachother. If any support came for science from christianity then, it came from those parts either stemming from respect for knowledge or likely absorbed by greek philosophy. Often times science would find a discrepency with the Church which would lead to mass opression.


2) It is true science was mostly conducted by christians back then, but christianity was the only game in town. It's not like other would be allowed to contribute.


3) And lastly, many people in this debate are talking about now at days, not the middle ages in which we admit religion did some good.


This whole argument sounds like a great deal of bad revisionism. Are all the Christian opression of and subervsion of scientific research in the past just to be ignored? All the book banning should be be forgotten?

[triadboy]

Prior to the 'dark ages' - when religion controlled thought in Europe, - they were on the way to producing better, usable maps. Once the pope and his band of idiots grabbed power, maps were ordered changed. Jesuselam HAD to be in the center of the map! This kind of idiocy is the stuff that religion is made of.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I believe Jared Diamond explained how this was due to enviromental rescources and political centralization in Guns, Germs and Steel. You're right; as I understand it, that was his explanation. I confess to not having read that book, although I saw it reviewed extensively a few years back. From what I know of the book second-hand, Diamond did not give much consideration to purely cultural factors, which seems like a serious omission to me because science reposes not merely on material and economic necessities, but also on a number of prerequisite ideas. On the other hand, Diamond is a physiologist by training, so perhaps such matters are not of primary interest to him (I've heard, for example, that one of his main concerns was refuting the idea that there might be genetic reasons for the success of the West vis-à-vis the rest of the world). In addition, Diamond's thesis (unless I’m missing something) would not seem to account for the failure of science to develop in Europe prior to the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also this ignores the fact that for most of history, China was ahead of Europe in terms of science and technology. It is only recently that the west has pulled ahead.

China, India and the Muslim world was also ahead of africa, australia and the americas. Is that perhaps due to chinese taoism, Indian polytheism and Muslim monotheism? In a number of respects, China was more technologically sophisticated than Europe. But technology and science are not the same thing, as I suggested earlier.

I think your remarks about the effect of non-Western religions on science were tongue-in-cheek, but there may be more truth there than you realize. The famous Marxist sinologist (and biochemist) Joseph Needham concluded in his multi-volume Science and Civilization in China that the Chinese failed to develop science, despite their advantages in many areas of technology and theory over Europeans, essentially because their religious philosophy was anti-scientific:It was not that there was no order in Nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it.
…
Ideas of a Supreme Being … present from the earliest times, became depersonalized so soon and … lacked the idea of creativity, that they prevented the conception of laws [of nature] ordained from the beginning by a celestial lawgiver[.]

(Source: Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1956).)So perhaps we should be more precise: some religious philosophies will hinder scientific progress, while others will tend to bring it forth.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Aristotle?(from which the midievals got much of their early ideas concerning science and natural philosophy from). Arabic/Indians numbers? Much of modern medicine. And gun powder are some hand downs to name a few. Let's consider these points in turn.

Aristotle, the most significant Greek thinker to the history of Western scientific development, laid down an important logical and theoretical framework. However, Greek thought (especially Aristotle's) was weighed down by a number of anti-scientific metaphysical assumptions, including the following:

- the universe is necessary, determined, eternal and uncreated
- time is an endlessly repeating cycle in which progress is ultimately impossible
- all things in the universe are full of "final causes" (e.g. a stone falls because of its innate love for the center of the earth)
- inanimate objects are not really inanimate, but living
- sensory experience cannot really add anything to reason
- a void is impossible in nature

The cumulative effect of these notions was not only to hopelessly skew scientific inquiry, but also to remove much incentive to develop a scientific culture. For example, in Book Seven, Part X of the Politics (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.7.seven.html), Aristotle notes that everything has "been invented several times over in the course of ages, or rather times without number" - and since Aristotle thought he was living in one of history’s "Golden Ages", that meant that scientific invention had reached a plateau with the Greeks as far as he was concerned.

Thus, Greek thought, while furnishing some crucial ingredients for the development of science, paradoxically carried within itself insuperable barriers to real scientific breakthough. Ironically, it was the Muslim inheritance of Aristotelian ideas that killed off the possibility of self-sustaining native scientific development in the Islamic world, as well. Islamic natural philosophers were unable or unwilling to radically transcend Aristotle, as Muslim historian Caesar Farah observes:In Aristotle, Muslim thinkers found the great guide; to them he became the "first teacher."

Having accepted this a priori, Muslim philosophy as it evolved in subsequent centuries merely chose to continue in this vein and to enlarge Aristotle rather than to innovate.

(Source: Caesar Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observances (1994) (emphasis in original).)Christian metaphysics rejected a number of the false science-inhibiting assumptions of Greek metaphysics, and represented a real innovation because while classical learning was embraced by medieval Western scholars, it was examined and tested rather than being slavishly adopted. With the negative baggage removed from Greek learning, the Christian West was free to develop the scientific culture that eluded the ancients and the Islamic world. As historian Richard Olson explains:Ironically, in this case, it was the most conservative [medieval] theologians who argued for the abandonment of [Aristotelian] attempts to determine final causes, for the contingency of natural phenomena, and for the experimental evaluation of a variety of scientific hypotheses - all of which moved science toward its modern methodological perspectives.

(Source: Richard G. Olson, "The Refashioning of Christianity and Science: Dynamic Interactions Between 1200 and 1700", The World and I (Oct. 1, 2000).)This is why the French historian of science Pierre Duhem went so far as to point to the Church's condemnation in 1277 of 219 Aristotelian propositions as one of the key breakthrough moments in the history of science. (Source: Pierre Duhem, Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void and the Plurality of Worlds (trans. 1985).)

Arabic numbers: this is a mathematical innovation, not a scientific one as such.

Modern medicine: it’s true that Islam contributed during this period a number of advancements in this area, but it’s typical of the course of Islamic scientific (not mathematical) scholarship that innovations were made in highly applied domains like medicine, rather than in theoretical science. Also, truly modern medicine could not develop in the absence of a good human anatomical knowledge, which neither the ancient Greeks nor the Muslims possessed because they did not practice human dissection. Interestingly, human dissection as a standard scientific and teaching practice only arose in Western Europe, during the 1300s.

Gunpowder: We can’t really call what the Chinese invented gunpowder, of course, since they never invented guns, and it apparently did not occur to them during several centuries to use their explosive powder for anything other than fireworks. Contrast that with what happened to the stuff once it arrived in a Europe at the beginning of the 14th century: within less than the space of a single generation, it had been adapted throughout the Continent for widespread practical applications in artillery and demolition. Do you attribute any significance to this?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes but nevermind the Greeks you speak if were what? 2000 years or so before the Middle Ages. I'd really consider time to be a serious factor here. Well, the "Golden Age" of classical Greece lasted until roughly 300 B.C., which was less than 1,000 years before the Middle Ages began. By the end of the Roman Empire - which lasted right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages - real science still had not developed, and considering how long their civilization lasted (and flourished in other respects), the classical Romans made no dramatic leaps forward in that area.

There seems to be no material reason why science could not have developed earlier than it did in these regions. This is why so many historians of science have noted this fact, and tried to come up with explanations.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
1) Science and christianity throughout history have been at odds with eachother. If any support came for science from christianity then, it came from those parts either stemming from respect for knowledge or likely absorbed by greek philosophy. Often times science would find a discrepency with the Church which would lead to mass opression. Your belief that science and Christianity have historically been at odds with one another is a received idea, and one of relatively recent vintage:[H]ow did the dominance of Christianity affect knowledge of, and attitudes toward nature? The standard answer, developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and widely propagated in the twentieth, maintains that Christianity presented serious obstacles to the advancement of science and, indeed, sent the scientific enterprise into a tailspin from which it did not recover for more than a thousand years. The truth, as we shall see, is far different and much more complicated.

(Source: David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992).) Professor Lindberg goes on to say that the charge, commonly leveled against the Church, that it has preferred faith at the expense of reason and ignorance at the expense of education "is considerably distorted". He points out that for a major period of Western history the Church was "one of the major patrons - perhaps the major patron - of scientific learning" (emphasis in original).

Despite the overwhelmingly beneficial support lent to science by Christianity, there have certainly been occasions where different denominations tried to enforce doctrinal orthodoxy. In nearly every instance, however, conflicts arose over theology, not between science and religion. I'd be very surprised if you could actually establish that "mass oppression" often occurred due to science/religion conflicts in Europe, as you assert. I suspect you've just heard that version of events and assumed it was true.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
2) It is true science was mostly conducted by christians back then, but christianity was the only game in town. It's not like other would be allowed to contribute. This hardly constitutes evidence that Christianity slowed down or opposed science.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
3) And lastly, many people in this debate are talking about now at days, not the middle ages in which we admit religion did some good. Well, you're partly right here, although I originally posted in response to remarks made about the Middle Ages (when, Chupacabra assures us, scientific research was banned for centuries!).

It’s entirely plausible to conclude that nowadays, science can stand on its own two legs and is self-sustaining independent of religion. However, if we can demonstrate that (at least in the post-classical West) religion didn’t pose an obstacle to science when it had the chance to, it’s then difficult to argue that religion is impeding science today. The only notable change has been that religion's ability to impact scientific development either positively or negatively is much reduced these days.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This whole argument sounds like a great deal of bad revisionism. Are all the Christian opression of and subervsion of scientific research in the past just to be ignored? All the book banning should be be forgotten?It sounds like revisionism to you because you’ve uncritically assimilated a faulty historical account. The history of the relationship between Christianity and science has, by and large, not been one of oppression and subversion of scientific research. The exceptions shouldn’t be ignored of course, but they should be recognized as exceptions.

As for banned books, very few books of a scientific nature ever made it onto the Church’s famous list (although yes, some did). The overwhelming majority of banned books were either unorthodox philosophical or theological works, or (especially) literary works deemed excessively racy. In my view, this does not establish innate hostility toward science on the Church’s part when considered together with all the contrary evidence. I don’t think it should be forgotten, though, even though the practice doesn’t exist in the Church anymore. Modern book banning by American fundamentalists is a better example, but hopefully these have only had a marginal effect on scientific inquiry.

[DialecticMaterialist]

You're right; as I understand it, that was his explanation. I confess to not having read that book, although I saw it reviewed extensively a few years back. From what I know of the book second-hand, Diamond did not give much consideration to purely cultural factors, which seems like a serious omission to me because science reposes not merely on material and economic necessities, but also on a number of prerequisite ideas. On the other hand, Diamond is a physiologist by training, so perhaps such matters are not of primary interest to him (I've heard, for example, that one of his main concerns was refuting the idea that there might be genetic reasons for the success of the West vis-à-vis the rest of the world). In addition, Diamond's thesis (unless I?m missing something) would not seem to account for the failure of science to develop in Europe prior to the Middle Ages.

Well actually Diamon did aknowledge cultural factors, he just asked WHY certain cultural factors were present in some areas but not other. Now he did not answer this completely but he did seem to make some good points concerning this.

Secondly Diamond stated that continent wide changes were somewhat diluted by cultural factors.


Concerning the failure of "science" to appear in the west, Diamond I believe argued that it did. It just developed there more slowly then in China or Mesopotamia that had a head start in creating civilizations.

Also we should note that if Diamond gives a throruough, probable and well proven account of why technology and science developed in Europe and Asia due to enviromental factors, religion can be treated as somewhat superfluos.





I think your remarks about the effect of non-Western religions on science were tongue-in-cheek, but there may be more truth there than you realize. The famous Marxist sinologist (and biochemist) Joseph Needham concluded in his multi-volume Science and Civilization in China that the Chinese failed to develop science, despite their advantages in many areas of technology and theory over Europeans, essentially because their religious philosophy was anti-scientific:
It was not that there was no order in Nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it.
?
Ideas of a Supreme Being ? present from the earliest times, became depersonalized so soon and ? lacked the idea of creativity, that they prevented the conception of laws [of nature] ordained from the beginning by a celestial lawgiver[.]

(Source: Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1956).) So perhaps we should be more precise: some religious philosophies will hinder scientific progress, while others will tend to bring it forth.


Well Diamond for example stated that it failed to take off more because of China's political systems, which may perhaps be due to religion but is also due to economic factors. Also anyone that studied Chinese religion would know much of that was likewise due to early enviromental/political factors as well-namely the flooding that forced people to cooperate and the age of warring states. Taoism was not also the only religion in china, Confucianism played a major role in China and that religion ecnouraged both learning and progress.

And while your statement is true that Taoism has an irrationalist/anti-progress element, we should note Christianity has the same element, especially with early Church Fathers and mystics.

Basically Diamond argued and I'm inclined to agree with him, that China was left behind because its conservative political culture, which was based around a more absolute power of the emperor, was less conductive to technological comptetition so made less demand for inventors and innovators.

Indian religion for example in terms of pure ideology seems like the likeliest place for science to develope, as India states the highest caste is that of intellectuals and scholars. India also has a great history of philosophical thought and invention.

In the East some accomplishments in science had been made paralleling the early developments in the West. However, although many societies were quick to adopt the fruits of technology, they tended to discourage the development of science on the classical model, which is based on the unbiased interaction of theory and experiment.

In China scientific theories were largely subservient to the main schools of philosophy and theology, particularly those The agricultural society, which endured until modern times, encouraged the separation of theory and experiment, the former falling to the educated, scholar classes and the latter to the lower, craftsman classes. Astronomy and mathematics were used for practical purposes, such as calendar determination, and there was little interest in theory in these fields. Theories of metallurgy, alchemy, and medicine were all tied to the prevailing religious and philosophical doctrines. Nevertheless, many important practical discoveries were made. Paper was invented in the 2d cent. A.D.; block printing was known in the 7th cent. A.D. , with movable clay type by the 11th cent. and cast-metal type in Korea by the beginning of the 15th cent.; gunpowder was invented in the 3d cent. A.D. and firearms were in use by the 13th cent.; and the magnetic compass came into use during the 11th and 12th cent.

In India an alphabetic script was developed, as well as a numeral system based on place value and including a zero; this latter Hindu contribution was adopted by the Arabs and combined with their numeral system. Important Hindu scientists flourished in the 6th and 7th cent. A.D. and also in the 12th cent., making contributions to astronomy and mathematics. Many of these early Indian works showed the influence of Greek science, as in the geocentric systems of astronomy, or of Babylonian science, as in their development of algebraic methods for solving many problems.



One should also aknowledge the role of the Greeks in the develope of scientific/rational thought, such thinking that became part of Western tradition via Rome's legacy.

Early Greek Contributions to Science

The early Greek, or Hellenic, culture marked a different approach to science. The Ionian natural philosophers removed the gods from the personal roles they had played in the cosmologies of Babylonia and Egypt and sought to order the world according to philosophical principles. Thales of Miletus (6th cent. B.C.) was one of the earliest of these and contributed to astronomy, geometry, and cosmology. He was followed by Anaximander, who eniverse is composed of four basic elements, i.e., earth, air, fire, and water; this theory was also taught by Empedocles (5th cent. B.C.) in Sicily. The philosophers Leucippus and Democritus (both 5th cent. B.C. ) held that everything is composed of tiny, indivisible atoms. In the school founded at Croton, S Italy, by the Greek philosopher Pythagoras of Samos (6th cent. B.C.) the principal concept was that of number. The Pythagoreans tried to explain the workings of the universe in terms of whole numbers and their ratios; in addition to contributions to mathematics and philosophy, they also made notable studies in the area of biology and anatomy, e.g., by Alcmaeon of Croton (fl. c.500 B.C.). The most important developments in medicine were made by Hippocrates of Cos (4th cent. B.C. ), known as the Father of Medicine, who formulated the science of diagnosis based on accurate descriptions of the symptoms of various diseases. The greatest figures of the earlier Greek period were the philosophers Plato (427?347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384?322 B.C.), each of whom exerted an influence that has extended down to modern times.



http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/S/science-the-beginnings-of-science-early-greek-contributions-to-science.html

The whole assumption that science developed in europe and could have only done so is based on a false distinction between scientific contributions and so-called "technological contributions", one that has never really been well supported. In any event then China, India and the Middle East were developing scentific thought, just not as quickly as Europeans.

This is for a number of reasons, one likely being the effect if feudalism in making European nations compete and the overall abundance of domesticitable crops and cattle(making for huge populations) in Europe.

Also one must keep in mind all that is necessary for science to develope, and this is not merely a philosophical ideology; one needs writing, printing so that findings can be quickly published and peer reviewed, funding; which requires government need/desire of the service,

One should also keep in mind history is not really itself an exact science, and is only starting to become scientific (in the manner of being rigoursly tested) by pioneers like Jared Diamond and Frank Sulloway. This is especially true in 1950.

One should also consider what a Marxist would say about religion in China in respect to hampering scientific development.





Aristotle, the most significant Greek thinker to the history of Western scientific development, laid down an important logical and theoretical framework. However, Greek thought (especially Aristotle's) was weighed down by a number of anti-scientific metaphysical assumptions, including the following:

- the universe is necessary, determined, eternal and uncreated

How is that unscientific?



- time is an endlessly repeating cycle in which progress is ultimately impossible

Actually Aristotle believed in telelogical progress.

-To do this is the object of Aristotle's physics, or philosophy of nature. It is important to keep in mind that the passage from form to matter within nature is a movement towards ends or purposes. Everything in nature has its end and function, and nothing is without its purpose. Everywhere we find evidences of design and rational plan.


http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm#Metaphysics

This idea really isn't that different from that of too many Christians.




- all things in the universe are full of "final causes" (e.g. a stone falls because of its innate love for the center of the earth)
- inanimate objects are not really inanimate, but living

Plants are the lowest forms of life on the scale, and their souls contain a nutritive element by which it preserves itself. Animals are above plants on the scale, and their souls contain an appetitive feature which allows them to have sensations, desires, and thus gives them the ability to move. The scale of being proceeds from animals to humans. The human soul shares the nutritive element with plants, and the appetitive element with animals, but also has a rational element which is distinctively our own. The details of the appetitive and rational aspects of the soul are described in the following two sections.



- sensory experience cannot really add anything to reason

Aristotle never said this, that is Plato. Aristotle said quite the opposite in fact:

Sense perception is a faculty of receiving the forms of outward objects independently of the matter of which they are composed, just as the wax takes on the figure of the seal without the gold or other metal of which the seal is composed. As the subject of impression, perception involves a movement and a kind of qualitative change; but perception is not merely a passive or receptive affection. It in turn acts, and, distinguishing between the qualities of outward things, becomes "a movement of the soul through the medium of the body."

The objects of the senses may be either (1) special, (such as color is the special object of sight, and sound of hearing), (2) common, or apprehended by several senses in combination (such as motion or figure), or (3) incidental or inferential (such as when from the immediate sensation of white we come to know a person or object which is white). There are five special senses. Of these, touch is the must rudimentary, hearing the most instructive, and sight the most ennobling. The organ in these senses never acts directly , but is affected by some medium such as air. Even touch, which seems to act by actual contact, probably involves some vehicle of communication. For Aristotle, the heart is the common or central sense organ. It recognizes the common qualities which are involved in all particular objects of sensation. It is, first, the sense which brings us a consciousness of sensation. Secondly, in one act before the mind, it holds up the objects of our knowledge and enables us to distinguish between the reports of different senses.


In fact that is one of the primary reasons Aristotle rejected Plato's philosophy.







- a void is impossible in nature


That is true but rather light I believe compared to certain Christian philosophical problems with science mainly:

-Doomsday theories: Why study when the world will end?


-Faith as the primary method of discovering truth.

-Supernaturalism. Explaining things by miracles.

-Appeal to authority; trust the priest not one's reason.


- The Bible; a rather large obstacle for historians. Creationism in fact is one prominent osbtacle to proper science that still survives today. (To this day I am unaware of Aristotole's philosophy creating problems for scientific theories to that level.)



The cumulative effect of these notions was not only to hopelessly skew scientific inquiry, but also to remove much incentive to develop a scientific culture.

I believe you charge Aristotle quite unfairly with the charge of stagnating scientific progress, especially in light of how he helped first pioneer logic, empirical method and biology. The evidence you posit is thus more or less circumstantial and based on what possible negating effects Aristotle could have had on science. But 1) No scientific research or empirical method was yet even around to negate by Aristotle's philosophies.

I mean ok Aristotle may have said much had been invented back then (and I am sure this is an exageration on your part) but so what? Do you really think the Greeks just stopped inventing things because Aristotle said so?


Aristotle was by far more influential on the Medivieval scholar then the ancient Greek, so the argument really doesn;t hold.

Christian metaphysics rejected a number of the false science-inhibiting assumptions of Greek metaphysics, and represented a real innovation because while classical learning was embraced by medieval Western scholars, it was examined and tested rather than being slavishly adopted. With the negative baggage removed from Greek learning, the Christian West was free to develop the scientific culture that eluded the ancients and the Islamic world. As historian Richard Olson explains:
Ironically, in this case, it was the most conservative [medieval] theologians who argued for the abandonment of [Aristotelian] attempts to determine final causes, for the contingency of natural phenomena, and for the experimental evaluation of a variety of scientific hypotheses - all of which moved science toward its modern methodological perspectives.

(Source: Richard G. Olson, "The Refashioning of Christianity and Science: Dynamic Interactions Between 1200 and 1700", The World and I (Oct. 1, 2000).) This is why the French historian of science Pierre Duhem went so far as to point to the Church's condemnation in 1277 of 219 Aristotelian propositions as one of the key breakthrough moments in the history of science. (Source: Pierre Duhem, Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void and the Plurality of Worlds (trans. 1985).)

Yes and what are Olson's reasons for making the said statement? Also you have a habit of quotong obscure sources that one cannot easily reference. I have asked you to stop doing that, especially in the case of documents from 1950.

Also from the History of Science Society:

The relationship between religion and natural science, as the history of their interaction reveals, is in fact a very complex matter. A historical investigation makes clear, for example, that the tendency to separate science cleanly from religion, a tendency that developed first in the medieval period, flowered again during the late nineteenth century, and still survives in many quarters today, greatly oversimplifies the story.


If the love of God and one's neighbor formed the central concern of Western religion, then the search for an understanding of the physical world could not be expected to define a particularly valued activity. Such was indeed the case in the early Medieval world. At best what we call science, which involved applying the Greek gift of rational inquiry to nature, was invoked to confirm the greatness and wisdom of the Creator. According to the medieval historian of science Edward Grant, prior to the twelfth century the pursuit of scientific explanations did not entail a commitment to metaphysical beliefs; i.e., the attempt to describe nature's regularities did not require that one formulate a view about the nature of physical reality. Science was viewed simply as the "handmaiden to theology." In theology the Greek gift was brought to bear on God's program to redeem a fallen humankind. Here knowledge of and beliefs about the physical world were of secondary importance.

After the twelfth century, however, a challenge to this attitude began to make its appearance as a result of the study of recovered works of ancient Greek thinkers, Plato's in the twelfth century and Aristotle's in the thirteenth. Latin scholars found rational accounts of nature's behavior in these writings. They had been used to deferring to Holy Scripture whenever it contained direct pronouncements or implications about nature. Pagan Greeks, however, operated under no such caution. What must have struck medieval minds initially as presumptuous eventually became an attitude recognizable in some medieval figures: philosophy, not theology, should provide our understanding of nature and its regular causes and events.


and


But if prior to the twelfth century the pursuit of knowledge about the physical world did not involve a metaphysical commitment, the Greek writings constituted a composite scientific system complete with explicit metaphysical beliefs that were hard to miss. Aristotle's belief in the eternality of the world and his exclusive use of natural as opposed to supernatural agency to explain physical events ran directly contrary to beliefs inherent in the Christian perspective of the Latin West. Since Aristotle's thought took root in the newly founded universities of Europe, the stage was set for a protracted struggle between those Christian medievals who felt that the Aristotelian employment of reason must be taken into account and those who condemned ideas they believed were subversive to the Christian faith.

This encounter between Greek and Christian thought forced medieval thinkers to scrutinize carefully questions about the ability of human beings to know the world and about the value and place of philosophical knowledge of the world in the larger scheme of things. Was the world knowable through reason, or was our knowledge of it necessarily limited in some way? Did pursuit of rational knowledge presuppose beliefs about the structure and operation of the world or did its results dictate and confirm what those beliefs should be?


http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/teach_res_frame.html?http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/essays/list/readinglist.html









Arabic numbers: this is a mathematical innovation, not a scientific one as such.


They are clearly related. At least as much or more so then science and religion.

Modern medicine: it?s true that Islam contributed during this period a number of advancements in this area, but it?s typical of the course of Islamic scientific (not mathematical) scholarship that innovations were made in highly applied domains like medicine, rather than in theoretical science. Also, truly modern medicine could not develop in the absence of a good human anatomical knowledge, which neither the ancient Greeks nor the Muslims possessed because they did not practice human dissection. Interestingly, human dissection as a standard scientific and teaching practice only arose in Western Europe, during the 1300s.

First off that is interesting as it parellels Aristotle's rise in Europe.

Secondly dissection was around long before this, first pioneered by the Greek Galen in around 200 C.E.

Afterwhich his works remained the leading authority on such matters until the 16th century.

http://encyclopedia.com/html/G/Galen.asp

Also much of European medical knowledge came from the Muslim world:

The first real light on modern medicine in Europe came with the translation of many writings from the Arabic at Salerno, Italy, and through a continuing trade and cultural exchange with Byzantium. By the 13th cent. there were flourishing medical schools at Montpellier, Paris, Bologna and Padua, the latter being the site of production of the first accurate books on human anatomy. At Padua, Vesalius proved that Galen had made anatomical mistakes. Prominent among those who pursued the new interest in experimental medicine were Paracelsus , Ambroise Paré , and Fabricius , who discovered the valves of the vein

http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/medicine_historyofmedicine.asp



Gunpowder: We can?t really call what the Chinese invented gunpowder , of course, since they never invented guns,

? Please explain that comment.


and it apparently did not occur to them during several centuries to use their explosive powder for anything other than fireworks.

Dr. Yates Professor of History and East Asian studies at Yale would disagree:

NOVA: Tea and restaurants are certainly two important gifts the Song people gave to the world. What were some of the other Chinese inventions of this period that had a profound influence on the course of civilization?

Yates: Gunpowder completely transformed the way wars were waged and contributed to the eventual establishment of might over right. In my own research, I have been able to refute the common notion that the Chinese invented gunpowder but only used it for fireworks. I'm sure that they discovered military uses for it. I have found the earliest illustration of a cannon in the world, which dates from the change-over from the Northern Song to the Southern Song around 1127, which was 150 years before the development of the cannon in the West. The Song also used gunpowder to make fire lances - actually flame throwers - and many other gunpowder weapons, such as anti-personnel mines, which are thankfully now being taken out of general use.

Needless to say, the cannon was used by the kings of Europe to fundamentally alter the social structure of the European world. It enabled kings to destroy the castles of the feudal lords. And it enabled, therefore, the centralized nation-state to develop.

By the end of the Song Dynasty, the Chinese invented multiple-stage rockets. If we hadn't had that, maybe we would not have been able to put a man on the moon. It was that fundamental an idea. Joseph Needham, an historian of Chinese science and technology, also argues that the notion of an explosion in a self-contained cylinder also permitted the development of the internal combustion engine and the steam engine. Our basic modes of transportation would not have been possible without this Chinese invention.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/china/age.html





Contrast that with what happened to the stuff once it arrived in a Europe at the beginning of the 14th century: within less than the space of a single generation, it had been adapted throughout the Continent for widespread practical applications in artillery and demolition. Do you attribute any significance to this?


Likewise even the Muslims invented cannons before the Europeans (they likely encountered primitive gunpowder weapons facing Genghis Khan)

Gunpowder found its way from China to the Arab countries and then to Europe. During medieval times Europeans translated many Arabic books from which they learned about gunpowder. In 1325 the Arabs attacked a Spanish city using a projector to fire "flaming balls" which sounded like thunder. As Westerners began to be aware of the power of firearms. They started studying and manufactuing them. By the 15th century cannons using gunpowder were invented by the Europeans.


http://china.tyfo.com/int/literature/history/2000921lit-story2.htm

The Arabs produced the first known working gun, in 1304.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0010015.html

This is likewise confirmed here:

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/1999/asiatech.htm


Likewise the fact that this did take off in Europe as opposed to China and the Middle East is significant. I do not believe we should be hasty in jumping to conclusions though.

I have heard two explanations for this: 1) The Mesopatamiam landscape became less fertile, supporting less people and less inventors. Meaning innovations did not take off like they would in Europe.

2) China was overly centralized and innovations like gunpowder could be outlawed in the region, unlike Europe where they would mainly be utilized by competing states.

That is what Jared Diamond says anyways.


Another compelling reason comes from the specifics of warfare, namely that steppe warfare just didn't make early guns useful enough and the arab/chinese leaders at the time just couldn't concieve of how they would drastically turn the tide in the future. By the time guns were demonstrated to be good once researched then by Europeans, it was too late.


http://www.militaryink.com/books/2003/june/0521822742.htm




Well, the "Golden Age" of classical Greece lasted until roughly 300 B.C., which was less than 1,000 years before the Middle Ages began. By the end of the Roman Empire - which lasted right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages - real science still had not developed, and considering how long their civilization lasted (and flourished in other respects), the classical Romans made no dramatic leaps forward in that area.


Research and discovery were progressing and one should not forget that the dark ages sent both endeavors back quit a bit. But in any event we are talking what? 1,000 years. That's a rather long time.

There seems to be no material reason why science could not have developed earlier than it did in these regions. This is why so many historians of science have noted this fact, and tried to come up with explanations.

Time is necessary for cultural and technological evolution. The whole enterprise represents an iterative process.

Sure cavement could have melted sand into glass but why didn't they?

Sure Europeans technically had all the components for a computer and all the tools they would need to discover calculus, and evolution but why did this not happen until the 18th and 19th centuries?

It's because culture does not start with blank raw material and create complex systems of thought or inventions, it builds slowly on previous generations.

For science to operate efficiently one needs a stable government, one needs certain inventions like paper, type, libraries to look things up, certain mathematical formula etc.

In Galileo's case:a telescope.

Such things are built on the discoveries of previous generations and even then its not that simple, as those discoveries still need to spread around so as to become common knowledge.



Your belief that science and Christianity have historically been at odds with one another is a received idea, and one of relatively recent vintage:
[H]ow did the dominance of Christianity affect knowledge of, and attitudes toward nature? The standard answer, developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and widely propagated in the twentieth, maintains that Christianity presented serious obstacles to the advancement of science and, indeed, sent the scientific enterprise into a tailspin from which it did not recover for more than a thousand years. The truth, as we shall see, is far different and much more complicated.

(Source: David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992).) Professor Lindberg goes on to say that the charge, commonly leveled against the Church, that it has preferred faith at the expense of reason and ignorance at the expense of education "is considerably distorted". He points out that for a major period of Western history the Church was "one of the major patrons - perhaps the major patron - of scientific learning" (emphasis in original).


I do not debate this but the church was also in many ways the only game in town. Scientists back then certainly couldn't write works the Church found heretical. Likewise I am not saying the relationship is that simple, only that the Church did plant unecessary obstacles.

Some such obstacles are still around today, and as science can stand by itself I think religion, in this case, is doing more harm then good. Perhaps even as far back as the Enlightentment the Church became unecessary(assuming it ever was).

Despite the overwhelmingly beneficial support lent to science by Christianity, there have certainly been occasions where different denominations tried to enforce doctrinal orthodoxy. In nearly every instance, however, conflicts arose over theology, not between science and religion.

That is simply not true. Evolution is a good example, as is the Galieo affair.


I'd be very surprised if you could actually establish that "mass oppression" often occurred due to science/religion conflicts in Europe, as you assert. I suspect you've just heard that version of events and assumed it was true.

Well there is the Inquisition:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/newsite/galileo/chr/inquisition.html

http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/C/censorsh-in-other-countries.html

Seeing as the Catholic Church operated all across Europe I believe this was pretty extensive.






This hardly constitutes evidence that Christianity slowed down or opposed science.

Yes but it was not meant to, it was meant to show that your claim of monotheism and christianity being the source of science due to funding and social support, was unfounded and circumstancial.



Well, you're partly right here, although I originally posted in response to remarks made about the Middle Ages (when, Chupacabra assures us, scientific research was banned for centuries!).

Well of course scientific research was not banned for centuries, at least not that in line with church doctrine. But much of freethough and skepticism was.

It?s entirely plausible to conclude that nowadays, science can stand on its own two legs and is self-sustaining independent of religion. However, if we can demonstrate that (at least in the post-classical West) religion didn?t pose an obstacle to science when it had the chance to, it?s then difficult to argue that religion is impeding science today.

Not really, because religion may have been compared to other possible influences, a rather progressive one back then. This however may have changed now, as there are other influences and stand like I said, can stand on its own.



It sounds like revisionism to you because you?ve uncritically assimilated a faulty historical account. The history of the relationship between Christianity and science has, by and large, not been one of oppression and subversion of scientific research. The exceptions shouldn?t be ignored of course, but they should be recognized as exceptions.


But they were some major exceptions that included the father's of modern science and the philosophy of science itself: including Galileo and Francis Bacon.

Also what scientists did get by likely did so by adhering to Church standards before hand, in order to gain support and avoid persecution.

As for banned books, very few books of a scientific nature ever made it onto the Church?s famous list (although yes, some did). The overwhelming majority of banned books were either unorthodox philosophical or theological works, or (especially) literary works deemed excessively racy.

How few? There were 4,000 banned books all together by the publication of the 32nd addition of the index can you tell me how many were science books?


Likewise lets say more political, philosophical and religious books were banned at this time then science books: that doesn't mean lots of science books were not banned or the opression was any less severe.

I imagine Stalin for example persecuted more political opponents then scientists for what they said: that doesn't change the fact of mass opression in the Soviet Union.

The Catholic Church killed almost one-hundred thousand people alone for witchcraft between 1400-1800, the Spainish Inquisition about 300,000. I don't think its something to take lightly.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Civil

How many people have rationalists and humanists killed?



In my view, this does not establish innate hostility toward science on the Church?s part when considered together with all the contrary evidence.

I would not argue that directly, I think the problem arises from method. The Church preaches that one believe based on faith, science goes by evidence.

In the end then the Church often times makes many pronouncements concerning reality, whose falsehood it simply cannot accept for long periods of time no matter the evidence.

This creates a bit of a conflict. Likewise the Church puts dogma behind certain social and political issues, turning them from matters of rational discussion to matters of absolute faith.



I don?t think it should be forgotten, though, even though the practice doesn?t exist in the Church anymore. Modern book banning by American fundamentalists is a better example, but hopefully these have only had a marginal effect on scientific inquiry


On scientific inquiry true but not the public.

And it is good that the Church has lately decided to stop banning books and burning heretics. But why does it still then wish to impose certain codes on the general public and scientific community?

In short opposing cloning, abortion, stem cell research and genetic engineering. Some of the more extreme fundamentalists groups even oppose the teaching of evolutionary and big bang theory.

I suppose fundamentalists are a bit worse on this matter then the Catholic Church, but still the Church is still supporting outdated beliefs and practices under the banner of faith imo.

[Gregor]

I am sincerely enjoying the exchange, here.

(aside: Damn work. Why must I toil in the hot sun (figuratively) while intellectual debate is occurring).

I wish I had the time to devote to this topic (and read the referenced sources). However, I have finished Stephen Gould's final book -still in proofing when he died last year - The Hedghog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. In it he argues that the fight between science and religion, while existing on certain topics and to a certain degree, is not as great as conventional wisdom would assert. He also argues that science and humanities (sociology, history, etc.) shouldn't be at odds. He would tend to support CEO-ESQ. argument for no real conflict - although he might not support the fostering argument.

Let me first comment on the definition of 'science' (vs. technology) and on the ultimate issue on this thread.

First, while I appreciate ceo-esq's attempt to limit the definition of science to exclude more utilitarian issues, I think it is question-begging. To say that other cultures did not have 'science' because it's not how I define 'science' doesn't get us very far.

Because we're debating about the time it took to reach modernity, let's define science as "inquiry into truths through investigation (often in a laboratory) that is not strictly utilitarian, but may involve theoretical concepts that don't directly result financial reward, but require some infrastructure to produce gain." In other words, study devoted to a 'higher' purpose other than directly killing other tribes or making you a quick buck.

-- while my definition is surely faulty, I'm more interested in the argument about the role of religion as impacting the definition --

To get to this level of 'science' I'll posit that you need:

1. paper writing and prevalent literacy
2. stable government/society
3. governmental indifference to research, if not support
4. academic infrastructure (someone to read your article and create a repository of other works)
5. financial remuneration of some kind (you have to eat)

If we assume that 'science' as defined only arose in the West (which I'll assume simply for the sake of the thread, everything else is interesting, but off topic), the question is did Xianity impact the pace in which 'science' matured (especially between 500 - 1500).

It could either:

A. accelerate/foster it
B. decelerate/oppose it
C. have no impact on it

Especially during 500 - 1500 C.E., I would argue it was B, that Xianity decelerated the development of science. The church's opposition to the laity even owning a Bible (punishable) impacted literacy. The church's role in a stable society and government is probably a push, some help and some hindrance. But I posit that the Church thwarted an academic infrastructure (only permitting study of Xianity) and preventing financial remuneration.

The Renaissance was a rebirth, however - it argued that the ancient Greeks had cornered the market on knowledge. We simply needed to reacquire their information. The Scientific Revolution (although its existence is challenged) argued that we should move on from the ancients.

It is an interesting debate whether we'd be 1,000 years more advanced today without Xianity holding us back, or still living in city-states without Xianity's fostering of science.

- I've read only enough to conclude that history is so random and fortuitous that we are where we are and you can't extract religion from the puzzle. It's like evolution - why did monocellular life dominate the world for 2 billion years, and multicellular life arise when it did? We don't know, it just did.

[Dymanic]

When you struggle against something, you are reinforcing its reality. If you are attacking an enemy you cannot overcome, the more you attack him, the more deeply entrenched he will become. (I don't remember where I got those; possibly from some old episodes of "Kung Fu").

I agree with Gregor's last post. In its earliest form (shamanism) religion permitted some individuals to devote themselves to exploring the mysteries of the universe, rather than spending all their time scratching in the dirt for something to eat. Only by being launched from that platform was the thought vehicle we now call science able to reach its present position.
Creationism in fact is one prominent osbtacle to proper science that still survives today.
Yet, to what extent is the current state of evolutionary theory a product of the constant attacks by creationists? How often has attention to some detail been motivated by a challenge (or anticipated challenge) by a creationist adversary? How many knowledgeable 'armchair biologists' undertook the study of evolution primarily so as to be able to competently debate creationists? I would suggest that by their constant opposition, creationists have been vital participants in the development and dissemination of evolutionary theory.

This of course works in both directions.
Science and christianity throughout history have been at odds with each other.
As have say, cheetas and gazelle. And the present forms in which both now appear are largely a result of that struggle.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And while your statement is true that Taoism has an irrationalist/anti-progress element, we should note Christianity has the same element, especially with early Church Fathers and mystics. Possibly, but that certainly was not the strain of Christian thought that prevailed in the Middle Ages and thereafter, which turns out to have made a big difference in the history of science.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
One should also aknowledge the role of the Greeks in the develope of scientific/rational thought, such thinking that became part of Western tradition via Rome's legacy.
quote:

Early Greek Contributions to Science

The early Greek, or Hellenic, culture marked a different approach to science. The Ionian natural philosophers removed the gods from the personal roles they had played in the cosmologies of Babylonia and Egypt and sought to order the world according to philosophical principles. Thales of Miletus (6th cent. B.C.) was one of the earliest of these and contributed to astronomy, geometry, and cosmology. He was followed by Anaximander, who eniverse is composed of four basic elements, i.e., earth, air, fire, and water; this theory was also taught by Empedocles (5th cent. B.C.) in Sicily. The philosophers Leucippus and Democritus (both 5th cent. B.C. ) held that everything is composed of tiny, indivisible atoms. In the school founded at Croton, S Italy, by the Greek philosopher Pythagoras of Samos (6th cent. B.C.) the principal concept was that of number. The Pythagoreans tried to explain the workings of the universe in terms of whole numbers and their ratios; in addition to contributions to mathematics and philosophy, they also made notable studies in the area of biology and anatomy, e.g., by Alcmaeon of Croton (fl. c.500 B.C.). The most important developments in medicine were made by Hippocrates of Cos (4th cent. B.C. ), known as the Father of Medicine, who formulated the science of diagnosis based on accurate descriptions of the symptoms of various diseases. The greatest figures of the earlier Greek period were the philosophers Plato (427?347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384?322 B.C.), each of whom exerted an influence that has extended down to modern times. I have some problems with the validity of this analysis as evidencing a real scientific culture, because what these folks were engaged in – although it certainly contributed to a future science – was not, itself, actually science. Professor Stark makes, I think, a very relevant observation here:Consider Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.). Although praised for his empiricism, he didn't let it interfere with his theorizing. For example, he taught that the speed at which objects fall to earth is proportionate to their weight. … A trip to any of the nearby cliffs would have allowed him to falsify this proposition.
…
The same can be said of the rest of the famous Greeks - either their work is entirely empirical, or it does not qualify as science for lack of empiricism, being sets of abstract assertions that disregard or do not imply observable consequences. Thus when Democritus (ca. 460 B.C.E. - ca. 370 B.C.E.) proposed the thesis that all matter is composed of atoms, he did not anticipate scientific atomic theory. His "theory" was mere speculation, having no basis in observation or any empirical implications. That it turned out to be "correct" (and most of it did not) does not make his guess any more significant than that of his contemporary Empedocles (ca. 490 B.C.E. - ca. 430 B.C.E.), who asserted that all matter is composed of fire, air, water, and earth, or Aristotle’s version a century later, that matter consists of heat, cold, dryness, moistness, and quintessence. Indeed, for all his brilliance and analytical power, Euclid (ca. 300 B.C.E.) was not a scientist, because, in and of itself, geometry lacks substance, having the capacity only to describe reality, not to explain any portion of it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
One should also consider what a Marxist would say about religion in China in respect to hampering scientific development. One might, except that Needham then goes on to argue, like many others, that in Europe, religion fostered scientific development because Christian metaphysics are far more conducive to a scientific mentality than Eastern metaphysics are.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
How is [the idea that the universe is necessary, determined, eternal and uncreated] unscientific? The problem here, as I see it, is mainly with the notion that the physical universe is necessary rather than contingent. Necessary things are the way they are because they simply have to be that way, rationally speaking. Necessary phenomena require no explanation for their existence. Only contingent realities need to be approached through a posteriori investigation. So if you commence your inquiries with the preset assumption that the cosmos is necessary, then you have very little incentive to examine why things are the way they are instead of being some other way. All your empirical work will ultimately consist in simply description and cataloguing. This, to me, seems inimical to the scientific enterprise. Fortunately for science, medieval scholars jettisoned this assumption because it was incompatible with Christianity.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Actually Aristotle believed in telelogical progress. In the limited sense of objects fulfilling natural final causes, yes. Aristotle did not believe in teleological progress in a historic or technological sense, as far as I can ascertain.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Aristotle never said [that sensory experience cannot really add anything to reason], that is Plato. Aristotle said quite the opposite in fact:

…

In fact that is one of the primary reasons Aristotle rejected Plato's philosophy. Aristotle did not mistrust the senses as a source of truth to the same extent that Plato did, but there was nonetheless a strong rationalist streak in him. Certainly, he subordinated sense faculties to rational faculties. Have you noticed that nearly all of the propositions Aristotle believed to be true were based on reason rather than observed reality?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Aristotle was by far more influential on the Medieval scholar then the ancient Greek, so the argument really doesn;t hold. As I already pointed out, what the medieval Europeans were able to do (that, for example, the Muslims did not) was dump the unscientific aspects of Aristotelian metaphysics. Aristotle was hugely influential, but that doesn’t mean that medieval scientists were necessarily good little Aristotelians in all respects. They couldn't be and still make scientific progress, and this is why I alluded to the importance of the medieval rejection of certain Aristotelian propositions (although others were accepted). Medieval thinkers did not hesitate to throw Aristotle’s ideas out the window if they were inconsistent with Christianity or with empirical observations. A few bad Aristotelian ideas persisted for quite a long time, however. For example, if Copernicus had not uncritically accepted Aristotle's (non-empirical) notion of ideal shapes in nature, he might have at least considered the possibility that planetary motion was not perfectly circular.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Secondly dissection was around long before this, first pioneered by the Greek Galen in around 200 C.E. I said human dissection. Check your source again. It says Galen conducted animal dissections. It was apes and dogs, if memory serves. Scientific human dissection began in Italy around 1300 (http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/walsh-e.htm) and spread throughout the great universities of Christendom (and it would have been earlier if people had not held Galen’s work in such high regard). Human dissection had been prohibited in the classical world and in Islam.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Quote:

Gunpowder found its way from China to the Arab countries and then to Europe. During medieval times Europeans translated many Arabic books from which they learned about gunpowder. In 1325 the Arabs attacked a Spanish city using a projector to fire "flaming balls" which sounded like thunder. As Westerners began to be aware of the power of firearms. They started studying and manufactuing them. By the 15th century cannons using gunpowder were invented by the Europeans.But cannon were used in Europe in the siege of Metz in 1324, and by a year later they were in use all over Europe.

Anyhow, all of this is very interesting – thanks for the information on gunpowder you provided, most of which I'm omitting from this post – but it doesn't really detract much from my point. You have to look pretty hard to find evidence of the use of cannon in China as early as the 12th century - I concede that such evidence exists - and that still suggests a great contrast between the pace and extent of development of practical applications for gunpowder in China and Europe. At any rate, this is not of great relevance to our overall subject because the presence of technology does not demonstrate that a civilization possesses science.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Research and discovery were progressing and one should not forget that the dark ages sent both endeavors back quit a bit. The "Dark Ages" is a misnomer. You're simply restating a claim you haven't proved - that this time period set back research and discovery "quite a bit".
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That is simply not true. Evolution is a good example [of a conflict between science and religion], as is the Galieo affair. I'll ponder the evolution example, although even if it's true there, it doesn't falsify my statement (“In nearly every instance”). As for the Galileo affair, that was not, in fact, the result of a conflict between science and theology. I addressed it in this thread: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11486 , and possibly in an earlier one as well, but I don't have time to recap it all right now.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well there is the Inquisition:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galile...nquisition.html

http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia...-countries.html

Seeing as the Catholic Church operated all across Europe I believe this was pretty extensive.

…

The Catholic Church killed almost one-hundred thousand people alone for witchcraft between 1400-1800, the Spainish Inquisition about 300,000. I don't think its something to take lightly. No one takes these things lightly, I hope. But perhaps you could pinpoint what, if anything, this has to do with a conflict between religion and science. And even more importantly, your statistics here are appallingly exaggerated. No wonder you have such a low opinion of Christianity!

Professor Stark, citing three other contemporary scholars (Robin Briggs of Oxford, Stephen Katz of U. Indiana and Brian Levack of U. Texas) reports:During the entire three centuries [1450-1750], it is very unlikely that 100,000 people died as "witches". In fact, scholars who have sifted through the actual records with a real concern for numbers agree that the best estimate is that only about 60,000 people – men as well as women - were executed as "witches" in Europe during the entire witch-hunting period.That’s 60,000 people too many, of course. But it should be noted that a certain number of those 60,000 were persecuted by civil authorities, without religious involvement. (And, for the sake of accuracy, the overwhelming majority were in Protestant rather than Catholic jurisdictions.)

The Spanish Inquisition! Not sure what the science/religion connection is here either, and of course it was largely out of the Church’s control and in the hands of political figures, but where did you get the idea that 300,000 people died at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition? There were between 3,000 and 5,000 victims in the course of 350 years, and hardly any were accused of witchcraft. Check out the very good BBC documentary on this topic called The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, which appears on cable from time to time and may be available for rental. Also, consult this page (http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=629).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
How few? There were 4,000 banned books all together by the publication of the 32nd addition of the index can you tell me how many were science books? A fair question. 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.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Likewise lets say more political, philosophical and religious books were banned at this time then science books: that doesn't mean lots of science books were not banned or the opression was any less severe. Well, there's precious little evidence of widespread or severe oppression of science, and much evidence to the contrary. At any rate, the Index of Prohibited Books (which incidentally rarely carried any significance in civil law) doesn't seem to help your case very much.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I would not argue that directly, I think the problem arises from method. The Church preaches that one believe based on faith, science goes by evidence. To the extent I understand what the Church teaches its faithful, the things the Church instructs should be believed based on faith have nothing to do with science anyway, and in scientific matters involving the natural world, reason and evidence are to be embraced. This has almost always been the case; as Augustine told Christians:Heaven forbid that God should hate in us that by which he made us superior to the animals! Heaven forbid that we should believe in such a way as not to accept or seek reasons, since we could not even believe if we did not possess rational souls. Few people in either field (religion or science) have historically perceived any such conflict in method. What do you know about this supposed opposition that people like Kepler and Newton didn't?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And it is good that the Church has lately decided to stop banning books and burning heretics. But why does it still then wish to impose certain codes on the general public and scientific community? Well, there's nothing wrong per se with wanting to impose codes, especially codes of ethical conduct. My own profession has an ethical code (no lawyer jokes, please), but I'd hardly say it slows down the advancement of my profession. Do you think no ethical codes are advisable for scientific investigation?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In short opposing cloning, abortion, stem cell research and genetic engineering. Lots of people oppose various aspects of these things for non-religious reasons. (And since abortion hardly advances science, why is it relevant to this debate?)

To wrap up this post, I'll leave everyone with a link to an interesting essay (http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/cosmoeng.html) on this subject that I just came across.

And I'll close with a fascinating observation by Alfred North Whitehead, the 20th-century English mathematician and philosopher (and Bertrand Russell's co-author on the Principia Mathematica):I do not think, however, that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles (causality). Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: -- that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted on the European mind?

When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality. Remember that I am not talking of the explicit beliefs of a few individuals. What I mean is the impress on the European mind arising from the unquestioned faith of centuries. By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not a mere creed of words.

In Asia, the conceptions of God were of a being who was either too arbitrary or too impersonal for such ideas to have much effect on instinctive habits of mind. Any definite occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot, or might issue from some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There was not the same confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being. I am not arguing that the European trust in the scrutability of nature was logically justified even by its own theology. My only point is to understand how it arose. My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology.

- Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World

[DialecticMaterialist]

Possibly, but that certainly was not the strain of Christian thought that prevailed in the Middle Ages and thereafter, which turns out to have made a big difference in the history of science.

I believe it was. The Church declared cannon law and interpreted the Bible and others followed. It was based on faith. Creationism was the dominate belief concerning origins, the Bible's version of history what people believed history was and geocentrism was the dominate belief governing the heavens.


Excorcism and blood letting was performed back then. That was the age when crosses were declared the thing to fend off vampires with, in a scheme for the Church to make money(the other traditional method of fending of vampires, special garlic made by some village women was labled witchcraft.

Take medicine for example:

However, medicine became steeped in superstition and the Roman Catholic Church effectively dominated what direction the medical world took. Any views different from the established Roman Catholic Church view could veer towards heresy with the punishments that entailed. Therefore, when the Roman Catholic Church stated that illnesses were punishments from God and that those who were ill were so because they were sinners, few argued otherwise.


Not only that but the Catholic church even said to prescribe different methods of remedy according to the Zodiac.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_in_the_middle_ages.htm







I have some problems with the validity of this analysis as evidencing a real scientific culture, because what these folks were engaged in ? although it certainly contributed to a future science ? was not, itself, actually science.


Ok but then any forerunner that contributed to the rise of the scientific method then can be dismissed as not actually being science.

But if you want I can get you an article from a Catholic University which says the same:

The beginning of the High Middle Ages was a time of intellectual ferment. Schools, generally associated with cathedrals, and universities were being founded all over Europe, and the writings of the ancient Greeks were becoming available in translation. Christian theology was being re-thought using their unfamiliar but powerful concepts. The writings of Augustine and of others like Philoponus were already forming new attitudes to the natural world.

......

The two characteristics of the Western intellectual tradition that make science possible are the insistence on logical coherence and experimental verification. These are already present in a qualitative way among the Greeks, and the vital contribution of the Middle Ages was to refine these conditions into a more effective union. This was done principally by insisting on the quantitative precision that can be attained by using mathematics in the formulation of the theories, and then verifying them not by observation alone, but by precise measurements. This transition was achieved in the twelfth century, principally by Robert Grosseteste (c 1168-1253), who is regarded as the founder of experimental science.


http://icu.catholicity.com/c02303.htm





Professor Stark makes, I think, a very relevant observation here:
Consider Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.). Although praised for his empiricism, he didn't let it interfere with his theorizing. For example, he taught that the speed at which objects fall to earth is proportionate to their weight. ? A trip to any of the nearby cliffs would have allowed him to falsify this proposition.

Ok how does this lesson Aristotle's role in science? Everyone theorizes, midieval scholars, precursors to scientists and even scientists themselves.

So even if Aristotle was wrong on one or two things that doesn't mean that he failed to contribute anything to the rise of scientific thought.

Likewise Aristotle didn't exactly have much in the way of time keeping devices back then, so it'd be rather difficult to determine the rate of an object's falling.





The same can be said of the rest of the famous Greeks - either their work is entirely empirical, or it does not qualify as science for lack of empiricism,

1) That is a very false analogy. Not all observations have to be fully empirical to contribute to the development of scientific study and method.

2) Not even science itself is fully empirical anyways, so the method fails science itself from its own test.


being sets of abstract assertions that disregard or do not imply observable consequences. Thus when Democritus (ca. 460 B.C.E. - ca. 370 B.C.E.) proposed the thesis that all matter is composed of atoms, he did not anticipate scientific atomic theory. His "theory" was mere speculation, having no basis in observation or any empirical implications. That it turned out to be "correct" (and most of it did not) does not make his guess any more significant than that of his contemporary Empedocles (ca. 490 B.C.E. - ca. 430 B.C.E.), who asserted that all matter is composed of fire, air, water, and earth, or Aristotle?s version a century later, that matter consists of heat, cold, dryness, moistness, and quintessence. Indeed, for all his brilliance and analytical power, Euclid (ca. 300 B.C.E.) was not a scientist, because, in and of itself, geometry lacks substance, having the capacity only to describe reality, not to explain any portion of it.

Straw man. Nobody is claiming the Greeks were tried and true scientists like people of today. What their contribution was however was in attempting to find answers in nature, through observation and reason: not divine revelation.



One might, except that Needham then goes on to argue, like many others, that in Europe, religion fostered scientific development because Christian metaphysics are far more conducive to a scientific mentality than Eastern metaphysics are.

Really where did he say that? Also, where can I find a biography to Needham?

Lastly, though, is this post- or pre-renaissance christian metaphysics, for if its post then that may be an example of reverse causation.


The problem here, as I see it, is mainly with the notion that the physical universe is necessary rather than contingent. Necessary things are the way they are because they simply have to be that way, rationally speaking. Necessary phenomena require no explanation for their existence. Only contingent realities need to be approached through a posteriori investigation. So if you commence your inquiries with the preset assumption that the cosmos is necessary, then you have very little incentive to examine why things are the way they are instead of being some other way. All your empirical work will ultimately consist in simply description and cataloguing. This, to me, seems inimical to the scientific enterprise. Fortunately for science, medieval scholars jettisoned this assumption because it was incompatible with Christianity.

That is a very, very loaded and controversial philosophical assumption. One could just as easily argue that if it's contingent it happened by pure chance...so why bother looking into it?

In any event I believe the universe was necessary, as did Einstein("God does not play dice"), does that make us incapable of doing science?

Also if what you said is true, why is it then the Greeks tried to go into biology, physics etc.? Why did Aristotle dissect animals to see how they worked?


Your entire position posits that just because things are necessary ultimately, it means that we cannot understand a 'why' at the more proximate level.

Second this problem was never solved in Christian theology or philosophy as evidenced by Spinoza who in fact argued God's nature was necessary, not contingent, hence the universe was necessary.

It should be noted now that much of Midieval theory concerning causality was in fact based on Aristotle.

Even apart from direct literary influence, the nature of the philosophical and theological themes which were popular in the Middle Ages also led to an emphasis on causality. Writers studied the interrelationship of divine grace and natural processes, the role of the will in ethics, free will and determinism: all of these problems have an important causal component. These questions were often handled by methods which might seem to us to be extraordinarily naturalistic - naturalistic, of course, in the sense of the modes of natural investigation which were current at the time. It comes as no surprise to know that many medieval thinkers discussed the question of whether divine grace can increase: what is surprising is that many of the discussions use the technical tools of Aristotle's physical and biological works, tools which were originally developed to discuss problems of continuity and change in the natural world. What is even more surprising is the technical proficiency of many of these discussions: fourteenth-century work on this topic gave rise to very acute analyses of the variation of continuous quantities (see Murdoch 1975).

What should become evident during this survey is the extremely tight and complex interconnection between medieval causal theories and medieval ontology. After Aristotle's texts had been assimilated, almost all medieval academic theories had an ontology which was basically hylomorphic: substances were composites of matter and form, and change was described as the loss of one form and the acquisition of another. Form was not merely shape, but an active principle: the form of a thing was responsible for its causal role (White 1984). Furthermore, in any causal interaction, the allocation of active and passive roles to the individuals involved tended to be thought of as unproblematic. Although many aspects of Aristotle's causal theories were extensively and critically debated, this basic hylomorphism persisted throughout; and it is this, rather than anything more arcane, which often poses the greatest problems in assimilating, or evaluating, medieval thought on these topics


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-medieval/

Causality, Knowledge and Necessity

There is a persistent supposition -- see, for example, (Gilson 1937) - that Ockham, and many of his fourteenth-century followers, had a basically Humean position on causality; this supposition has deep historical roots (Nadler 1996), but is inaccurate (Adams 1987, pp. 741ff.).

The supposedly Humean position has three basic assertions: that there is nothing more to causality than the regular sequence of phenomena, that such a regular sequence cannot give a necessary connection, and that, consequently, we can have no certain knowledge of causal relations.

One item in this chain of argument has some textual support in Ockham: he did not believe that the relation of efficient causality was a thing distinct from its relata (Ockham, Quodlibet VI, qu. 12: Opera Theologica IX, pp. 629ff.) However, one can still believe this and hold that causality is a real relation, and Ockham did so believe (Adams 1987, p. 744; White 1990b). So this link in the chain is not found in Ockham.

The "Humean" argument, in addition, makes a detour through psychology: as Adams analyses it, it relies on a premise like "There can be nothing more in concepts than there actually is in intuitions" (Adams 1987, p. 744). But such a detour through psychology, though widely practiced in the eighteenth century, was somewhat foreign to medieval thought (White 1990a).

Even though pseudo-Humean arguments of this sort cannot reasonably be ascribed to Ockham or to most other medieval thinkers -- with the possible exception of Nicholas of Autrecourt -- there still remains the question of what their views on these questions actually were. Since the medievals generally did not conflate ontological and epistemological issues, there are two questions: first about the necessity of causality, and second about whether we can know causal propositions with certainty.
Causality and Necessity

Medieval thinkers believed that the world was created by God, and so a question like "Is proposition P contingent?" were seen as equivalent to the question "Could God have created a world in which P does not hold?". So our question can be reduced to one about divine power.

A very common theme in medieval thought is the distinction between God's absolute and ordered, or ordained, power (potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata). This distinction goes back to early medieval thought (Moonan 1994), and was extensively used in later medieval philosophy (Courtenay 1971; Adams 1987, pp. 1186ff.).

God's absolute power is unrestricted power. According to this power, God can create a huge variety of possible worlds. One frequently used principle is this: given two distinct entities, God can create a world in which one of them, but not the other, exists, or, in this world, God can destroy one of them, leaving the other intact. We should note that this is not exactly innocuous; ontologically, it amounts to some sort of logical atomism. See (White 1990b).

But God will, in practice, not exercise absolute power: as Aquinas puts it, "what is attributed to the divine power insofar as the command of a just will executes it, God is said to be able to do with respect to His ordered power". (Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, qu. 25, a. 5, ad 1) So there are limits to God's ordained power (which come from the concept of a just agent): inside the space of worlds which God could create by absolute power, there is a space of worlds which could be created by ordered power. It is this smaller space of worlds which is relevant for our question of the necessity of causal connections. And, with respect to God's ordered power, there was a wide range of causal assertions which were regarded as necessary by medieval thinkers.







In the limited sense of objects fulfilling natural final causes, yes. Aristotle did not believe in teleological progress in a historic or technological sense, as far as I can ascertain.


Final Causes

We often find in Aristotle and in the literature influenced by him an enumeration of four types of cause: formal, material, efficient and final. The first two are uses of ?cause? in a somewhat wider sense than is current nowadays: the term here simply means ?explanation in general? (Ockham, Expositio Physicorum II, c11: Opera Philosophica IV, p. 348), and explanations by means of matter and form were common both in Aristotle and in the literature. Efficient causes are what we would now simply call ?causes?. Final causes, however, are problematic: a final cause is an end or a purpose, and, whereas it is clear that rational agents act for the sake of ends, it is not clear that much else does. Furthermore, it also seems clear to us that the causality of a rationally pursued goal can be reduced to efficient causality.

Aristotle, however, has a much stronger position on final causality: he believes that there are processes in nature (the growing of a tree, for example) which are completed and regulated by a final state, or end, towards which they tend. As Adams puts it,
According to Aristotelian metaphysics, natures are complexes of powers. When appropriately coordinated, the collective exercise of such powers converges on an end. In the sublunary world, elemental powers are simple and deterministic. Even where more complex living things are concerned, the "coordination" of their powers is "built-in" in such a fashion that -- given relevant circumstances -- they function to achieve their end. (Adams 1996, p. 499)

Aristotle's natural science tends to be governed by the biological paradigm, and it is clear that, for him, final causes in this strong sense are extremely pervasive. He also argues in the Physics that natural processes cannot all be explained by final causality alone, which implies that final causality cannot, in general, be reduced to efficient causality.

The medieval literature is far from unanimous on these questions. William of Ockham, for example, who wrote several commentaries on Aristotle's Physics, and who discusses these questions at numerous places in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, hardly has a uniform position. He is quite happy with explanations of natural phenomena by means of efficient causes in general, but he will also often speak of final causes: what is unclear is whether the final causes he speaks of (with varying degrees of strength in different works) have any explanatory role to play that cannot be reduced to efficient causality (Adams 1998).


From the same source (standford encyclopedia of philosophy).




Aristotle did not mistrust the senses as a source of truth to the same extent that Plato did, but there was nonetheless a strong rationalist streak in him. Certainly, he subordinated sense faculties to rational faculties. Have you noticed that nearly all of the propositions Aristotle believed to be true were based on reason rather than observed reality?

This is interesting as Plato was the dominating influence in Medieval and Church philosophy before Aristotle, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Nevertheless, the great majority of the Christian philosophers down to St. Augustine were Platonists. They appreciated the uplifting influence of Plato's psychology and metaphysics, and recognized in that influence a powerful ally of Christianity in the warfare against materialism and naturalism. These Christian Platonists underestimated Aristotle, whom they generally referred to as an "acute" logician whose philosophy favoured the heretical opponents of orthodox Christianity. The Middle Ages completely reversed this verdict. The first scholastics knew only the logical treatises of Aristotle, and, so far as they were psychologists or metaphysicians at all, they drew on the Platonism of St. Augustine. Their successors, however, in the twelfth century came to a knowledge of the psychology, metaphysics, and ethics of Aristotle, and adopted the Aristotelean view so completely that before the end of the thirteenth century the Stagyrite occupied in the Christian schools the position occupied in the fifth century by the founder of the Academy.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12159a.htm





As I already pointed out, what the medieval Europeans were able to do (that, for example, the Muslims did not) was dump the unscientific aspects of Aristotelian metaphysics. Aristotle was hugely influential, but that doesn?t mean that medieval scientists were necessarily good little Aristotelians in all respects. They couldn't be and still make scientific progress, and this is why I alluded to the importance of the medieval rejection of certain Aristotelian propositions (although others were accepted). Medieval thinkers did not hesitate to throw Aristotle?s ideas out the window if they were inconsistent with Christianity or with empirical observations. A few bad Aristotelian ideas persisted for quite a long time, however. For example, if Copernicus had not uncritically accepted Aristotle's (non-empirical) notion of ideal shapes in nature, he might have at least considered the possibility that planetary motion was not perfectly circular.

1) Bad parts of Aristotle could have simply been thrown out via normal developments in math, measurement and observation/accumulation of knowledge. I believe Universities played a large role in this.

2) Christianity left some bad relics for a while left over as well. Perhaps even more then Aristotle.(The zodiac, disease as coming from God, creationism)

3) The idea of geocentrism that was rejected by Copernicus wasn't just Aristotelian at the time, it was a Christian one based on levels of heaven/existence and the zodiac.


Check your source again. It says Galen conducted animal dissections.

He correlated earlier medical knowledge in all fields with his own discoveries (based in part on experimentation and on dissection of animals)

"In part". But you are generally right, however I would like to point out the fact that dissection became prominent as the grip of the Church loosened.

From the University of Torronto Faculty on Medicine:

Freedom of thought flourished in this period as the authority of the Church diminished. Ancient Greek philosophy, literature, and art re-emerged as the intellectual pursuits of many people. Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies once again emanated in people?s minds and actions as the elements of choice and non-orthodox practices permeated their everyday lives. Despite the fact that an organized scientific community was still non-existent during this time, a few noteworthy scholars and artists still came forth including names like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Machiavelli. All in all, the importance of the Renaissance is that it facilitated the pervasion of the elements necessary to bring about the scientific revolution of the 17th century.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was a man of immense talent, skilled in the fine arts, and exceptional as a military and civil engineer. In his many meticulous drawings of man, he applied his knowledge of mechanical principles to the study of human anatomy, concentrating on dynamic illustrations of joints, muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons, and cartilage. Da Vinci's anatomic analysis revealed such structures as the ball and socket joints of the shoulder and hip, as well as the origin, insertion, relative position, and interaction of individual muscles which he represented as 'threads'. The mechanical action resulting from forces acting along the line of muscle filaments was also demonstrated. Da Vinci was the first modern dissector and illustrator of the human body and during his lifetime, he discovered a number of errors present in Galen?s comparative anatomy through the use of verification and experimentation.


http://dante.med.utoronto.ca/skeletalmuscle/history2.htm




Scientific human dissection began in Italy around 1300 and spread throughout the great universities of Christendom (and it would have been earlier if people had not held Galen?s work in such high regard). Human dissection had been prohibited in the classical world and in Islam.


How influential were the teachings of Galen? In 1559, The Royal College of Physicians of London made one of its members, Dr. John Geynes, retract his statements that there were 22 inaccurate passages in the works of Galen. In 1595, Dr. Edward Jordan, a medical graduate of the University of Padua, was required to read five of Galen?s works before being admitted to Fellowship, and in the same year a Dr. Thomas Rawlins was failed by the College because his knowledge of Galen was inadequate.

It is tempting to believe that Galen ushered a long and dark period in the history of medicine, including anatomy, but one should take into consideration the dismal era during which he lived. For a fitting tribute to Galen, I would like to cite the remarks of a great medical scholar, linguist, and Galen translator - Hunain ibn Ishaq of Baghdad (A.D. 809-873), who upon completing his translation of Galen?s 15th book commented: ?this excellent, outstanding work which is one of the compositions of a man who performed marvelously, and revealed extraordinary things, the master of the earlier surgeons, and the lord of the more recent savants, whose efforts in the practice of medicine have been unequaled by any of the prominent since the days of the great Hippocrates - I mean Galen. May God Almighty be merciful to him!



http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/units/history/notes/anatomy/


Though I agree that prohibitions against dissection harmed Islamic medical study.






The "Dark Ages" is a misnomer. You're simply restating a claim you haven't proved - that this time period set back research and discovery "quite a bit".


Much Greek and Roman knowledge was loss back then due to a number of reasons. Mainly I believe the fall of the Roman Empire.


I'll ponder the evolution example, although even if it's true there, it doesn't falsify my statement (?In nearly every instance?). As for the Galileo affair, that was not, in fact, the result of a conflict between science and theology. I addressed it in this thread: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...&threadid=11486 , and possibly in an earlier one as well, but I don't have time to recap it all right now.

Actually it was I believe. Because Galileo attacked a lot of the Church's beliefs.

Ok I know some of the basics on this, Galileo was viewed by some as being arrogant/anatogonistic(though that is debatable), Galileo did get some major facts wrong and Galileo did believe in God.

But the controversy was mainly about how Galileo's system went against Church doctrine and how his free writing went against the Church's rules.

If religion had not been involved, I imagine the affair would have been far less intense.





No one takes these things lightly, I hope. But perhaps you could pinpoint what, if anything, this has to do with a conflict between religion and science. And even more importantly, your statistics here are appallingly exaggerated. No wonder you have such a low opinion of Christianity!

They are based on a compilation of several statistics from an author actually known for "low counting." Large estimates usually run at 9 million.

From the site:

FAQ: "How reliable are these numbers?"

The short answer is, "We don't know."

The principle argument against the accuracy of ancient atrocity statistics is that they come from innumerate societies without the modern skill in counting large numbers of people and keeping accurate records. Conquerors liked to brag about their exploits, and the vast hordes of the enemy army grew with each retelling. Specific numbers are often discredited by pointing out that it would have been physically impossible to crowd that many people onto that battlefield, or to fit them inside the walls of this city, or to carry that many arrows, or to slit that many throats in that length of time.

(Also, we should never underestimate human gullibility. Even in our own era of thorough cradle-to-grave, 24-hour-a-day documentation of everything that ever happens anywhere -- and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- Bill Clinton is widely accused of dozens of secret murders.)

In fact, there are many historians who doubt ancient atrocity statistics as a matter of course, simply because the supporting evidence (if there ever was any) is now lost in the mists of time.

The principle argument in favor of these statistics is that they were considered credible at the time, and if eyewitnesses believed that it was logistically possible to field an army that huge, well, they would know better than we would, right? Our ancestors knew how to count sheep and cattle, so why would they suddenly turn stupid when it came to counting people. Nor is technology the deciding factor. Even today, most killings are accomplished in the traditional ways (starvation, disease, machetes), so we shouldn't automatically consider high body counts to be beyond the reach of our ancestors.

Also, we should keep in mind that many of the numbers from well-documented modern horrors are too big to be believed, but true nonetheless. The danger in doubting too easily is that we'll approach the subject with a double standard, believing the stories we want to believe, and denying the ones we don't.


Professor Stark, citing three other contemporary scholars (Robin Briggs of Oxford, Stephen Katz of U. Indiana and Brian Levack of U. Texas) reports:
During the entire three centuries [1450-1750], it is very unlikely that 100,000 people died as "witches". In fact, scholars who have sifted through the actual records with a real concern for numbers agree that the best estimate is that only about 60,000 people ? men as well as women - were executed as "witches" in Europe during the entire witch-hunting period. That?s 60,000 people too many, of course. But it should be noted that a certain number of those 60,000 were persecuted by civil authorities, without religious involvement. (And, for the sake of accuracy, the overwhelming majority were in Protestant rather than Catholic jurisdictions.)


The sources for my sites estimate:

* Witch Hunts (1400-1800)

* Wertham: 20,000
* Jenny Gibbons [http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/fmuntean/POM5a1.html] cites:
* Levack: 60,000
* Hutton: 40,000
* Barstow: 100,000, "but her reasoning was flawed" (i.e. too high.)
* Davies, Norman, Europe A History: 50,000
* Rummel: 100,000
* Bethancourt: The Killings of Witches, lists 628 named and 268,331 unnamed witches killed as of Dec. 2000, and estimates that between 20,000 and 500,000 people were killed as witches. [http://www.illusions.com/burning/burnwitc.htm?]
* M. D. Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897): 9,000,000 burned for witchcraft.
* 5 Jan. 1999 Deutsche Presse-Agentur: review of Wolfgang Behringer's Hexen: Glaube - Verfolgung - Vermarktung:
* estimates cited favorably
* Thomas Brady: 40-50,000
* Merry Wiesner: 50-100,000
* Behringer, at lowest: 30,000
* estimates cited unfavorably
* Gottfried Christian Voigt (1740-1791) extrapolated from his section of Germany to calculate 9,442,994 witches killed throughout Europe. From this came the common estimate of 9M.
* Mathilde Ludendorff (1877-1966): 9M
* Friederike Mueller-Reimerdes (1935): 9-10M
* Erika Wisselinck: 6-13 Million

* MEDIAN: Of the 15 estimate listed here, the median is 100,000. If we limit it to just the ten estimates that are cited favorably, the median falls between 50,000 and 60,000.



Roughly the same conclusion you reach, though we must bear in mind people on both sides will count too high or too low depending on their agenda. Hence I accept the median more willingly as a good compromise.

The Spanish Inquisition! Not sure what the science/religion connection is here either, and of course it was largely out of the Church?s control and in the hands of political figures, but where did you get the idea that 300,000 people died at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition? There were between 3,000 and 5,000 victims in the course of 350 years, and hardly any were accused of witchcraft. Check out the very good BBC documentary on this topic called The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, which appears on cable from time to time and may be available for rental. Also, consult this page.

Actually you are right, 300k represents the total number of victims of the Inquisition, the real number comes to more like 32,000.

* Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)

* Cited in Will Durant, The Reformation (1957):
* Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.
* In contrast to the high estimate cited above, Durant tosses his support to the following low estimates:
* Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490.
* An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.
* PGtH: 8,800 deaths by burning, 1478-1496
* Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910): 8,800 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada. (acc2 Buckle and Friedländer)
* Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 10,220 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada
* Britannica: 2,000
* Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 35,534 burned.
* Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch.IV: 32,000 burned
* Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 32,000 k. by burning; 20,226 k. before 1540
* Wertham: 250,000
* Rummel: 350,000 deaths overall.
* MEDIAN: 8,800 under Torq.; 32,000 all told.
* Punished by all means, not death.
* Fox: 309,000
* P. Johnson: 341,000
* Motley: 114,401



http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Civil

And this has relevance in that if an organization is around to punish you for going against Church doctrine, that generally hampers the spirit of free inquiry and that ultimately harms science. Especially when the punishments are so massive.



A fair question. I examined the 32nd edition of the Index of Prohibited Books (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.

Well by Newton's time they had discontinued the Index. As for Galileo, there was his Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems banned in 1633. http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_539.asp

Strange how you just missed that. Not to imply anything but I'd like a source or two confirming your estimates, to make sure nothing else was perhaps overlooked. (As I cannot read French).



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.

But a couple were also some of the elading scientists and philosophers of science of this century, including Francis Bacon, and Descartes. As well as Dennis Diderot's encyclopedia, Spinoza, Pascal, Locke, John Stuart Mill and David Hume. (not really science but important to scientific thought).

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html

Here I believe quality speaks much more then quantity, as I really haven;t heard of many scientists or thinkers besides these guys.

Also keep in mind here we are just dealing with banned books, that doesn't even take into account all other things "banned" by the Catholic Church (and I'm sure there's a lot.)





Well, there's precious little evidence of widespread or severe oppression of science, and much evidence to the contrary. At any rate, the Index of Prohibited Books (which incidentally rarely carried any significance in civil law) doesn't seem to help your case very much.

Actually it does seeing as it has what? 4,000 books at last edition. Combine that with wtch trials, heresy and the Inquisition. That paints a fairly opressive picture.



To the extent I understand what the Church teaches its faithful, the things the Church instructs should be believed based on faith have nothing to do with science anyway, and in scientific matters involving the natural world, reason and evidence are to be embraced. This has almost always been the case; as Augustine told Christians:
[quote] Heaven forbid that God should hate in us that by which he made us superior to the animals! Heaven forbid that we should believe in such a way as not to accept or seek reasons, since we could not even believe if we did not possess rational souls. Few people in either field (religion or science) have historically perceived any such conflict in method. What do you know about this supposed opposition that people like Kepler and Newton didn't?


To quote Gallileo:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual


I think this the case with regards to philosophy and history as well, making your said argument a fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Also since this is a philosophical, not a technical or scientific matter, the mere word of authority caries no more weight then anyone else's reasoning.

In any event, yes, many do see science and religion as not competing, but history I would say tells a different story. Sometimes they do compete, as a question of faith and a question of science isn't strictly defined. The biggest case of this would be the evolution vs. creation issue, faith ins cripture and tradition or evidence and reason?

Obviously the method of reason and divine revelation are clearly not compatible. Reason demands we proportion belief to evidence, go by logic and probability. Faith demands absolute belief no matter what without or in spite of evidence. The two hence come into conflict quite often, as does faith with faith (this creates even more intense unresolvable conflict imo).

Now many here would say "true science" does not conflict with faith, but that is merely faith now determining what reason is now supposed to be.





Well, there's nothing wrong per se with wanting to impose codes, especially codes of ethical conduct.

Stalin could have said the same thing.

The Church was not merely imposing codes, it was trying to control thought, torturing people, and burning them at the stake in public. The above description you gave is accurate, but too vague in regards to this matter, ignoring many relevant factors.

If for a thousand years rationalists were burning and torturing any Xian that spoke up you would not dismiss the act as "merely imposing moral codes" just as you likely don't simply shrug off the persecution of Christians in China.



My own profession has an ethical code (no lawyer jokes, please), but I'd hardly say it slows down the advancement of my profession. Do you think no ethical codes are advisable for scientific investigation?

False analogy. These are not codes like " don't betray a client" we are talking about here. These Medieval codes are things like "don't contradict statement X, and if you do you fry."

While not all codes impede scientific progress, I believe many medieval codes did so as they impeded freethought and expression.

I think likewise some ethical codes are advisable to scientific investigation, but those codes are not the ones the Church put forth.

I likewise believe in some limitations on free speech for example, but they would not include forced censorship of anyone who questioned the Bible.





Finally as for your quote on Whitehead, the man was not a historian but a philosopher(who helped develope process philosophy).


Likewise Whitehead in his statement got one basic fact wrong when he started talking about "Asian Gods" as the Chinese had no conception of God really, the Tao and the wisdom of the Sage kings come to being the closest thing.


To end this I will direct all readers to conflict arising from science and religion by Bertrand Russell himself(primary author or Principia Mathematica).

Found here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195115511/ref=lib_dp_TT01/103-0144681-5325459?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=5#reader-link

[Gregor]

While I haven't the time (or intellectual horsepower) to add much, let me summarize my admittedly knee-jerk conclusion.

The role of organized religion in its control of government, academia, social codes, and etc. dramatically declined in the 200 years between 1600 and 1800 C.E. The pace of scientific progress likewise grew exponentially during that time. I think there is a correlation (and causation) between those two events.

Thus, I posit if that decline in religion occurred six hundred years earlier - between 1000 and 1200 C.E. - we'd have seen the scientific revolution arrive six hundred years earlier.

And we'd all own flying cars by now.

. . . Ahhhhhh, I love arm-chair revisionist history. . .

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Not only that but the Catholic church even said to prescribe different methods of remedy according to the Zodiac.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.u...middle_ages.htmThat page does not actually say where that weird diagnostic chart came from. It seems unlikely to have been prescribed by the Church, given the Church’s long-standing overall objections to astrology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm) (which did not, unfortunately, succeed all that well in reducing the popularity of this pseudoscience throughout history).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ok but then any forerunner that contributed to the rise of the scientific method then can be dismissed as not actually being science. Until the Middle Ages, yes. That is the point. I would not use the term "dismissed", though, since I don't mean to suggest that they were not making contributions that would later be incorporated into the scientific method.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But if you want I can get you an article from a Catholic University which says the same:

quote:

The beginning of the High Middle Ages was a time of intellectual ferment. Schools, generally associated with cathedrals, and universities were being founded all over Europe, and the writings of the ancient Greeks were becoming available in translation. Christian theology was being re-thought using their unfamiliar but powerful concepts. The writings of Augustine and of others like Philoponus were already forming new attitudes to the natural world.

......

The two characteristics of the Western intellectual tradition that make science possible are the insistence on logical coherence and experimental verification. These are already present in a qualitative way among the Greeks, and the vital contribution of the Middle Ages was to refine these conditions into a more effective union. This was done principally by insisting on the quantitative precision that can be attained by using mathematics in the formulation of the theories, and then verifying them not by observation alone, but by precise measurements. This transition was achieved in the twelfth century, principally by Robert Grosseteste (c 1168-1253), who is regarded as the founder of experimental science.


http://icu.catholicity.com/c02303.htmI'm sorry - what was this supposed to show? It seems, broadly speaking, to support my argument. Part of the Greeks' problem was that they did not have an effective union of logic, theory and empirical observation, which is necessary in order for science to take place.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ok how does this lesson Aristotle's role in science? Everyone theorizes, midieval scholars, precursors to scientists and even scientists themselves.

So even if Aristotle was wrong on one or two things that doesn't mean that he failed to contribute anything to the rise of scientific thought.

Likewise Aristotle didn't exactly have much in the way of time keeping devices back then, so it'd be rather difficult to determine the rate of an object's falling. It doesn't lessen Aristotle’s contributory role in the development of the science that would emerge long after his death. It indicates that he himself was not a scientist, and that his approach to the natural world was not a full-fledged scientific one. Aristotle was wrong about loads of things, but I never said he failed to contribute.

By the way, all you need to do to disprove that objects fall at a rate proportionate to their mass is to drop two objects of dissimilar weight from a great height and have a person on the ground confirm that they landed at the same time. You don’t need a timekeeping device. Professor Stark's point was that Aristotle could easily have performed this experiment, but because his approach to the natural world was not entirely that of a scientist, it did not occur to him that this would be a worthwhile exercise. He did not consider his mass-acceleration theory to be a falsifiable proposition.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
1) That is a very false analogy. Not all observations have to be fully empirical to contribute to the development of scientific study and method.

2) Not even science itself is fully empirical anyways, so the method fails science itself from its own test. You misunderstand the criteria. Any method that is wholly empirical or wholly theoretical is not, strictly speaking, scientific.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Really where did [Needham] say that? Also, where can I find a biography to Needham?

Lastly, though, is this post- or pre-renaissance christian metaphysics, for if its post then that may be an example of reverse causation. You can find the relevant Needham reference in the essay (http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/cosmoeng.html) I linked at the end of my prior post, which I assume from your question you did not bother reading. Here is an obituary (http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/iiasn5/eastasia/needham.html) for Needham (he died in 1995) that gives many biographical details.

I think that Christian metaphysics had basically crystallized by about the 13th century, although any Christians reading this should feel free to correct me.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That is a very, very loaded and controversial philosophical assumption. One could just as easily argue that if it's contingent it happened by pure chance...so why bother looking into it? For obvious theological reasons, medieval Christians didn’t make that argument, and science is clearly the better for it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In any event I believe the universe was necessary, as did Einstein("God does not play dice"), does that make us incapable of doing science? I don't think that you believe, nor did Einstein, that the universe is necessary in an Aristotelian sense. To say the universe is necessary (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm) is, by definition I think, to say that its existence and specific characteristics can be established theoretically rather than in conjunction with empirical examination, and that it is impossible to imagine a logically consistent alternative to our universe, so there is no need to consider possible alternative models. From my point of view, if you or Einstein really believed that, then it would pose a major stumbling block to your doing science.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also if what you said is true, why is it then the Greeks tried to go into biology, physics etc.? Why did Aristotle dissect animals to see how they worked? I would say that Aristotle dissected animals as part of his effort to descriptively catalogue and classify nature, but not in order to test any hypotheses. As was mentioned before, Aristotle rarely let his empirical data stand in the way of his theorizing.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Second this problem was never solved in Christian theology or philosophy as evidenced by Spinoza who in fact argued God's nature was necessary, not contingent, hence the universe was necessary. Christians believe that God's nature is necessary. But they also believe that the universe had a beginning in time, that God did not need to create the universe at all, and that he could have created it differently. In other words, they believe that God is a necessary existent but that the physical universe is a contingent existent.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
It should be noted now that much of Midieval theory concerning causality was in fact based on Aristotle.

quote:

Final Causes

We often find in Aristotle and in the literature influenced by him an enumeration of four types of cause: formal, material, efficient and final. The first two are uses of ?cause? in a somewhat wider sense than is current nowadays: the term here simply means ?explanation in general? (Ockham, Expositio Physicorum II, c11: Opera Philosophica IV, p. 348), and explanations by means of matter and form were common both in Aristotle and in the literature. Efficient causes are what we would now simply call ?causes?. Final causes, however, are problematic: a final cause is an end or a purpose, and, whereas it is clear that rational agents act for the sake of ends, it is not clear that much else does. Furthermore, it also seems clear to us that the causality of a rationally pursued goal can be reduced to efficient causality.

[snip ]
Yes. I repeat: Aristotle’s notion of teleology was bound up in his theory of final causality of objects, but this did not lead him to believe in a pattern of net progress in human history and endeavors. You have quoted all these excerpts without comment, as though they somehow corrected or contradicted what I said about Aristotelian final causes. On the contrary, they tend to confirm it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is interesting as Plato was the dominating influence in Medieval and Church philosophy before Aristotle, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: [snip] True enough. What's interesting about it, again? I don’t grasp the point you’re making here.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
1) Bad parts of Aristotle could have simply been thrown out via normal developments in math, measurement and observation/accumulation of knowledge. I believe Universities played a large role in this. Perhaps they could have done had things turned out differently, although part of the difficulty is that the "bad" (here I mean simply anti-scientific) parts of Aristotle stunted the very developments in science that could have led to their being discarded. Unlike the scientific method, Aristotelian natural philosophy is basically non-self-correcting. As it actually happened, the bad bits of Aristotle were to a large extent eventually rejected because they conflicted with Christian theology. Remove Christianity from the historical picture, and who knows how long it might have taken for science to develop?

You're certainly right about universities, which themselves were a medieval religious innovation the concept of which dovetailed, not at all coincidentally, with Catholic theology.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
2) Christianity left some bad relics for a while left over as well. Perhaps even more then Aristotle.(The zodiac, disease as coming from God, creationism). Those relics are just specific errors regarding material phenomena. They do not carry within themselves serious methodological or metaphysical problems, so there was nothing fundamentally preventing their eventual correction. A hundred wrongheaded conclusions about particular natural occurrences do not pose as much of a danger to the scientific enterprise as even one metaphysical assumption that seriously undermines the value of scientific inquiry. Christianity had the "right" metaphysical outlook for science, and by removing the Aristotelian (and other) conceptual obstacles to developing a scientific method, it cleared the path for specific scientific errors to be rectified scientifically over time.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
3) The idea of geocentrism that was rejected by Copernicus wasn't just Aristotelian at the time, it was a Christian one based on levels of heaven/existence and the zodiac. My example related not to heliocentrism as such, but to planetary orbits. Copernicus' assumption (probably inherited from Aristotle) that the structure of the universe was necessarily based on ideal shapes led him into error. If Aristotle had known that the planets orbit the sun, he also would have asserted that the orbits were perfectly circular because they had to be - that’s the nature of the universe, no need to wonder why or test the theory.

There’s nothing Christian about any assumption that anything is the way it is because it has to be. The reason the Church rejected the Aristotelian notion of necessary cosmic phenomena is that it denied the validity of their dogma about an all-powerful God who is a free agent. That is, nothing physical is logically required to be a certain way. God, so they thought, could have created things in any number of different ways, so it's worth investigating what he actually created to learn the how and why of it. This brings me back to my earlier observation that only contingent phenomena require a posteriori examination (which science involves). Necessary phenomena can be understood through a priori contemplation in the mind.

Hopefully this sheds light on why it never occurred to Aristotle to perform the falling-weights experiment. He assumed that falling objects logically accelerated in proportion to their mass, so there was no need to actually test the theory. A truly Christian metaphysics, on the other hand, does not include such an assumption about anything in the physical world.

While we’re addressing this interesting sub-issue, I'll draw two other Aristotelian connections to Copernicus' work:

(1) Aristotle assumed that heavenly bodies were divine, belonging to a different order of being and substance than things on earth, and therefore not needing to behave in the same way. Medieval theologians rejected this, arguing that the entirety of the physical universe is part of the same created natural order - which prompts the obvious un-Aristotelian conclusion that all matter throughout the cosmos ought to obey the same laws and can be studied in the same way. It's easy to see that if the Christian assumption had not replaced the Aristotelian one, the development of astronomy could well have been knocked off-track for centuries, and the world might still be waiting for a Copernicus to arise.

(2) Perfect circles and faulty relative distances aside, Copernicus' famous diagram of the solar system looks pretty modern … until you realize that those circles don’t actually represent planetary orbits - they depict a system of solid, rotating concentric shells in which Copernicus thought the planetary bodies were embedded. Copernicus believed that it was these solid spheres that moved, not the planets themselves. Why did he think such a thing, when there was no empirical indication of it? I submit that the most likely explanation is that Copernicus was influenced by Aristotle's faulty (and, in fact, un-Christian) assumption that there can be no such thing as nothing - that is, empty space.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
"In part". But you are generally right, however I would like to point out the fact that dissection became prominent as the grip of the Church loosened. Did you infer that the "other part" of Galen’s work involved human dissections? It didn't. But I wonder what you mean to suggest here about the "grip of the Church". The practice of scientific human dissection arose within a strongly Christian milieu, was promoted primarily through Church-affiliated institutions, and began to be widely adopted while the Church was near the height of its social influence. Yet you seem to want to figure out a way to still cast the Church as an enemy of this medical innovation. I don't get it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Much Greek and Roman knowledge was loss back then due to a number of reasons. Mainly I believe the fall of the Roman Empire. A reasonable conclusion. I take it that you don't blame religion for the loss (even if temporary) of such knowledge. And if you have no other reason for saying that research and discovery was set back during this period (the query your quotation is responding to), then I assume we agree that Christianity did not hinder research and discovery during the so-called Dark Ages.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But the controversy was mainly about how Galileo's system went against Church doctrine and how his free writing went against the Church's rules.

If religion had not been involved, I imagine the affair would have been far less intense. I agree with your second sentence entirely. If religion had not been involved - that is, if Galileo had been content just to make purely scientific assertions (such as "the planets revolve around the sun") - I doubt he'd have encountered much trouble from the Church. However, he tacked on a few gratuitous theological assertions, which I think basically provoked a turf war with the wrong personalities in Rome.

I commend your follow-up research work on the witch-burning/Inquisition issue, by the way. Very useful information.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well by Newton's time they had discontinued the Index. As for Galileo, there was his Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems banned in 1633. http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_539.asp

Strange how you just missed that. Not to imply anything but I'd like a source or two confirming your estimates, to make sure nothing else was perhaps overlooked. (As I cannot read French).I don't think there are any sources giving such estimates, which is why I had to spend time looking through the Index myself. But since the books are arranged by author in alphabetical order (after a long first section of what I presume are anonymous works), if you let the page fully load you can easily see for yourself that Galileo doesn’t appear on the list. I didn't overlook him.

However, I think there's a simple explanation for the discrepancy: Galileo’s book was no longer prohibited by the time this edition of the Index was prepared - which makes sense, since in 1741 the Inquisition formally endorsed with its imprimatur the publication of the first-ever edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.

It would be illuminating to review earlier versions of the Index, but I just consulted the 32nd edition because it was the one you mentioned in your post.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also keep in mind here we are just dealing with banned books, that doesn't even take into account all other things "banned" by the Catholic Church (and I'm sure there's a lot.)Possibly, but unless those things involve scientific research I don’t see why they'd be relevant here.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I think this the case with regards to philosophy and history as well, making your said argument a fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Also since this is a philosophical, not a technical or scientific matter, the mere word of authority caries no more weight then anyone else's reasoning. This has nothing to do with an appeal to popularity. Let me rephrase: why, in your view, have so few scientists and theologians historically concluded that science and religion are fundamentally opposed? They are, after all, the people most likely to be directly affected by any such conflict. If, for example, Sir Isaac Newton says that his scientific research owed a debt to religion and harmonized with it (which he did say), what grounds do you offer to refute him?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The Church was not merely imposing codes, it was trying to control thought, torturing people, and burning them at the stake in public. The above description you gave is accurate, but too vague in regards to this matter, ignoring many relevant factors. We've already established that you initially grossly exaggerated the extent of such practices, and compared to the standard penal practices of the day, the Church was a model of progressivism. Indeed, people in trouble with the civil law in those days would sometimes blaspheme in a bid to get transferred before an ecclesiastical tribunal, which they knew meant a fairer trial, much less torture and a far better chance of avoiding execution. (In fact, criminal justice is another area where if it weren’t for the influence of the Church, we’d be a lot more backwards than we are now).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
If for a thousand years rationalists were burning and torturing any Xian that spoke up you would not dismiss the act as "merely imposing moral codes" just as you likely don't simply shrug off the persecution of Christians in China.Nice analogy. As if for a thousand years European religious institutions were "burning and torturing any person that spoke up". (And as if I were Christian.)
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
These are not codes like " don't betray a client" we are talking about here. These Medieval codes are things like "don't contradict statement X, and if you do you fry."

While not all codes impede scientific progress, I believe many medieval codes did so as they impeded freethought and expression. By and large, I doubt whether such a "code" existed. But you’re pulling a fast one here, because, solely as to this point, we aren’t talking about medieval codes. We’re talking about contemporary codes - your question was "it is good that the Church has lately decided to stop banning books and burning heretics. But why does it still then wish to impose certain codes on the general public and scientific community?"

So tell me what you think are the most scientifically oppressive measures (i.e. that seriously menace scientific progress, that can’t be justified on appropriate ethical grounds, and the violation of which would incur a compelling threat of penalty) that the Church currently seeks to impose "on the general public and scientific community." I'll give you a hand by providing a link (http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.htm) to one of the most significant contemporary science-related codes promulgated by the Church (at least in the United States).

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Frostbite
There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership, but today, would manking be more technologically advanced if it weren't for the intellectual hurdles caused by religion?

I can't speak for the whole of mankind, but I know that religion has sure screwed up my life!!!!!:mad:

(sorry to butt in with that....everyone go back to the debate):D

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ruby


I can't speak for the whole of mankind, but I know that religion has sure screwed up my life!!!!!:mad:

(sorry to butt in with that....everyone go back to the debate):D
Personally, for me, religion has always been the one thing in my life that I have never been able to get away from. I have almost an "obsession" with religion. For being an atheist at least, religion has played a bigger part in my life than all other things to ever enter my life (except for my loving wife, of course :) ).

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Gregor
I assert with Newton (b. 1642) that science truly began.


I'd say with Kepler (1571-1630) rather than Newton. Kepler was the first notable to base a theory on observation rather than on some artifical idea of how things ought to be.

Read through http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Kepler.html

did

Edited to add link...

[ceo_esq]

I think one can make (and many have) a forceful argument that the practice of science, in a more or less modern sense, began with Roger Bacon (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ba/BaconRog.html) (c.1214-c.1294) or, even earlier, with Robert Grosseteste (http://www.bartleby.com/65/gr/Grossete.html) (c.1175-1253).

[DialecticMaterialist]

Oh yes, CEO but didn't those guys uncritically accept the Aristotelian view of gravity? And creationism? And bad air/blood theory of disease? Many things Aristotle believed in fact, but when Aristotle believed it that made him a "fake scientist".

He also was not an empiricist but adhered to rationalist concepts like Aristotle.

Bacon was also into alchemy and astrology:

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.


http://www.crystalinks.com/bacon.html

Also:

If we may conclude from some of his expressions we can reconstruct the plan of this grand encyclopædia: it was conceived as comprising four volumes, the first of which was to deal with grammar (of the several languages he speaks of) and logic; the second with mathematics (arithmetic and geometry), astronomy, and music; the third with natural sciences, perspective, astrology , the laws of gravity, alchemy,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm

Bacon is sometimes not very correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that are dangerous or open to suspicion (e.g. his conviction that a real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.).

Same source as above.




So we can reject Aristotle as a "real scientist" for getting some basic facts wrong but not Roger Bacon?

(Also lets not taken into account the fact that Bacon lived almost 1,500 years after Aristotle...time seems to be irrelevant when determining competence.)



Also:

Around 1278 Bacon was put in prison by his fellow Franciscans, the charge being of suspected novelties in his teaching. Clearly from his writings Bacon did not meekly refrain from putting forward his views after this. They were as aggressively stated in his last writings of 1293 as at any time in his life.


http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Bacon.html

So even according to you the Church imprisoned the first "real scientist".

And according to him Aristotle was into the empirical method:

experience is of two kinds. One is through the external senses: such are the experiments that are made upon the heaven through instruments in regard to facts there, and the facts on earth that we prove in various ways to be certain in our own sight. And facts that are not true in places where we are, we know through other wise men that have experienced them. Thus Aristotle with the authority of Alexander, sent 2,000 men throughout various parts of the earth in order to learn at first hand everything on the surface of the world, as Pliny says in his Natural History.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/bacon2.html

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Oh yes, CEO but didn't those guys uncritically accept the Aristotelian view of gravity? And creationism? And bad air/blood theory of disease? Many things Aristotle believed in fact, but when Aristotle believed it that made him a "fake scientist".Need I explain again that the conclusion that Aristotle was not a scientist has little or nothing to do with how many empirically wrong beliefs he held about particular physical phenomena? It has to do with his basic outlook, his metaphysical assumptions, and the relationship he perceived between theory and method, all of which I have tried to discuss in some detail.

Roger Bacon and Aristotle shared many beliefs in common - some correct, others incorrect. And even though Bacon justifiably cited Aristotle as a source or inspiration for many of his arguments and ideas, Bacon's scientific method represents a crucial advance over Aristotelian natural philosophy. One way to understand the consequences of that difference is to consider that a person whose views coincide with Roger Bacon's would stand a good chance, given enough time, of correcting many of his errors. A person whose views coincide with Aristotle's would not; as I pointed out earlier, Aristotelian natural philosophy is basically non-self-correcting - the good conclusions will persist, but by the same token, the bad parts will not be excised while the underlying philosophy remains intact.

Don't believe me? Consider that in the West (and Middle East) the most learned people for well over 1,000 years after Aristotle's death were largely Aristotelians (or in some cases Platonists). During this time there was not what one could fairly call a huge degree of scientific (or natural-philosophical) progress. On the other hand, the most learned people to have considered the natural world in the 700 years since Roger Bacon's death have been, on some essential level, Baconians (I'm speaking of method and metaphysics here). This latter period has witnessed an absolutely staggering amount of scientific progress, the pace of which has accelerated almost exponentially.

"But Bacon was such a great admirer of Aristotle," you may well say, so what happened to account for this difference?

I'll tell you. Bacon's version of Aristotelianism was not, as it were, entirely Aristotle's. Rather, it was the product of the collision of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology (which may well explain, moreover, why science never took off during the period prior to the wide dissemination of Aristotle's recovered works in Europe). There may be plenty wrong with Christian theology, but there's no denying that it dictated a metaphysical approach that seems, fortuitously, practically tailor-made to cull the science-inhibiting assumptions from Aristotelianism - several of which I have already identified in my previous posts - while contributing a number of science-friendly principles of its own.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
He also was not an empiricist but adhered to rationalist concepts like Aristotle.He was hugely influenced by Aristotle, but it should be clear from his writing that Roger Bacon was nowhere near the rationalist that Aristotle was. He may not have accomplished all that much as an empiricist, I grant you (although I suppose there's no reason to expect that the first scientists were necessarily great scientists). In fact, someone described him as "more a theoretician of how applied science should have been done than an applied scientist" (source (http://www.tenhand.com/clew/blog/archives/000161.html)). Yet even this represents, in some sense, a radical departure from and improvement over Aristotle.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Bacon was also into alchemy and astrology.Such beliefs are scientifically wrong, and yet plenty of scientists in the 17th century, and even later, entertained belief in alchemy and astrology. They were also creationists and adhered to various medical theories that were subsequently refuted. Can we agree that this does not determine whether they were scientists or not?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So we can reject Aristotle as a "real scientist" for getting some basic facts wrong but not Roger Bacon?No one should reject Aristotle, or any other individual for that matter, as a true scientist on the sole basis that he got facts wrong; all scientists get at least some facts wrong some of the time. There are far more relevant criteria by which to judge.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So even according to you the Church imprisoned the first "real scientist".It does not emerge clearly from your own sources that he was imprisoned for scientific transgressions. There seems to be more support there for the idea that he was imprisoned for his unscientific dabblings (e.g. occultism), for certain possibly heretical philosophical/theological (not scientific) ideas, for disobeying unrelated rules of his religious order and perhaps for rubbing his superiors the wrong way. And all of this took place at a very local level; the pope, on the other hand, was a patron and supporter of Bacon's.


This has been a somewhat interesting detour, but I hope we can now return to the main discussion.

[abiogenesis]

I hope I don't start sounding like a broken record...

Religion is based on faith.
Science is based on reason.

Faith and reason are not compatible concepts.

The great bulk of scientific contribution has been positive.
The great bulk of religious contribution has been an impediment to science. (and education, and freedom...)

Therefore, I claim religion has slowed us down.

Now, feel free to tear me a new one. ;)

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[DialecticMaterialist]

In terms of method then I believe he contributed far more then the Christians. Especially seeing as Aristotle was dissecting and classifying organisms before the first Christians had ever been heard of.

[b] Roger Bacon and Aristotle shared many beliefs in common - some correct, others incorrect. And even though Bacon justifiably cited Aristotle as a source or inspiration for many of his arguments and ideas, Bacon's scientific method represents a crucial advance over Aristotelian natural philosophy.

I agree Bacon may have advanced it, but I believe a bigger advance still was Aristotle's method of determining truths by reason and observation over the christian method of faith and priestly authority.



One way to understand the consequences of that difference is to consider that a person whose views coincide with Roger Bacon's would stand a good chance, given enough time, of correcting many of his errors. A person whose views coincide with Aristotle's would not; as I pointed out earlier, Aristotelian natural philosophy is basically non-self-correcting - the good conclusions will persist, but by the same token, the bad parts will not be excised while the underlying philosophy remains intact.

No actually you haven't proven that at all. You've merely stated it, and merely stating it doesn't make it true.

Your entire basis is "Aristotle got X wrong, which was disproven later by observation." That hardly shows Aristotle's system was closed to correction, let alone more closed the the purely Christian system.

On this issue you are also being somewhat equivocal, in that you are now mixing Aristotelian Christianity with mere Christianity, and using the former to try and hold up the later, while at the same time downplaying the role of Aristotle.

That does not work because then it may not be Christianity that's taking off by Aristotelian thought.

Just because christianity is present, doesn't mean that it is what's advancing the thought.

Don't believe me? Consider that in the West (and Middle East) the most learned people for well over 1,000 years after Aristotle's death were largely Aristotelians (or in some cases Platonists). During this time there was not what one could fairly call a huge degree of scientific (or natural-philosophical) progress.

I believe that's a simplistic evaluation. But carry on...



On the other hand, the most learned people to have considered the natural world in the 700 years since Roger Bacon's death have been, on some essential level, Baconians (I'm speaking of method and metaphysics here). This latter period has witnessed an absolutely staggering amount of scientific progress, the pace of which has accelerated almost exponentially.


Ok given your own standards this was what? 1,000 years after Christianity and this thought only (by sheer coincidence) took off or "matured" after Aristotle was reintroduced to the Western world.(The above is also obviously an exageration

Also you again seem to ignore the fact that it was what? Almost 2,000 years later. Now a lot happens in this time, thought evolves, society can become more stable/larger and specialized. Also the Dark Ages pushed a lot of original progress back.

The Romans for example had technology and research (the Colloseum, the Aquaducts) of which the technology was lost. Meaning they at least had some method, some sort of proto-science which they used to determine truth.

So its not like the people prior to the Renassance and Middle Ages made no progress. They were making progress of which the Europeans inherited and could work on in a more developed system. There are probably a number of factors here, but I don't Christianity was a progressive one. Mainly because after the birth of science Christians disagreed with it at almost every turn.

The above is like saying "Why didn't Native Americans invent Guns? Technically they had all the equipment."

Or "Why didn't Newton come up with the theory of relativity? Technically he had no less reasoning ability the Einstein" and mainly its because thoughts evolve and are influenced by social conditions just like other enterprises. The process is iterative, not just "designed" from the ground up each time.


I'll tell you. Bacon's version of Aristotelianism was not, as it were, entirely Aristotle's. Rather, it was the product of the collision of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology (which may well explain, moreover, why science never took off during the period prior to the wide dissemination of Aristotle's recovered works in Europe). There may be plenty wrong with Christian theology, but there's no denying that it dictated a metaphysical approach that seems, fortuitously, practically tailor-made to cull the science-inhibiting assumptions from Aristotelianism

Actually that very conclusion is what's under examination, using it as a proof then is rather circular.


- several of which I have already identified in my previous posts - while contributing a number of science-friendly principles of its own.

Well you attempted to demonstrate some basic philosophical concepts and I disagreed with them two-fold:

1) Because they were not uniquely or resolved Christian concepts of the time at all.

2) Because I really do not see them as necessary for science anyways. Sorry but it just looks like you are expressing your own personal beliefs here, without much supporting argument.



He was hugely influenced by Aristotle, but it should be clear from his writing that Roger Bacon was nowhere near the rationalist that Aristotle was. He may not have accomplished all that much as an empiricist, I grant you (although I suppose there's no reason to expect that the first scientists were necessarily great scientists).
In fact, someone described him as "more a theoretician of how applied science should have been done than an applied scientist" (source). Yet even this represents, in some sense, a radical departure from and improvement over Aristotle.

Yes but how much of an improvement? That's the question.

Likewise your article did not show that Bacon's achievment were radically superior to Aristotle or that Bacon differed radically in method; only that Bacon promoted the method of experiment which we already knew. (And to an extent so did Aristotle.)

Also you need to aknowledge the fact that Aristotle did not have a precusor to work with like Bacon did. Aristotle had well, Plato, who wasn't much help on the issue (though he did help in a way) Bacon had Aristotle. So by means of normal reasoning Bacon would likely improve upon Aristotle, especially in an age where more knowledge had accumulated.

Basically then your link does not show what you are trying to prove.



Such beliefs are scientifically wrong, and yet plenty of scientists in the 17th century, and even later, entertained belief in alchemy and astrology. They were also creationists and adhered to various medical theories that were subsequently refuted. Can we agree that this does not determine whether they were scientists or not?

I never said they were or were not. I'm just applying your standards to your own icons. You basically stated Aristotle was not a true scientist or a great contributor to science because he was wrong the speed at which bodies fall, and he was rationalistic.

I point out Bacon had similiar "failings". So by your own standards Bacon cannot be considered a "true scientist."


No one should reject Aristotle, or any other individual for that matter, as a true scientist on the sole basis that he got facts wrong; all scientists get at least some facts wrong some of the time. There are far more relevant criteria by which to judge.


And they are?

It does not emerge clearly from your own sources that he was imprisoned for scientific transgressions. There seems to be more support there for the idea that he was imprisoned for his unscientific dabblings (e.g. occultism), for certain possibly heretical philosophical/theological (not scientific) ideas, for disobeying unrelated rules of his religious order and perhaps for rubbing his superiors the wrong way. And all of this took place at a very local level; the pope, on the other hand, was a patron and supporter of Bacon's.

The fact is they still improsoned what according to you is the first scientist for his inquiries. The reason "why" exactly is hotly debated, but why imprison him at all? The very act of that shows a strong authoritarian tendency, and such is anathema to scientific progress.


This has been a somewhat interesting detour, but I hope we can now return to the main discussion.

This "detour" is relevant to the main discussion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

That page does not actually say where that weird diagnostic chart came from. It seems unlikely to have been prescribed by the Church, given


It indicates that he himself was not a scientist, and that his approach to the natural world was not a full-fledged scientific one.


Likewise your claim concerning the Church and astrology is both partially correct and false. At first the Church condemned astrology, but then the church approved of it and even made it official doctrine due to the words of Thomas Aquinas.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/309505.htm

Aristotle was wrong about loads of things, but I never said he failed to contribute.

And nobody is arguing that Aristotle is a scientist (though I think your standards on the issue are faulty), what I am saying is he made great contributions to science and that science evolved from Greek thought, after it was assimilated by Europe. This seems far more probable then science evolving from Christianity, with its focus on absolute truths, end of the world scenerios, faith and divine revelation.

By the way, all you need to do to disprove that objects fall at a rate proportionate to their mass is to drop two objects of dissimilar weight from a great height and have a person on the ground confirm that they landed at the same time.

I don't know, they move pretty fast. Faster then the naked eye can see, you'd have to choose a good spot, and good observers.


You don?t need a timekeeping device. Professor Stark's point was that Aristotle could easily have performed this experiment, but because his approach to the natural world was not entirely that of a scientist, it did not occur to him that this would be a worthwhile exercise. He did not consider his mass-acceleration theory to be a falsifiable proposition.

So because according to you and your unproven claim that such a thing would be easy to disprove, this mean Aristotle never tested any of his theories empirically?

That simply is not true, Aristotle may not have been a scientist but he promoted that we base many of our beliefs on perception and how to apply logic observations when forming theories. That is a big step towards science, even if Aristotle got a fact or two dozen wrong.



You misunderstand the criteria. Any method that is wholly empirical or wholly theoretical is not, strictly speaking, scientific.

Yes and what's your point? Aristotle's method was not wholly rational or empirical.

Also, we are not talking about full blown science here but what lead to this. What influences.

According to your own reasoning I could reject any Christian precusors to science as not "science itself".




You can find the relevant Needham reference in the essay I linked at the end of my prior post, which I assume from your question you did not bother reading. Here is an obituary for Needham (he died in 1995) that gives many biographical details.


That essay was interesting but hardly proof of anything. First the author was not Joseph Needham, in fact not much information is given about who the author is. Secondly, the author himself admits before hand that Joseph Needham and his collegues base their conclusion more on economic development then religion (something the author says is "Marxist bias"), third I would have liked to have seen more about that quote, especially since it was in the form of a question.

And Lastly, it seems that in it Needham is more talking about Deism or at least a latter, post-renaissance version of Christianity then the early version.

I think that Christian metaphysics had basically crystallized by about the 13th century, although any Christians reading this should feel free to correct me.

Pardon me but that seems rather ad hoc. On what basis do you say it "matured"?

I could by that same token simply say Greek thought "matured" at that time.

And why did it take what? 1,000 years for Christian thought to "mature" and why did this "maturation" come around the time that Aristotelean thought was intoduced into Europe and the Church began to lose power over culture?



For obvious theological reasons, medieval Christians didn?t make that argument, and science is clearly the better for it.

What do you mean "for obvious theological reasons"?

"God just did it, he could have done it any way He wanted, but he did it this way by pure chance."

Random chance is what contingency is, isn't it?



I don't think that you believe, nor did Einstein, that the universe is necessary in an Aristotelian sense. To say the universe is necessary is, by definition I think, to say that its existence and specific characteristics can be established theoretically rather than in conjunction with empirical examination, and that it is impossible to imagine a logically consistent alternative to our universe, so there is no need to consider possible alternative models.

Now you are confusing ontological necessity with epistemological.

The Greeks, Einstein and me believe that the universe was ontologically destined to be the way it was, that such a set up reflects a fundamental and necessary aspect of existence.

This isn't the same as epistemic necessity though, that they are that way as a matter of pure logic.

Hence the Greeks could and did hold to the view of both necessity being a part of the universe, while some questions concerning the universe were contingent. As do I, they are very different things and you cannot just equate the two.

Nor even if someone adhered to the idea of epistemic necessity concerning the universe would that make science impossible. As they would have to explain why it was necessary, by what mechanisms. As necessary does not automatically mean fundamental but can mean derived from fundamentals.

Contingency was also a Greek concept as well, one can recall the Sophists on such matters, as well as Hereclites







From my point of view, if you or Einstein really believed that, then it would pose a major stumbling block to your doing science.


That's circular reasoning.

I would say that Aristotle dissected animals as part of his effort to descriptively catalogue and classify nature, but not in order to test any hypotheses.

But wasn't he then basing some of his description and classification on empirical evidence?


As was mentioned before, Aristotle rarely let his empirical data stand in the way of his theorizing.

And you make this statement based on what? He got a few facts wrong.

Even if that's true Aristotle could have simply been mistaken.

And it's not like the early Church Fathers ever let any observations get in the way of their absolute faith.



Christians believe that God's nature is necessary. But they also believe that the universe had a beginning in time, that God did not need to create the universe at all, and that he could have created it differently. In other words, they believe that God is a necessary existent but that the physical universe is a contingent existent.

As my article showed, this is controversial. For if God's nature was necessary, and God is perfect, and must make the best choice, how can the universe have been different?

But if God made the universe by chance or out of many plausible alternatives, it showed God's nature is not completely determined, so then God's nature is not necessary.

Christians debated about such things for hundreds of years and saying that "They just accepted this dualism" is misleading.

And even if what you are saying is true it hardly proves anything about what is conductive to science.

Lets say the universe is necessary as a creation of God, then scientists can ask "Why was this specific fact necessary?"

They can investigate the structure of necessity.


And lets say they believe it is contigent, well then God just made things happen by chance so why investigate?

The division between ontological and epistemic necessity can also be brought in.

The door can swing both ways on this one because science is not generally limited to one type of philosophical system but many.

Science is a method, not a philosophy, not a trait of specific philosophies. And there are many ways to make different philosophical systems compatible witrh the scientific method.




Yes. I repeat: Aristotle?s notion of teleology was bound up in his theory of final causality of objects, but this did not lead him to believe in a pattern of net progress in human history and endeavors. You have quoted all these excerpts without comment, as though they somehow corrected or contradicted what I said about Aristotelian final causes. On the contrary, they tend to confirm it.

Did you not read the article? Final Cause was a vague aspects of the universe and moving towards that was progress.

Also I don't see how the Christian belief in an ultimate end to history contributed to science. If anything I believe Aristotle's focus on more proximate causes would be more in line with this.

This is especially true given that we know now at days it is a mistake to think of the universe or evolution as "progressing" in a linear fashion.



True enough. What's interesting about it, again? I don?t grasp the point you?re making here.

Plato was extremely anti-empirical, so if the early Church fathers accepted Plato then it seems like the Christian philosophy would have been more of an obstacle to the rise of more empirical methods, not Aristotle.



Perhaps they could have done had things turned out differently, although part of the difficulty is that the "bad" (here I mean simply anti-scientific) parts of Aristotle stunted the very developments in science that could have led to their being discarded.

That is one-hundred percent conjecture. I have already offered alternative and more plausible accounts for this. Why didn't Aristotle then cripple the Medieval mind by that same token? Why didn't Plato?

Surely you do not think the Greeks and Romans completely incapable of examining Aristotle or empirically examining his method?

There were other philosophies around, even back then.


Unlike the scientific method, Aristotelian natural philosophy is basically non-self-correcting.

As is Christianity, which is non-self-correcting to an even higher degree.



As it actually happened, the bad bits of Aristotle were to a large extent eventually rejected because they conflicted with Christian theology. Remove Christianity from the historical picture, and who knows how long it might have taken for science to develop?


This is a very funny example of reverse causation.


So what about the fact that science arose around the time of Aristotle's discover; does that prove Aristotle's thought changed the world outlook and replaced less scientific christian methods?

Of course not, it means Christianity was able to "mature" and reject bad Aristotelian systems.

Nevermind that Christiandom had adopted Plato, took faith as its main method, and failed to develope much in the way of science before this.

No I suppose it was sheer coincidence that the scientific method arose shortly after Aristotle was introduced into the west.

So much ad hoc. I would sooner imagine science would be slowed down by not finding Aristotle when it did, then it would be in losing Christianity.

In that science it was not Christianity that took out the bad parts of Aristotle, but Aristotle that helped dmitigate the bad method of Christianity.

This was likely further developed into what we call science by universities, who questioned Aristotle using logic and observation: not the Bible, nor Church doctrine.

Your point basically presumes this "Christianity had an empirical/testing component before Aristotle entered the picture" and such a premise is simply not supported by any evidence.

Christians did not look at historical documents and investigate ruins to confirm Biblical history, they did not dissect animals and search for fossile to confirm the story of Genesis, they did not do tests concerning if prayer was more liekly to help a person succeed in life, nor tests on if the afterlife existed. Christians believed on the basis of faith and authority.

You're certainly right about universities, which themselves were a medieval religious innovation the concept of which dovetailed, not at all coincidentally, with Catholic theology.

How so? You brought no proof for this claim what so ever.

And there were similiar things to Universities in the Greek world thousands of years before Christianity, Plato's Academy for instance. The existence of Universities then can be seen as more likely the product of social evolution in general, not a phenomenon limited to Christianity.

(Again such an example of Christians funding universities would be reverse causation, they are already in demand or express some sort of social values on which the Church is capitalizing on.)



Those relics are just specific errors regarding material phenomena. They do not carry within themselves serious methodological or metaphysical problems, so there was nothing fundamentally preventing their eventual correction.

The way they were accepted and justified in Christianity carried with it methodological problems. (Metaphysical problems I do not understand as science is compatible with many metaphysical systems.)



A hundred wrongheaded conclusions about particular natural occurrences do not pose as much of a danger to the scientific enterprise as even one metaphysical assumption that seriously undermines the value of scientific inquiry.

So are you saying that Christians tested those claims (afterlife,creationism,Biblical History) empirically before the rise of Aristotle?


Christianity had the "right" metaphysical outlook for science, and by removing the Aristotelian (and other) conceptual obstacles to developing a scientific method, it cleared the path for specific scientific errors to be rectified scientifically over time.

Right, that's why science appeard shortly after Aristotle was re-introduced into the West, because now Xians finally had a chance to knock him down...nevermind that for a thousand years before that he was largely unknown and not influencing Western thought at all.


This also fails to explain why the Muslim world was ahead of the Christian world for hundreds of years scientifically, even though the Muslims had the "obstacle" of Aristotle at this time and the Christians did not.



My example related not to heliocentrism as such, but to planetary orbits. Copernicus' assumption (probably inherited from Aristotle) that the structure of the universe was necessarily based on ideal shapes led him into error. If Aristotle had known that the planets orbit the sun, he also would have asserted that the orbits were perfectly circular because they had to be - that?s the nature of the universe, no need to wonder why or test the theory.


And you know this how?

There?s nothing Christian about any assumption that anything is the way it is because it has to be.

If you say that, you must not speak to too many Christians.

As one Catholic Saint puts it:

We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.
- St. Ignatius Loyola

Christians say "cause God made it so" all the time, and such a mentality is expressed in the Bible. Rarely do I hear the Bible promote empirical investigation or rational discussion. It is a matter of faith, a "cause God said so" claim based on authority.





The reason the Church rejected the Aristotelian notion of necessary cosmic phenomena is that it denied the validity of their dogma about an all-powerful God who is a free agent. That is, nothing physical is logically required to be a certain way. God, so they thought, could have created things in any number of different ways, so it's worth investigating what he actually created to learn the how and why of it.

Some thought this, some didn't. For reasons I have already given.

Your whole philosophical comments on this issue are very questionable.

Again it appears as if now you are trying to support a controversial claim (Christianity is the main force that created science) with another controversial claim (The idea of necessity and contigency from Christianity is more conductive to science then other viewpoints).

The latter of which comes down to mere circular reasoning.

Even if God was necessary but the universe was contingent, I could simply say "God just made it that way, for reasons too mysterious for mere men to understand."


This brings me back to my earlier observation that only contingent phenomena require a posteriori examination (which science involves).

And that is because....


Necessary phenomena can be understood through a priori contemplation in the mind.

Circular reasoning.

Hopefully this sheds light on why it never occurred to Aristotle to perform the falling-weights experiment. He assumed that falling objects logically accelerated in proportion to their mass, so there was no need to actually test the theory. A truly Christian metaphysics, on the other hand, does not include such an assumption about anything in the physical world.

No this just doesn't work, because your premises are questionable.

Even if the world is a contingent creation of God, that doesn't mean reasoning could not be applied to understand it.

Or that empirical testing is a good way to understand things.

A Christian could simply say God gave us "intuition" by which to guess at certain truths before hand.

Also believing the world is necessarily the way it is does not close off investigation of it by empirical means, for why else would Aristotle engage in description instead of reasoning what organs animals had?



While we?re addressing this interesting sub-issue, I'll draw two other Aristotelian connections to Copernicus' work:

(1) Aristotle assumed that heavenly bodies were divine, belonging to a different order of being and substance than things on earth, and therefore not needing to behave in the same way. Medieval theologians rejected this, arguing that the entirety of the physical universe is part of the same created natural order - which prompts the obvious un-Aristotelian conclusion that all matter throughout the cosmos ought to obey the same laws and can be studied in the same way. It's easy to see that if the Christian assumption had not replaced the Aristotelian one, the development of astronomy could well have been knocked off-track for centuries, and the world might still be waiting for a Copernicus to arise.

That is simply not true factually. In fact theologians at the time accepted heavenly bodies as unworldly and reflections of the divine.

In fact these concepts were not rejected until the twelth and thriteenth centuries by Neo-Scholastics.

Neo-Scholasticism rejects the theories of physics, celestial and terrestrial, which the Middle Ages grafted on the principles, otherwise sound enough, of cosmology and metaphysics; e.g. the perfection and superiority of astral substance, the "incorruptibility" of the heavenly bodies, their external connexion with "motor spirits", the influence of the stars on the generation of earthly beings, the four "simple" bodies, etc.


Found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm



(2) Perfect circles and faulty relative distances aside, Copernicus' famous diagram of the solar system looks pretty modern ? until you realize that those circles don?t actually represent planetary orbits - they depict a system of solid, rotating concentric shells in which Copernicus thought the planetary bodies were embedded. Copernicus believed that it was these solid spheres that moved, not the planets themselves. Why did he think such a thing, when there was no empirical indication of it? I submit that the most likely explanation is that Copernicus was influenced by Aristotle's faulty (and, in fact, un-Christian) assumption that there can be no such thing as nothing - that is, empty space.

That is ridiculously post hoc, first off Aristotelian philosophy was strong in the Church at that time so such an assumption could hardly be called Un-Christian.

Secondly, he could have simply just been making a hypothesis. That is always possible as science is not purely a matter of observation but a matter of interpreting the observation as well.

It seems like any bad thing you find in Christian thought at the time you automatically declare the fault of Aristotle, without much reasoning to back up your assertion. Did Aristotle for example even say that concentric solids are what move planets?

Is such a hypothesis really impossible given Church doctrine?

I doubt it on both counts, you now just seem to be assuming based on mere circumstancial evidence.


Did you infer that the "other part" of Galen's work involved human dissections? It didn't.

No I didn't actually. Sorry if it sounded that way.



But I wonder what you mean to suggest here about the "grip of the Church". The practice of scientific human dissection arose within a strongly Christian milieu, was promoted primarily through Church-affiliated institutions, and began to be widely adopted while the Church was near the height of its social influence. Yet you seem to want to figure out a way to still cast the Church as an enemy of this medical innovation. I don't get it.

Well the Church again was the only game in town, and it largely funded such things so it could control and profit from it. Its not like a person back then could go around doing human dissections without Church permission.

And its strange that this didn't take off until again, after Aristotle's introduction and the rise of Universities.




A reasonable conclusion. I take it that you don't blame religion for the loss (even if temporary) of such knowledge.

No I don't. I don't blame religion for all the world's problems. That would be a bit ridiculous.


And if you have no other reason for saying that research and discovery was set back during this period (the query your quotation is responding to), then I assume we agree that Christianity did not hinder research and discovery during the so-called Dark Ages.

Just because Christianity was not the cause of such loss, doesn't mean it failed to slow down recovery.

Christianity still had men focused on the methods of faith and an afterlife; not reason and observation. Again it wasn't until the arrival of Aristoteleanism in the Middle that knowledge began to progress from where it had last left off and science could develope. One could only wonder what would have happened had Aristotelean survived in the first place or been re-discovered sooner.

Or if Christianity was like Deism in supporting reason instead of blind faith.



I agree with your second sentence entirely. If religion had not been involved - that is, if Galileo had been content just to make purely scientific assertions (such as "the planets revolve around the sun") - I doubt he'd have encountered much trouble from the Church. However, he tacked on a few gratuitous theological assertions, which I think basically provoked a turf war with the wrong personalities in Rome.

Yes and those "theological assertions" concerned the geocentric system.







Possibly, but unless those things involve scientific research I don?t see why they'd be relevant here.

Because they show the Church impeding scientific research and dissemination of such research.



This has nothing to do with an appeal to popularity. Let me rephrase: why, in your view, have so few scientists and theologians historically concluded that science and religion are fundamentally opposed?

Because a lot of scientists adhere to religions and they don't want to believe there is a conflict. Hence they create ad hoc ways of resolving the matter.

Why did Galilleo remain a Catholic after they censored his work and threatened him with torture? Obviously because scientists are human, and they grow attached to certain beliefs they are raised on just like other humans.



They are, after all, the people most likely to be directly affected by any such conflict. If, for example, Sir Isaac Newton says that his scientific research owed a debt to religion and harmonized with it (which he did say), what grounds do you offer to refute him?

1) History, time and again in history science and religion have butted heads.

2) The fact that science and religion have conflicting methods.

3) The fact that religious absolutism tends to proclaim many empirical matters absolute truths of whatever sacred tradition or source and get angry if scientists infringe on this. Creationists are a good modern example of this.



The above description you gave is accurate, but too vague in regards to this matter, ignoring many relevant factors. We've already established that you initially grossly exaggerated the extent of such practices, and compared to the standard penal practices of the day, the Church was a model of progressivism.

When did we establish this?

Just because the Church tortured and killed less people then was previously thought shows it to be progressive?

Indeed, people in trouble with the civil law in those days would sometimes blaspheme in a bid to get transferred before an ecclesiastical tribunal, which they knew meant a fairer trial, much less torture and a far better chance of avoiding execution. (In fact, criminal justice is another area where if it weren?t for the influence of the Church, we?d be a lot more backwards than we are now).

Again more conjecture. One I seriously doubt.

Also because the Church tortured people less servely that makes it a good progressive force?




Nice analogy. As if for a thousand years European religious institutions were "burning and torturing any person that spoke up". (And as if I were Christian.)

It's quite obvious that they were via the Inquisition. Unless you can point me to some atheist literature or literature that criticized christianity that came out during that time?




W By and large, I doubt whether such a "code" existed.

What about the Index and Inquisition?

Also why were people punished for heresy then?



But you?re pulling a fast one here, because, solely as to this point, we aren?t talking about medieval codes. We?re talking about contemporary codes - your question was " it is good that the Church has lately decided to stop banning books and burning heretics. But why does it still then wish to impose certain codes on the general public and scientific community?"

So tell me what you think are the most scientifically oppressive measures (i.e. that seriously menace scientific progress, that can?t be justified on appropriate ethical grounds, and the violation of which would incur a compelling threat of penalty) that the Church currently seeks to impose "on the general public and scientific community."

I'm showing that the Church still engages in trying to condemn certain lines of scientific research.

Stem cell research, cloning and genetic engineering are good examples of this. In fact the Church wishes to ban such things, not just speak out against them.

So much for the Church finally deciding to leave science alone....

Of course now at days they can be justified on "apropriate ethical grounds" just like any such measure could every time in the past....



Lastly I think your beliefs concerning Christianity and Aristotelianism are very flawed. First off the your view of Aristotle as some sort of dogmatic rationalist who utterly opposed empirical study is simply not true. If this is so, show me where.


Secondly, the Christian philosophers of the Thirteenth century are not and never were the hard core empircists you make them out to be.

In fact the first ones are considered by the Church itself to be intuitional and mystical. It's not until the Scholastic days that any serious rationality and empirical testing began to enter the picture and this was due to Aristotle's influence: not the Bible's.

There resulted a species of Christian Rationalism which more than any other trait characterizes Scholastic philosophy in every successive stage of its development and marks it off very definitely from the Patristic philosophy, which, as has been said, was ultimately intuitional and mystic.

With Roscelin, who appeared about the middle of the eleventh century, the note of Rationalism is very distinctly sounded, and the first rumbling is heard of the inevitable reaction, the voice of Christian mysticism uttering its note of warning, and condemning the excess into which Rationalism had fallen. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, therefore, Scholasticism passed through its period of storm and stress. On the one side were the advocates of reason, Roscelin, Abelard, Peter Lombard; on the other were the champions of mysticism, St. Anselm, St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard, and the Victorines. Like all ardent advocates, the Rationalists went too far at first, and only gradually brought their method within the lines of orthodoxy and harmonized it with Christian reverence for the mysteries of Faith. Like all conservative reactionists, the mystics at first condemned the use as well as the abuse of reason; they did not reach an intelligent compromise with the dialecticians until the end of the twelfth century. In the final outcome of the struggle, it was Rationalism that, having modified its unreasonable claims, triumphed in the Christian schools, without, however driving the mystics from the field.



And was Scholasticism even itself free of all Christian biases and preconceptions?

The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defence of the dogmas of Faith. It is opposed to mysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis on intuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convinced Rationalists, the only difference being that some, like Abelard and Roscelin, were too ardent in their advocacy of the use of reason, and went so far as to maintain that reason can prove even the supernatural mysteries of Faith, while others, like St. Thomas, moderated the claims of reason, set limits to its power of proving spiritual truth, and maintained that the mysteries of faith could not be discovered and cannot be proved by unaided reason.


Apparently not, less mystical? Yes. But it still believed in defending dogmas and spitirual truths above finding the truth itself via more objective reasoning.


And check out what Scholastics based their logic on:

In logic the Scholastics adopted all the details of the Aristotelean system, which was known to the Latin world from the time of Boethius. Their individual contributions consisted of some minor improvements in the matter of teaching and in the technic of the science. Their underlying theory of knowledge is also Aristotelean . It may be described by saying that it is a system of Moderate Realism and Moderate Intellectualism. The Realism consists in teaching that outside the mind there exist things fundamentally universal which correspond to our universal ideas. The Moderate Intellectualism is summed up in the two principles:

* all our knowledge is derived from sense-knowledge; and
* intellectual knowledge differs from sense-knowledge, not only in degree but also in kind.

In this way, Scholasticism avoids Innatism, according to which all our ideas, or some of our ideas, are born with the soul and have no origin in the world outside us. At the same time, it avoids Sensism, according to which our so-ealled intellectual knowledge is only sense-knowledge of a higher or finer sort.

Now did they just say that Scholastics had to destroy the obstacle of Aristotelean dogma, or did they say Aristotle had a healthy respect for sense experience?

I believe the position your charging Aristotle with was labled "Innatism." And that is Plato, not Aristotle.

You also seem to imply that Christian philosophers were into "Sensism". They were not. Before Aristotle they were mainly intrested in Platonism and Christian mysticism. After Aristotle's re-discovery they were mainly Aristotelean.

Also:

The Scholastic outlook on the world of nature is Aristotelean.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm


In other words, I believe you have it backwards. In so far as Christianity became progressive, as it did with Scholasticism(as opposed to pre-Scholastic christians) it was due to Aristotle's influence. Aristotle did not become refined by Christian thought but allowed Christian thinkers to be more empirical and rational in their methods, ultimately this of course meant certain truths could be questioned and disproven (something one cannot do in an absolutist system based on mysticism and intuition.).

Thus Aristotle paved the way for self-corrective methods, he was not what hampered them. What hampered them was Christian mysticism.

All your argument to this point relies on three main assumptions:

1) The idea of ontological necessity means that empirical method is irrelevant.

That isn't true as Aristotle believed in both observation and reason. And the above is not logically valid anyways.


2) That Aristotle's few mistakes point to the idea that he was opposed to empirical investigation.

Again that simply is not true as it could just be that he made honest mistakes or believed that one could find the truth to some matters by mere reason and others throught observation.

3) The Christian point of view was based on contingency and observation.

Again you bring no evidence for this statement, merely assertion that the Catholic Encyclopedia itself disagrees with.


Secondly one cannot even deduce that merely because the Universe is contingent, testing and observation is the best way to gather data on it. It could just as easily be intuition or mystical experience.

In fact don't you quote Needham on this subject as saying China did not develope a science due to the fact that it saw the universe as unstable(the Chinese didn't btw) i.e. too contingent?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

This also fails to explain why the Muslim world was ahead of the Christian world for hundreds of years scientifically, even though the Muslims had the "obstacle" of Aristotle at this time and the Christians did not.


The Muslims weren't ahead of Christendom when it came to science. They were ahead when it came to technology, arts and other social factors. The Muslims did not practice science as a method anymore than dark ages Europeans did.




Christians say "cause God made it so" all the time, and such a mentality is expressed in the Bible. Rarely do I hear the Bible promote empirical investigation or rational discussion. It is a matter of faith, a "cause God said so" claim based on authority.


Most Christians are not experts on Christianity or Christian theology any more than most citizens are experts on governance or political theory. The Catholic church (and later the Protestant churches) did not generally ordain theological points from above, on authority alone, but decided on them through theological discussion and arguments. This is not to say that the Catholic church always, in all cases, welcomed discussion and argument, or that it all of its theology was based on rational discussions, but it is equally wrong to think of it as a wholly authoritarian organization where everything it said was to be read as truth set in stone.


Or if Christianity was like Deism in supporting reason instead of blind faith.


Christianity do, in fact, not support blind faith. By Catholic doctrine at least, blind faith is a sin.


2) The fact that science and religion have conflicting methods.


So does accounting and ship-building. Of course, since accounting and ship-building does not try to achieve the same, it's completely irrelevant that they have conflicting methods.


3) The fact that religious absolutism tends to proclaim many empirical matters absolute truths of whatever sacred tradition or source and get angry if scientists infringe on this. Creationists are a good modern example of this.


Creationists are, in the main, a phenomena located only in the US. As far as I know, most large Christian churches have no problem with the theory of evolution.


Also because the Church tortured people less servely that makes it a good progressive force?


Err, I'd say that, yes, that is a good progressive force - in the same way that serfdom was an improvement over slavery.

I'm showing that the Church still engages in trying to condemn certain lines of scientific research.

Stem cell research, cloning and genetic engineering are good examples of this. In fact the Church wishes to ban such things, not just speak out against them.


But those are not lines of scientific research - those are specific practices involved in scientific research, or specific uses of technologies. You might disagree with these particular practices being unethical, but it's not in itself anti-scientific to think so. Should animal-rights activists also be considered to be "anti-scientific" because they oppose the use of vivisection? Would you also consider the Church "opposed to sciencie" if they were speaking out against, say, using condemned criminals for lethal experiments?

[ceo_esq]

Well, the weekend is upon us. I don't have time right now for a complete entry, but I'll leave everybody with a partial one.

By the way, thanks to Leif Roar for your valuable input.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And nobody is arguing that Aristotle is a scientist (though I think your standards on the issue are faulty), what I am saying is he made great contributions to science and that science evolved from Greek thought, after it was assimilated by Europe. Forgive me for assuming that you were trying to establish that Aristotle was a scientist, in view of your several challenges to my assertion that he was not.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I don't know, [falling objects] move pretty fast. Faster then the naked eye can see, you'd have to choose and good spot, and good observers. Falling objects move faster than the naked eye can see? Come on. How did Galileo perform the same experiment at the Tower of Pisa (assuming, arguendo, that he really did)? Anyway, if objects fall at a rate proportionate to their mass, a 1-kg weight should take ten times as long to hit the ground as a 10-kg weight. The most casual observer could tell that it doesn't. I'm not criticizing Aristotle for a bad conclusion (e.g. a faulty, primitive grasp of mechanics). I'm more interested by what this example suggests about his method - namely, a lack of interest in consistently subjecting rational theories to empirical testing and falsification.

Aristotle wasn't lazy. He simply did not believe in the importance of a consistent scientific approach. He had many theoretical and empirical accomplishments to his name, and these were surely a great legacy to future scientists, but he quite managed never put the two realms together in a manner that could be described as scientific.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
According to your own reasoning I could reject any Christian precusors to science as not "science itself".According to my own reasoning, I do the same thing.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Pardon me but that seems rather ad hoc. On what basis do you say [Christian metaphysics] "matured"?I said I thought it had "crystallized", meaning that by the high Middle Ages Christian metaphysics had taken on a reasonably definite and durable form that did not change appreciably thereafter. My only purpose in saying this was to respond to your query about whether I was speaking of pre-Renaissance Christian metaphysics or post-Renaissance Christian metaphysics, and my point was that I was not aware of any radical difference between the two. If you know of any substantial modifications made to Christian metaphysics between, say, 1400 and 1700, then I agree it would be pertinent here. If there weren't any, then I submit that there is no relevant distinction to be drawn. What is so ad hoc about that?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What do you mean "for obvious theological reasons"?

"God just did it, he could have done it any way He wanted, but he did it this way by pure chance."

That is what contingency is isn't it? No, not necessarily. Christians believe in a Creator who (as the medieval philosopher-theologians emphasized) is a free agent, and that the universe is governed by the deliberate decrees of God at the time of creation, rather than by pure chance. The medievals deduced from this that, through careful study of God’s handiwork, it should be possible for humans to understand those decrees and discern an intelligible order in nature. I said "obvious theological reasons" because I would have thought it was apparent that Christians believe the universe is arranged according to orderly laws rather than random fiats.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That is ridiculously post hoc, first off Aristotelian philosophy was strong in the Church at that time so such an assumption [regarding voids] could hardly be called Unchristian. Aristotle dismissed the notion of a void as a logical impossibility. Medieval thinkers such as Aquinas argued strenuously that a void must be possible at least in principle, because God created the universe ex nihilo (whereas the Greeks believed ex nihilo nihil fit. The Aristotelian presumption was condemned because of its incompatibility with Christian doctrine.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
When did we establish [that I initially exaggerated the extent of repressive Church practices]? I thought you had conceded that vis-à-vis the Inquisition and witch-burning. I did not mean to imply that we had established the truth of the second part of my statement, but I agree that my wording there was ambiguous. I apologize.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Just because the Church tortured and killed less people then was previously thought shows it to be progressive?

…

Again more conjecture. One I seriously doubt.

Also because the Church tortured people less servely that makes it a good progressive force? No. It can be called progressive in the sense that (1) showed remarkably less inclination to resort to torture and execution than the civil courts of the same period and (2) it pioneered a number of progressive reforms in penal law and procedure that were eventually adopted by civil judicial systems. This is rather tangential to our discussion. However, I did provide a basic explanation here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=443812#post443812). I'm happy to argue this sub-point with you, a fortiori because it falls within my field, but if you want to contest it, consider doing it in that thread.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In fact don't you quote Needham on this subject as saying China did not develope a science due to the fact that it saw the universe as unstable(the Chinese didn't btw) i.e. too contingent? I think you are thinking rather of the Whitehead quote: "In Asia, the conceptions of God were of a being who was either too arbitrary or too impersonal for such ideas to have much effect on instinctive habits of mind. Any definite occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot, or might issue from some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things."

On this point, a couple of further comments can be made. First, you criticized earlier Whitehead's use of the term "God" in a Chinese context, whereas it is patently obvious that he means the term broadly to extend to impersonal abstractions such as the Tao. Second, Needham identifies two strains of religious thought in Chinese culture. The first is an old polytheism that, as Whitehead also points out, conceived of the universe as downright arbitrary and capricious. The second consists of reverence for a non-personal abstract essence or principle, and variations on that theme. Neither cosmology is especially hospitable to science. Professor Stark offers a good synthesis of Needham's and Whitehead's points:Although through the centuries the common people of China have worshiped an elaborate array of Gods, each of small scope and often rather lacking in character, the intellectuals have prided themselves on following "Godless" religions, wherein the supernatural is conceived of as an essence or principle governing life, but which is impersonal, remote, and definitely not a being. The Tao is an example of an essence; yin and yang represent a principle. Just as small Gods do not create a universe, neither do impersonal essences or principles - indeed, they seem unable to do anything. Thus as conceived by Chinese philosophers, the universe simply is and always was. There is no reason to suppose that it functions according to rational laws, or that it could be comprehended in physical rather than mystical terms. Consequently, through the millennia Chinese intellectuals pursued "enlightenment", not explanations. This is precisely the conclusion reached by … Needham[.]
…
Several years ago my friend Graeme Lang [Professor of Applied Social Studies at City University of Hong Kong] dismissed the notion that the influence of Confucianism and Taoism on Chinese intellectuals was the reason that science failed to develop in China; his grounds were that all culture is flexible, and that "if scholars in China had wanted to do science, philosophy alone would not have been a serious impediment." Perhaps. But Lang missed the more basic question: why didn’t Chinese scholars want to do science? And, with Whitehead and Needham (and many others), I agree that it didn't occur to the Chinese that science was possible. Fundamental theological and philosophical assumptions determine whether anyone will attempt to do science.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Muslims weren't ahead of Christendom when it came to science. They were ahead when it came to technology, arts and other social factors. The Muslims did not practice science as a method anymore than dark ages Europeans did.


I've already dealt with that objection, basically the division of the two is meaningless. It's basically an unwarranted ad hoc distinction now backed up by any sound reasoning.

In reality what's the difference between saying "it's just not more scientific" and "it's not science by technology"? That just makes the claim untestable.

It's similiar to when a Freudian is confronted with the evidence of no correlation between toilet training and mental illness "but that's because it's in the unconscious mind...it'll come out eventually".

"But he's 90 years old!"





Most Christians are not experts on Christianity or Christian theology any more than most citizens are experts on governance or political theory.

Well that proves my point then of CEO not being able to speak for all christians on this matter.

Also its not just theologians that determine law and policy. Lastly, are you saying no theologians or "experts" think this way?


The Catholic church (and later the Protestant churches) did not generally ordain theological points from above, on authority alone, but decided on them through theological discussion and arguments.

Which ultimately came down to authority (of the Bible or Pope) which then became dogma: not to be questioned less one be anathema.



This is not to say that the Catholic church always, in all cases, welcomed discussion and argument, or that it all of its theology was based on rational discussions, but it is equally wrong to think of it as a wholly authoritarian organization where everything it said was to be read as truth set in stone.

Discussions were ultimately based on authority and faith, not reason. Sure some proximate reasoning may have taken place. Just as the New Agers "reason" among themselves over the nature of ghosts and Marxists the nature of Marxist theories. I'm not saying their discussion is utterly devoid of reason, if I said that then I'd be wrong, what I am saying is that ultimately these discussion came down to blind faith and authority.



Christianity do, in fact, not support blind faith. By Catholic doctrine at least, blind faith is a sin.

That is simply not true. The Catholic Church itself admits the divinty of Jesus, the afterlife, the Trinity, and Armageddon are concepts utterly devoid of proof, yet they were still believed back then very zealously and if reason called them into question so much the worse for reason in their minds.



So does accounting and ship-building. Of course, since accounting and ship-building does not try to achieve the same, it's completely irrelevant that they have conflicting methods.

False analogy. Accounting and ship building merely deal with different subjects, not with radically different methods. Both accounting and ship building for example submit to the truth of mathematics and science. You never see( or almost never) an accountant go "Well the fortune spirit will solve your problems".


A better analogy would be between real accountants and psychic hotlines that claim to help with fortune. Or real ship builders and cargo cults.



Creationists are, in the main, a phenomena located only in the US. As far as I know, most large Christian churches have no problem with the theory of evolution.

US, Britain and Australia, and it's almost 50 percent of the US at that, with another 40 percent believing in the almost as unscientific theory of Theistic Evolution.

That's almost 80-90 percent of the US being non Darwinian for religious reasons, are you saying that this includes no large churches? No Catholics?



Err, I'd say that, yes, that is a good progressive force - in the same way that serfdom was an improvement over slavery.

I'd say that was ridiculous event assuming it was true. Also the Church persecuted for philosophical reasons as well, while Royalty and other authorities merely for political. The former is likely to get more in the way of scientific and philosophical progress then the latter.





But those are not lines of scientific research - those are specific practices involved in scientific research, or specific uses of technologies.

Stem cell research is research, genetic engineering involves research to see how it will effect certain organisms and cloning likewise can allow for research opportunities.



You might disagree with these particular practices being unethical, but it's not in itself anti-scientific to think so.

I agree that the abuses of such technology is unethical( likely for very different reasons then you) but why would research itself be?

Why is stem cell research for example unethical?

Mainly because abortion is now unethical (a belief derived from the ideas a fetus has a soul) which again constitutes religion interfering with science, even in a day and age where religion has supposedly become less powerful and more liberal. One can only wonder what it was like when religion was stricter and more powerful, like it was a hundred or two hundred years ago, let alone almost five centuries.



Should animal-rights activists also be considered to be "anti-scientific" because they oppose the use of vivisection?

I believe they are interfering with scientific research when they try to ban certain lines of it, especially GM research (strangely extreme animal rights anti-scientific behavior and extreme Church anti-science policy is one of the few things liberal and conservative radicals can agree upon).


But there's a catch, in the 15th century there was no established and powerful animal rights group, that was far stricter then the groups of today. If there was I'm sure they would have interfered with scientific progress, or would find such a belief very reasonable given some small, straight forward extrapolation.

There was an extremely powerful, stricter version of the Modern Catholic at this time however and it likely did interfere a great deal with scientific progress. The fact that the Church is less powerful, more liberal and still tries to interfere (and often times succeeds) is evidence of this.


Would you also consider the Church "opposed to sciencie" if they were speaking out against, say, using condemned criminals for lethal experiments?


Probably not for ethical reasons, but again using a person for such things is different then "cells" and animals (clones, genetic engineering) and a "fetus" for purely religious reasons.

Also my stance wouldn't be consistently opposed to such innovations as is the case with many in the Catholic Church.

I can likewise though list more purely philosophical examples, where the Church for example refuses to admit to the idea that human beings are products of instincst and enviroment for the belief in a soul based free will, where the Church refuses to admit that the mind is merely a part of the brain for the sake of Cartesian Dualism and where the Church still refuses to aknowledge Darwinism for the sake of more teleological theories of evolution.

The Church, "bless its sweet existence", has wisely declined to outlaw such opposition in philosophy, which I suppose is a good thing, but it was not so many centuries ago and one should always bear that in mind when examining the relationship between science and religion.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Frostbite
There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership, but today, would manking be more technologically advanced if it weren't for the intellectual hurdles caused by religion?

I don't think I agree.. the Dark Ages retarded our advancement as well as the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Who knows how far humans would've advanced if not for the shackles of religion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
I hope I don't start sounding like a broken record...

Religion is based on faith.
Science is based on reason.

Faith and reason are not compatible concepts.

The great bulk of scientific contribution has been positive.
The great bulk of religious contribution has been an impediment to science. (and education, and freedom...)


Well said. :)

[abiogenesis]

thaiboxerken:The Dark Ages retarded our advancement as well as the burning of the Library of Alexandria.The burning of the LIbrary of Alexandria is a particularly black mark on religion's record of hindering science, and an especially sore point with me.

According to Carl Sagan's book, Cosmos (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375508325/qid=1059880571/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-5224377-2892750) (which I highly recommend), it is estimated that the Library containd half a million volumes, all on hand-copied papyrus. It was the largest repository of human knowledge ever conceived. Agents were sent out to purchase entire libraries of documents. Commercial ships were searched by the police when docking at Alexandria. Not for contraband, but for books! The books were confiscated, copied, and returned to their owners.

Personally, I find that this appreciation for the value of knowledge and learning is sorely lacking in modern day society.

The Christians destroyed the Library and burned the female librarian, Hypatia, at the stake. Imagine, the curator of the greatest repository of human knowledge, and one of the most respected figures of the time, was a woman! The Christians won't even allow women to be priests!

One of the "few, pathetic scattered fragments" that survived the destruction, described a book by the astronomer Aristarchus of Amos. In his book, he "argued that the Earth is one of the planets, which like them orbits the Sun, and that the stars are enormously far away. Each of these conclusions is entirely correct, but we had to wait nearly two thousand years for their rediscovery." (emphasis mine)

:mad: :mad:

"If we multiply by a hundred thousand our sense of loss for this work of Aristarchus, we begin to appreciate the grandeur of the achievement of classical civilization and the tragedy of its destruction" at the hands of the Christians!!!!

It appears that religion, and particularly Christianity, has a pretty solid record of hindering the advancement of science. Most of the great scientific discoveries have been met with terrible religious persecution. Imagine how much further we would be if religion didn't burn down our libraries and fight, tooth and nail, against progress.

DialecticMaterialist: Well said.Thank you. I try to keep my posts short and succinct. I hope that it doesn't detract from my point.
- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
The burning of the LIbrary of Alexandria is a particularly black mark on religion's record of hindering science, and an especially sore point with me.

Is it? I don't think that the story of the Christians burning the library of Alexandria is generally accepted by historians.

A quick web-search didn't net me any academic articles on the subject, but there's a couple of lighter articles at http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm and http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9

[abiogenesis]

Leif Roar:Is it? I don't think that the story of the Christians burning the library of Alexandria is generally accepted by historians.If that's the case, then I retract the anti-christian sentiment from my previous post. I had only heard a few accounts of the destruction of the Library and they all blamed Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria. If these accounts are in doubt, as it appears they are, then it becomes difficult to account for responsibilty. The destruction of the Library was a great loss, regardless.

I will do some more reading on the matter.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
3. For science - check out Archimedes (282 B.C.). Probably the greatest scientist and inventor ever - including today.I wasn't thinking I'd have reason to come back to this, but in researching my arguments I came across the following text by the Roman historian Plutarch (our primary exant source for biographical details about Archimedes):Yet Archimedes possessed so high a spirit, so profound a soul, and such treasures of scientific knowledge, that though these inventions had now obtained him the renown of more than human sagacity, he yet would not deign to leave behind him any commentary or writing on such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid and ignoble the whole trade of engineering, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and profit, he placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of life; studies, the superiority of which to all others is unquestioned, and in which the only doubt can be, whether the beauty and grandeur of the subjects examined, or the precision and cogency of the methods and means of proof, most deserve our admiration. (Source (http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/ancient/TheBoysandGirlsPlutarch/chap23.html))

I think this relates not merely to Archimedes, but also serves to some extent as a commentary on the state of Greek science (and attitudes toward science) in general. Such attitudes, I submit, would seem very foreign to a modern scientist.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Likewise your claim concerning the Church and astrology is both partially correct and false. At first the Church condemned astrology, but then the church approved of it and even made it official doctrine due to the words of Thomas Aquinas.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/309505.htm
This is an example of your not taking the time to read your own sources carefully. If you had, you would have realized that Aquinas (in the excerpt you linked) is condemning astrology. I think you were thrown off by his standard rhetorical method, which is to state opposing points of view and then refute them in turn. I suspect that you only read the first paragraph or so, in which Aquinas presents arguments in favor of the compatibility of astrology and Christian doctrine. You apparently skipped the rest of the piece, wherein Aquinas shoots down such arguments.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That is simply not true factually. In fact theologians at the time accepted heavenly bodies as unworldly and reflections of the divine.

In fact these concepts were not rejected until the twelth and thriteenth centuries by Neo-Scholastics.Hmm. I said "Medieval theologians rejected this"; you say in response "That is simply not true factually … these concepts were not rejected until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries." Why are you disagreeing with me? We just said the same thing! Now that we've cleared that up, do you agree that it was crucial to the advancement of astrology for medieval theologians to condemn this assumption?

P.S. I think you meant the medieval Scholastics, not the modern neo-Scholastics.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I've already dealt with that objection, basically the division of the two is meaningless. It's basically an unwarranted ad hoc distinction now backed up by any sound reasoning.

In reality what's the difference between saying "it's just not more scientific" and "it's not science by technology"? That just makes the claim untestable.


I disagree strongly with your position. Science is one particular methodology for exploring and learning about the world, based on postulating theories, experimenting to falsify these theories and peer review of the works of the individiual scientists.

Technology is a more nebulous term but somewhat loosely it can be said to be the application of knowledge to further human endeavours.

In other words, technology is application knowledge while science is a pursuit of knowlegde. Science and technology do of course often intersect, in that technology is driven in part by scienctific progress and, in return, science uses technology to further itself. They are however quite distinct concepts, and while the Arab world was (in some ways) technologically and culturally superiour to western Europe during the Dark Ages and early middle ages, it was not superiour when it came to the pursuit of new knowledge - which is what science is all about.


[SNIP]


Well that proves my point then of CEO not being able to speak for all christians on this matter.


I haven't seen CEO speaking "for christians" at all in this thread. He has been arguing against the claim that "The Christian Church was generally opposed to scientific progress" - he has not claimed to speak on the behalf of christians in general, nor of any particular group of christians. In fact, he has implied that he is not speaking as a Christian himself.


Also its not just theologians that determine law and policy. Lastly, are you saying no theologians or "experts" think this way?


It is, however, theologians who determine Church policy and, more importantly, Church doctrine.

All I'm saying is that it's wrong to take a Christian lay-man's opinions or statements as to be generally valid for Christianity (or a particular Christian Church), which it seemed to me was what you were doing.



Which ultimately came down to authority (of the Bible or Pope) which then became dogma: not to be questioned less one be anathema.


That's not my impression of the Christian theological history. I'm in no way an expert, or even a particularly well read lay-man on this matter, but my impression is that the Christian Church during the medieval period was suprisingly welcoming of theological discussions and arguments, at least when compared to the handfull of authoritarian Church decisions that are generally known.



Discussions were ultimately based on authority and faith, not reason. Sure some proximate reasoning may have taken place. Just as the New Agers "reason" among themselves over the nature of ghosts and Marxists the nature of Marxist theories. I'm not saying their discussion is utterly devoid of reason, if I said that then I'd be wrong, what I am saying is that ultimately these discussion came down to blind faith and authority.


Christian doctrine and practices are of course based on a certain set of axioms. You might disagree with these axioms (I personally do), but the theology that was developed from these axioms was to a large degree developed through rational thought and reasoned debate.



That is simply not true. The Catholic Church itself admits the divinty of Jesus, the afterlife, the Trinity, and Armageddon are concepts utterly devoid of proof, yet they were still believed back then very zealously and if reason called them into question so much the worse for reason in their minds.


It is not blind faith to believe in the divinity of the Jesus (or Santa Clause or Muhammed.) Blind faith is to believe unquestionably and without doubt - something that in fact is a sin according to Catholic doctrine. Doubt, according to many Christian Churches, is an integral part of faith - you can, in fact, only have faith when you are in doubt.


False analogy. Accounting and ship building merely deal with different subjects, not with radically different methods. Both accounting and ship building for example submit to the truth of mathematics and science. You never see( or almost never) an accountant go "Well the fortune spirit will solve your problems".


Science is, as I've said earlier, a methodology for pursuing progress, something which religion is not. Therefore, it's silly to contrast sciencie with religion as if they were two competing philosophies - they are not competing because they are not trying to achieve the same thing. Therefore my analogy with accounting and ship-building.


A better analogy would be between real accountants and psychic hotlines that claim to help with fortune. Or real ship builders and cargo cults.


Why would that be a better analogy? Accountants do not try to predict the future, so why should they be contrasted to psychic hotlines - except as a cheap rethoric trick on your part?



US, Britain and Australia, and it's almost 50 percent of the US at that, with another 40 percent believing in the almost as unscientific theory of Theistic Evolution.


I know that Creationism is a fringe belief in the UK, and I suspect the same is true of Australia. Again, I stand by my assertion that creationism is a phenomena mainly encountered in the US. (Is Creationism even popular in Canada?)


That's almost 80-90 percent of the US being non Darwinian for religious reasons, are you saying that this includes no large churches? No Catholics?


The only sizeable Christian Church I know about which denies evolution in its doctrine is Jehove Witnesses - a Church which I hope you will accept is not considered to be mainstream. I know that the Catholic church officially accepts evolution as not being contrary to its teachings, and as far as I know, most of the European protestant churches do the same (but I'm not really in a position to know that for a fact.)


I'd say that was ridiculous event assuming it was true. Also the Church persecuted for philosophical reasons as well, while Royalty and other authorities merely for political. The former is likely to get more in the way of scientific and philosophical progress then the latter.


What is ridiculous about it? The Church's treatment of prisoners were, for the times, lenient and humane. That is, in my opinion, cleary a progressive trait.

While you have postulated that the Church have impeded scientific progress, you have done nothing to demonstrate that it actually did so.


Stem cell research is research, genetic engineering involves research to see how it will effect certain organisms and cloning likewise can allow for research opportunities.


The brouhaha is, though, not over research into stem cells, but the use of stem cells in research. Likewise, there are few, if any critical voices that opposes reasearch into genetic egineering - it is the use of genetic engineering that's being opposed.

There are a lot of things that can allow for research opportunities, but which are not considered ethical. It does not follow that ethics, or the particular ethical views, are by nature anti-scientific.


I agree that the abuses of such technology is unethical( likely for very different reasons then you) but why would research itself be?

Why is stem cell research for example unethical?


Personally, I don't believe it is. However, for people who believe that a human being has "full human value" from the time of conception, it logically follows that the use of human stem cells is unethical - as it unvariably (today, at least) means killing a human being. In other words, to them the very use of human stem cells is considered to be abuse of technology.


Mainly because abortion is now unethical (a belief derived from the ideas a fetus has a soul) which again constitutes religion interfering with science, even in a day and age where religion has supposedly become less powerful and more liberal.


Oh please. Abortion has nothing to do with scientific or technological progress. You might as well replace the word "abortion" in the above with "murder", and the gist of your argument would remain the same. By your logic any ethical standpoint must be considered "anti-scientific" since its adherence might in some way adversely affect scientific progress.


One can only wonder what it was like when religion was stricter and more powerful, like it was a hundred or two hundred years ago, let alone almost five centuries.


One can do a lot better than "only wonder." One can actually read some history.



I believe they are interfering with scientific research when they try to ban certain lines of it, especially GM research (strangely extreme animal rights anti-scientific behavior and extreme Church anti-science policy is one of the few things liberal and conservative radicals can agree upon).


Again, they are not trying to ban certain lines of research - they are trying to ban certain practices which happens to have some scientific use. There is a huge difference between opposing slavery and opposing the farming of cotton.


But there's a catch, in the 15th century there was no established and powerful animal rights group, that was far stricter then the groups of today. If there was I'm sure they would have interfered with scientific progress, or would find such a belief very reasonable given some small, straight forward extrapolation.

There was an extremely powerful, stricter version of the Modern Catholic at this time however and it likely did interfere a great deal with scientific progress. The fact that the Church is less powerful, more liberal and still tries to interfere (and often times succeeds) is evidence of this.


Again, you postulate, but do nothing to support your claim.


[/B]
Probably not for ethical reasons, but again using a person for such things is different then "cells" and animals (clones, genetic engineering) and a "fetus" for purely religious reasons.
[/B]

To, for instance, the Catholic Church it isn't different between using a fetus and a grown man for research - as they are both considered to be fully human.


Also my stance wouldn't be consistently opposed to such innovations as is the case with many in the Catholic Church.

I can likewise though list more purely philosophical examples, where the Church for example refuses to admit to the idea that human beings are products of instincst and enviroment for the belief in a soul based free will, where the Church refuses to admit that the mind is merely a part of the brain for the sake of Cartesian Dualism and where the Church still refuses to aknowledge Darwinism for the sake of more teleological theories of evolution.


Do you, however, have any examples where the Church has actively hindered scientific research along those lines?


The Church, "bless its sweet existence", has wisely declined to outlaw such opposition in philosophy, which I suppose is a good thing, but it was not so many centuries ago and one should always bear that in mind when examining the relationship between science and religion.

I don't see your argument here.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
How so? You brought no proof for this claim [that the rise of universities was an innovation largely owed to medieval Christianity] what so ever.

And there were similiar things to Universities in the Greek world thousands of years before Christianity, Plato's Academy for instance. The existence of Universities then can be seen as more likely the product of social evolution in general, not a phenomenon limited to Christianity.

(Again such an example of Christians funding universities would be reverse causation, they are already in demand or express some sort of social values on which the Church is capitalizing on.)The essential role of medieval European Christianity in the rise of the university system is common knowledge, DM. Some background:

http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/edelciv11.htm
http://www.classicalhomeschooling.org/celinks/1911eb-historyofeducation.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15188a.htm

In case the religious connection escapes you, you might also be interested to read some of the early original by-laws of the University of Paris, the archetypal Northern European university:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/courcon1.html

Unlike academies and schools in the Greek, Byzantine and far Eastern world, medieval universities simultaneously embodied a relatively multidisciplinary approach, a semi-standardized curriculum and a standardized credential/degree system, and (perhaps most importantly) they were devoted not only to the transmission of received knowledge but also to speculative inquiry (i.e. the research and elaboration of new knowledge).

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. Science and technology have advanced, despite the church.. not because of it.

I also don't agree with the university system, as it requires one to learn Shakespear in order to hold a degree in Electrical Engineering. Also, the church keeps trying to retard scientific knowledge with their continued efforts to teach creationism as science.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I've already dealt with that objection, basically the division of [science and technology] is meaningless. It's basically an unwarranted ad hoc distinction now backed up by any sound reasoning.You haven't dealt with this objection except to ignore it. The distinction between science and technology has been the subject of much study and consideration:

http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514264878/html/c153.html

As for Greek technology, here's an essay exploring why they didn't have much of that, either:

http://www.southwestern.edu/academic/classical.languages/rciv/machinery.html

Check out the conclusion, in particular:The western attitude toward work and toward technology, as an expression of [the Latin] Christian faith, thus stands in contrast equally to the ancient Greco-Roman attitudes and that of the medieval eastern church.What a coincidence.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LOL. Science and technology have advanced, despite the church.. not because of it.

That's the matter under discussion here. Can you argue in favour of your position?


I also don't agree with the university system, as it requires one to learn Shakespear in order to hold a degree in Electrical Engineering. Also, the church keeps trying to retard scientific knowledge with their continued efforts to teach creationism as science.

Which particular Church(es) does this?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Which particular Church(es) does this?

Watch any Sunday morning idiot. Just this morning, a popular evangelist on a national network was poo-pooing science and saying all we need is the bible. This guy's fairly popular so I was surprised he didn't downplay that aspect of his psychosis.

(He even drug up that Microbiologist Christian Beher. (sp?))

One of his quotes was something like "Science is always changing their theories"

I thought that was a good thing.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So because according to you and your unproven claim that such a thing would be easy to disprove, this mean Aristotle never tested any of his theories empirically?How many rationally derived Aristotelian hypotheses are you aware of that Aristotle tested and rejected empirically?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes and what's your point? Aristotle's method was not wholly rational or empirical.Once again, Aristotle’s work tended to be either rational to the detriment of the empirical, or else empirical to the exclusion of the theoretical. At any rate, he never wedded the two in any methodical manner.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Why didn't Aristotle then cripple the Medieval mind by that same token? Why didn't Plato?

Surely you do not think the Greeks and Romans completely incapable of examining Aristotle or empirically examining his method?The Romans did not contribute much new in the way of philosophical innovation vis-à-vis Greek thought. (Compared to the Greeks, the Romans did not put much effort into it, frankly.) As I pointed out much earlier in the conversation, Aristotelian thought held such authority in Islamic thought that scholars in that culture were also disinclined to do much more than elaborate what Aristotle had already written. It was not really until the Middle Ages that the authority of Aristotle was challenged.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No I suppose it was sheer coincidence that the scientific method arose shortly after Aristotle was introduced into the west.
I don't think it was coincidence. I think that science was born, as I have previously asserted, out of the collision of classical Greek thought and medieval Christian thought. You seem to think that the Christian part of it was not an essential ingredient, but your thesis fails to account adequately for why, in all the history of the transmission of classical Greek thought (including right up to the Middle Ages in the Arab world) did the transition to science not take place anytime, anywhere, until Christianity and Aristotelian natural philosophy were exposed to one another.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In that science it was not Christianity that took out the bad parts of Aristotle, but Aristotle that helped dmitigate the bad method of Christianity.It likely worked in both directions. As far as I can see, you have absolutely no historical grounds for concluding that this process worked only in the direction you suggest. This may explain why one doesn't run across that argument in print very often, if ever.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
(Metaphysical problems I do not understand as science is compatible with many metaphysical systems.)Not ancient Greek metaphysical systems, as the historians and philosophers of science I've cited have noted.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This also fails to explain why the Muslim world was ahead of the Christian world for hundreds of years scientifically, even though the Muslims had the "obstacle" of Aristotle at this time and the Christians did not.I thought we had covered this point already. One could argue that the Islamic world was ahead technologically (although historians of science disagree on this) and in many aspects of non-scientific learning. However, there's no indication that Muslims were about to develop an Islamic science. A historian might well wonder why not, since in many respects Islam is based on similar monotheistic principles to Christianity. Stark once again:[A] major theological block within Islam … condemned all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy insofar as they denied Allah's freedom to act. That is, Islam did not fully embrace the notion that the universe ran along on fundamental principles laid down by God at the Creation, but assumed that the world was sustained by his will on a continuing basis… If God does as he pleases, and what he pleases is variable, then the universe may not be lawful. Contrast this with the Christian conception of God as stated by … Descartes, who justified his search for natural "laws" on grounds that such laws must exist because God is perfect and therefore "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible," except for the rare occurrence of miracles.
…
The result [of Islamic reluctance to go beyond Aristotle] was to freeze Islamic learning and stifle all possibility of the rise of an Islamic science, and for the same reasons that Greek learning stagnated of itself: fundamental assumptions antithetical to science… became intransigent and doctrinaire Aristotelians - proclaiming that his physics was complete and infallible, and if an observation were inconsistent with one of Aristotle's views, the observation was certainly incorrect or an illusion. As a result of all this, Islamic scholars achieved significant progress only in terms of specific knowledge, such as certain aspects of astronomy and medicine, that did not necessitate any general theoretical basis. And, as time passed, even this sort of progress ceased.

Clearly then, and contrary to the received wisdom, the "recovery" of Greek learning did not put Europe back on the track to science. Judging from the impact of this learning on the Greeks, the Romans and the Muslims, it would seem to have been vital that Greek learning was [I]not generally available until after Christian scholars had developed an independent intellectual base of their own. Consequently, when they first encountered the works of Aristotle, Plato and the rest, medieval scholars were willing and able to dispute them… It was in explicit opposition to Aristotle and other classical writers that the Scholastics such as Albertus, Ockham, Buridan and Oresme advanced toward science…

I do not mean to minimize the impact of Greek learning on European intellectual life. It had an enormous influence, not only on Scholastic thought, but on many subsequent generations. However, the most antiscientific elements of Greek thought were withstood or, at worst, sequestered in the humanities, while the sciences marched on.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Just because Christianity was not the cause of such loss [of classical learning], doesn't mean it failed to slow down recovery.Okay, I’ll bite. What makes you think the Church did slow down the recovery of Greek philosophical texts and such?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That is simply not true [that blind faith is a sin in Catholicism]. What you are describing would appear to correspond to the heresy of fideism:the view that religious knowledge is an act of faith (Lat. fides) alone and not at all an act of the human intellect (ratio). In general, fideism refers to any view that rejects reason as the basis for truth and insists that such grounds are found only in acquiescence to some other authority[.] (Source: HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995))At any rate, even a fideist heretic who thinks that religious and moral truths can be grounded only in faith doesn't necessarily believe the same thing about truths in other areas (such as scientific truths). Certainly the Catholic Church, as far as I know, hasn’t ever taught that the search for scientific truths (facts of nature) should subordinate reason to faith. In fact, there is a multitude of Christian writings suggesting the contrary. Where's the necessary opposition?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
You haven't dealt with this objection except to ignore it. The distinction between science and technology has been the subject of much study and consideration:


No, I said it was ad hoc. If you wish the make a distinction the burden of proof is on you to support it, not on me to refute it. If the latter were the case we could just simply sit around making an endless amount of distinctions to "prove" just about anything we want.



http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514264878/html/c153.html

As for Greek technology, here's an essay exploring why they didn't have much of that, either:

http://www.southwestern.edu/academi.../machinery.html

Check out the conclusion, in particular:What a coincidence.


Well this is interesting, seeing as the second article says the opposite of what you are trying to prove:


The split between science and technology was by no means limited to antiquity. When the ancient world died, its science lived on among the Arabs. For five hundred years the best scientists wrote in Arabic, yet this did nothing whatsoever to hasten the pace of technological development in Islam. The idea that science can advance technology was not clearly formulated until as late as A.D. 1450 and was not consistently acted upon until our own century.



So according to the article, they developed science and just forgot to apply it to technology.



Also you are attacking a straw man. This is clearly evident in your first article. When I say one cannot make a distinction between science and technology I'm using the statement in an operative manner, to indicate that one cannot see that other civilizations advanced greatly and just dismiss their contributions or achievments as "technology...not science".

I do not of course mean that when Neanderthals made a spear they were using the scientific method. Assuming that is a just ridiculous.

What I am saying is that just dismissing technological development as "mere technology" and then presuming that means the people who advanced the technology did not think scientifically in any manner (btw this does not mean they were using full blown science itself but strong precursors that were getting there) is a bit unwarranted.


Technology does not just appear out of nowhere, developing it takes time and study. Such study is a precursor to science.


In this respect you seem to keep confusing the issue concerning what we are talking about;

We are not talking about full blown science itself or other cultures having such. By full blown science I mean the thought which was established more or less after Galileo's revolution.

We are talking about what led to science.You say it is Christianity.

To establish this point so far you have brought in four main points:

So far we have the rise of Universities


Christian philosophy which is somehow conductive to scientific inquiry.

The fact that technology took off in the west.


and

The fact that science arose in the West and only in the West.


Now the third case is either begging the question in the worse manner as it ignores the contributing factors (which is what is being investigated) almost entirely.


That is unless you are saying that the strong contributing factors, which presupposes some sort of pre-scientific precursor to science was only being strongly developed in the West.

But that is clearly false since we can see other cultures were ahead of the West for many centuries i.e. through their invention of technology.

Now you object "well that's technology not science" and I'm saying the technology statement is irrelevant as we are not talking about science itself but pre-cursors in methods of discovery which leads to science. And secondly, while they (scientific thought and technology) may not be exactly the same, one often times accompanies another. Unless that is you think these technologies fell from the sky or arose by pure chance.

A good parallel concerning pre-cursors involves alchemy and chemistry. In the west Alchemy lead to chemistry. Chinese alchemy was likewise more developed then Europe for most of history.

It is well known then that technological research leads to and shows an advancement towards scientific thought.


To quote an article:

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), an early advocate of file empirical method, upon which the scientific revolution was based, attributed Western Europe's early modern take-off to three things in particular: printing, the compass, and gunpowder. Bacon had no idea where these things had come from, but historians now know that all three were invented in China.


http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/c...ts/shaffer.html

I'll use an excerpt from your own article to hammer this point in:


The above comparison demonstrates that scientists and technologists often work as a team. Scientific discoveries are made useful by technologists who apply new scientific knowledge to the solution of practical problems. Does this mean that technology is just "applied science?"It is not the case, as there are plenty of examples supporting the notion that technology has a purpose and character of its own. (de Vries 1994, de Vries 1997, Hacker & Barden 1988, Naughton 1994).

Moreover, Gardner (1994, p. 142) states that"technology has developed throughout the ages largely without the benefit of scientific knowledge; often, when there has been a link between technological capability and scientific knowledge, the technology has preceded the science."


http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514264...153.html#AEN196



Aside from this obvious inference, there is also direct evidence that both Islam and China made what one would consider non-technological contributions to science:

Concerning Islam:


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/woi_knowledge.html

excerpts:

Physics, Balance, Projectile Motion, Optics
In the field of physics the Muslims made contributions in especially three domains. The first was the measurement of specific weights of objects and the study of the balance following upon the work of Archimedes. In this domain the writings of al-Biruni and al-Khazini stand out. Secondly they criticized the Aristotelian theory of projectile motion and tried to quantify this type of motion. The critique of Ibn Sina, Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdadi, Ibn Bajjah and others led to the development of the idea of impetus and momentum and played an important role in the criticism of Aristotelian physics in the West up to the early writings of Galileo. Thirdly there is the field of optics in which the Islamic sciences produced in Ibn al-Haytham (the Latin Alhazen) who lived in the 11th century, the greatest student of optics between Ptolemy and Witelo. Ibn al-Haytham's main work on optics, the Kitah al-manazir, was also well known in the West as Thesaurus opticus. Ibn al-Haytham solved many optical problems, one of which is named after him, studied the property of lenses, discovered the camera obscura, explained correctly the process of vision, studied the structure of the eye, and explained for the first time why the sun and the moon appear larger on the horizon. His interest in optics was carried out two centuries later by Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi and Kamal al-Din al-Farisi. It was Qutb al-Din who gave the first correct explanation of the formation of the rainbow.


Experimental Method
It is important to recall that in physics as in many other fields of science the Muslims observed, measured and carried out experiments. They must be credited with having developed what came to be known later as the experimental method.


On China:

China
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Pre-1949 Patterns

Until the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), China was a world leader in technology and scientific discovery. Many Chinese inventions--paper and printing, gunpowder, porcelain, the magnetic compass, the sternpost rudder, and the lift lock for canals--made major contributions to economic growth in the Middle East and Europe. The outside world remained uninformed about Chinese work in agronomy, pharmacology, mathematics, and optics. Scientific and technological activity in China dwindled, however, after the fourteenth century. It became increasingly confined to little-known and marginal individuals who differed from Western scientists such as Galileo or Newton in two primary ways: they did not attempt to reduce the regularities of nature to mathematical form, and they did not constitute a community of scholars, criticizing each others' work and contributing to an ongoing program of research. Under the last two dynasties, the Ming (1368-1644) and the Qing (1644-1911), China's ruling elite intensified its humanistic concentration on literature, the arts, and public administration and regarded science and technology as either trivial or narrowly utilitarian (see The Confucian Legacy , ch. 3).


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+cn0255)

One of the greatest untold secrets of history is that the "modern" world we live in is a unique synthesis of Chinese and Western knowledge. At least half of the basic inventions and discoveries upon which our "modern" world rests come from China. And yet few people know this. The Chinese themselves are as ignorant of this as are Westerners. From the seventeenth century onwards, Chinese have been dazzled by European technological expertise -- apparently experiencing amnesia regarding their own achievements. When Chinese were shown a mechanical clock by Jesuit missionaries, they were awestruck. They had forgotten it was they who had first invented mechanical clocks.


http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/china.html



So even if we accepted this questionable division between technology and science, one that our old pal Needham himself calls into question:

Needham (1993), instead, looks at the distinction and definitions about science as too narrow. Mechanics was the pioneer among the modern sciences and the precursor to the mechanistic paradigm that all other sciences endeavor to imitate. Needham also concedes that mechanics is based on Greek deductive geometry.


http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/history/china.htm

(This division is questionable as it presumes that somehow technologu developes without any thought or research, as if by accident and not by methods which lead to science.)

But even supposing that technology and science are radically divided; there is no reasonable doubt that China and the Muslim world developed and contributed to the rise of science, even more so then Europeans until the 13th century.

On your other claim involving Universities, this can be easily demolished by one simple fact:

The oldest university in the world which is still functioning is the eleven hundred-year-old Islamic university of Fez, Morocco, known as the Qarawiyyin.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/woi_knowledge.html


But your point also ignores the implications of my argument; even if the Greek Universities were lost it shows such were not unique to Christianity but arise within many societies for secular reasons. Likely just due to normal factors in social evolution.

As for the idea concerning why technology took off in the west of Europe and not lets say Greece, the answer is simply:

Technological development is an iterative process. The Greeks as I have said and cannot stress enough existed almost a thousand years before Christianity became an established and dominating force, almost two thousand years then before the Scientific Revolution.

Thus the Medievals had Hellenistic culture and advances to build upon, which included things like number systems, alphebits, mathematics, geometry, writing, libraries, philosophy, etc.

But the Hellenistic people did not have the Medievals to build off of.


As for China and the Muslim world, political and geographic reasons have already been given for this. Not to mention that for most of history they were ahead of the west anyways.


As for your claims concerning philosophy they mostly hinge on the idea of Aristotle's philosophy somehow being less conductive to science then Christianity. And here your proofs are the weakest yet. I have already gone over them so will limit myself to your latest objections.


How many rationally derived Aristotelian hypotheses are you aware of that Aristotle tested and rejected empirically?

Well he did discover the world was round, classified animals by dissection

He was a careful and meticulous observer who fascinated by the task of classifying animal species and arranging them into hierarchies. He dealt with over five hundred animal species in this way and dissected nearly fifty of them. His mode of classification was reasonable and, in some cases, strikingly modern. He was particularly interested in sea life and observed that the dolphin brought forth its young alive and nourished the fetus by means of a special organ called a placenta. No fish did this, but all mammals did, so Aristotle classed the dolphin with the beasts of the field rather than with the fish of the sea. His successors did not follow his lead, however, and it took two thousand years for biologists to catch up to Aristotle in this respect. It was J. Muller who finally confirmed Aristotle in this respect. Aristotle also studied viviparous sharks, those that bear live young -- but without a mammalian placenta. He also noted the odd ability of the torpedo fish to stun its prey though, of course, he knew nothing of the electric shock with which it managed it. He was also wrong on occasion, as when he denied sexuality in plants. Nineteen centuries were to pass before Alpini was to correct this particular error.


http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/aristotle1.html

Perhaps now you can tell me of a case when St. Augustine proved his beliefs by expirimentation or by empirical method?



Once again, Aristotle?s work tended to be either rational to the detriment of the empirical, or else empirical to the exclusion of the theoretical. At any rate, he never wedded the two in any methodical manner.

Do you just not read the links I give you?

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself disputed this, saying:


Aristotle's method is both inductive and deductive, while Plato's is essentially deductive. In other words, for Plato's tendency to idealize the world of reality in the light of intuition of a higher world, Aristotle substituted the scientific tendency to examine first the phenomena of the real world around us and thence to reason to a knowledge of the essences and laws which no intuition can reveal, but which science can prove to exist. In fact, Aristotle's notion of philosophy corresponds, generally speaking, to what was later understood to be science, as distinct from philosophy. In the larger sense of the word, he makes philosophy coextensive with science, or reasoning: "All science (dianoia) is either practical, poetical or theoretical."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm


And before you go off again about how Aristotle hampered the development of science in both the ancient and medieval world and is unfairly condemened you should keep this in mind:


Aristotle's system of philosophy was never as influential in ancient times as Plato's. Indeed, Aristotle's works may not have been published for some centuries after his death. After the fall of Rome, his work was largely lost to Europe (only Organon, his work on logic, was saved) while Plato's works were, for the most part, retained. However, Aristotle's books survived among the Arabs, who valued them highly.

Hence if you were trying to find a 'culprit' for the imagined stagnation of science in the ancient world(of which you have brought no evidence for) a better candidate would have been Plato.

As for the medieval world:

Christian Europe regained Aristotle from the Arabs, translating his books into Latin in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. From that time Aristotle replaced Plato as the Philosopher. His views came to be regarded as possessing an almost divine authority, so that if Aristotle said it was so, it was so. By a queer fatality, it almost seemed as though his statements were most accepted when they were most incorrect.

This cannot be blamed on Aristotle, who was himself no believer in blind obedience to authority. Nevertheless, following the era of over-adulation, he became the very symbol of wrongness, and when the Scientific Revolution took place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its first victories involved the overthrow of Aristotelian physics. In the centuries since, Aristotle has, as a consequence, too often been viewed as an enemy of science, whereas actually he was one of the truly great scientists of all time and even his wrongness was rational. No man should be blamed for the stubborn orthodoxy of those who many centuries later insist they speak in his name.

http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/aristotle1.html


So yes its true some of Aristotle's claims did turn into dogma. But this was almost 2,000 years after Aristotle had lived. Thousands of years after his philosophy had been developed. Surely then blaming Aristotelean philosophy, which was supposed to be based on induction and reason is not reasonable.

Perhaps one should consider whether or not the Church by turning Aristotle into a dogma is more to blame. For it was the Church's words that turned Aristotle into official doctrine, not Aristotle himself. And that was merely then the Church speaking for him. Thus this is not so much an area where Aristotle became an obstacle to science but more a matter of the Church perverting certain aspects of Aristoteleanism, by making them dogmas.

Blaming Aristotelean philosophy for this is like blaming Darwinism for Eugenics and Herbert Spencer.



The Romans did not contribute much new in the way of philosophical innovation vis-à-vis Greek thought. (Compared to the Greeks, the Romans did not put much effort into it, frankly.) As I pointed out much earlier in the conversation, Aristotelian thought held such authority in Islamic thought that scholars in that culture were also disinclined to do much more than elaborate what Aristotle had already written. It was not really until the Middle Ages that the authority of Aristotle was challenged.

Aristotle was held in high esteem but hardly went unchallenged in the Islamic world.

Likewise if he was an "obstacle" as you say, again this fails to explain why the Muslims were ahead of Europe until the 13th century, surprisingly around the time Aristotle appeared in Europe to become an "obstacle".

In fact the Muslim world seemed to fall behind around the period of time they abandoned Aristotelean thoight for more mystical philosophies:

Ibn Rushd was also to be the last in the line of Islamic Aristotelians. Throughout the classical period of Islamic thought, there were always some thinkers who distrusted rationalism and logic, certain that the study of philosophy results in a loss of faith. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya are the two best known examples. Al-Ghazali studied philosophy to be able to rebut it; he suggested that knowledge is inferior to faith, as knowledge could not overcome doubts. His Tahafut al-falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) had a lasting influence. Here al-Ghazali attacked Aristotle and his followers, al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, particularly objecting to the Aristotelian notion of the eternity of the world, which he found irreconcilable with the Qur'anic description of God's creation of the world from nothing. Al-Ghazali also saw this as an idea which limited God in a totally unacceptable manner. Two centuries later, Ibn Taymiyya wrote al-Radd 'ala al-mantiqiyyin (Against the Logicians) as an attack on the method of definition and demonstration used by the philosophers who were influenced by Aristotle. He argued that logic is based on the faculty of human reason, which is necessarily inferior to divine revelation.

Despite the efforts of Ibn Rushd to rehabilitate philosophy, many scholars believe that Islamic philosophy never completely recovered from al-Ghazali's massive and brutal assault on it. In the Latin West, Islamic Aristotelianism was reincarnated as Averroism, that is, Aristotle's works as taught by Ibn Rushd and translated into Latin (see Aristotelianism, medieval §4; Averroism §1 ). His works also came to have great influence in Jewish philosophy, and for many years led to a strong strain of Aristotelianism among Jewish philosophers (see Averroism, Jewish ). Aristotelianism continued to have an effect on Islamic philosophy through opposition to it from Illuminationist philosophy (see Illuminationist philosophy), and in particular thinkers such as al-Suhrawardi, al-Shahrazuri, Ibn Kammuna and others, often based in Persia. The latter sought to attack what they took to be the principles of Aristotelianism, especially its logical and ontological axioms, and produced critiques of Aristotelian essentialism which are sometimes quite similar to that of William of Ockham . It is accurate to say, however, that Aristotelianism as a school of philosophy in the Islamic world found no Muslim successors after the death of Ibn Rushd.


http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/h002.htm#H002SECT3

As for the Romans they did contribute greatly to scientific thought.

This site has in depth information on Greek and Roman scientific development:

http://www.swan.ac.uk/classics/staff/ter/grst/specific.htm

don't think it was coincidence. I think that science was born, as I have previously asserted, out of the collision of classical Greek thought and medieval Christian thought. You seem to think that the Christian part of it was not an essential ingredient, but your thesis fails to account adequately for why, in all the history of the transmission of classical Greek thought (including right up to the Middle Ages in the Arab world) did the transition to science not take place anytime, anywhere, until Christianity and Aristotelian natural philosophy were exposed to one another.


Incorrect, my thesis has made this quite clear, it is your thesis that fails on this matter. I have already appealed to geography and how the feudal system helped further certain lines of technology in Europe, whereas you have not yet explained why for most of history China and the Muslim world were ahead of Europe, save to dismiss their advances as "technology not science." and add an irrelevant "science didn't advance there." (Which nobody has claimed, it was merely stated they were ahead in getting there.)

Your thesis fails to explain certain other contingencies as well, including what allowed Christianity to overcome Aristotelean deficiencies (in any progressive manner i.e. not just showing Christianity and Aristotle came into conflict but that traditional Christianity was right where Aristotle erred), why the Scholastics had to establish themselves and why the Church has been a major obstacle for major scientific revolutions, including the Copernican and Darwinian.

It likely worked in both directions. As far as I can see, you have absolutely no historical grounds for concluding that this process worked only in the direction you suggest. This may explain why one doesn't run across that argument in print very often, if ever.


Now comes the argument from proof surrogate, as if one ever sees your viewpoint in paper very often.

At any rate, even a fideist heretic who thinks that religious and moral truths can be grounded only in faith doesn't necessarily believe the same thing about truths in other areas (such as scientific truths). Certainly the Catholic Church, as far as I know, hasn?t ever taught that the search for scientific truths (facts of nature) should subordinate reason to faith. In fact, there is a multitude of Christian writings suggesting the contrary. Where's the necessary opposition?


Between reason and faith? One accepts certain conclusions as absolute without evidence, the other as provisonal on the basis of evidence. That leads to conflicting epistemic standards.

But if we need more evidence we can again go to the Catholic Encyclopedia itself:

They advanced the explanation that all the wisdom of Plato and the other Greeks was due to the inspiration of the Logos; that it was God's truth, and, therefore, could not be in contradiction with the supernatural revelation contained in the Gospels.

. They are distinct, he teaches, because, while philosophy relies on reason alone, theology uses the truths derived from revelation, and also because there are some truths, the mysteries of Faith, which lie completely outside the domain of philosophy and belong to theology. They agree, and must agree, because God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that contradicts what He teaches in the supernatural order.

In other words if reason questions God...reason is wrong.

The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defence of the dogmas of Faith.

They acknowledged the authority of revelation, as all Christian philosophers are obliged to do.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm

"He that believeth and is baptized", said Christ, "shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16); and St. Paul sums up this solemn declaration by saying: "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb., xi, 6). The absolute necessity of faith is evident from the following considerations: God is our beginning and our end and has supreme dominion over us, we owe Him, consequently, due service which we express by the term religion. Now true religion is the true Now true religion is the true worship of the true God. But it is not for man to fashion a worship according to his own ideals; none but God can declare to us in what true worship consists, and this declaration constitutes the body of revealed truths, whether natural or supernatural. To these, if we would attain the end for which we came into the world, we are bound to give the assent of faith. It is clear, moreover, that no one can profess indifference in a matter of such vital importance. During the Reformation period no such indifference was professed by those who quitted the fold; for them it was not a question of faith or unfaith, so much as of the medium by which the true faith was to be known and put into practice. The attitude of many outside the Church is now one of absolute indifference, faith is regarded as an emotion, as a peculiarly subjective disposition which is regulated by no known psychological laws. Thus Taine speaks of faith as "une source vive qui s'est formee au plus profond de l'ame, sous la poussee et la chaleur des instincts immanents " -- "a living fountain which has come into existence in the lowest depths of the soul under the impulse and the warmth of the immanent instincts". Indifferentism in all its phases was condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus Quanta cura : in Prop. XV, "Any man is free to embrace and profess whatever form of religion his reason approves of"; XVI, "Men can find the way of salvation and can attain to eternal salvation in any form of religious worship"; XVII "We can at least have good hopes of the eternal salvation of all those who have never been in the true Church of Christ"; XVIII, "Protestantism is only another form of the same true Christian religion, and men can be as pleasing to God in it as in the Catholic Church."



What's that? He that don't beleveth shall be condemned? That's rather much like an argument from intomidation. This is necessary opposition in that reason isn't based on condenming people for coming to different conclusions.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm


And yes the Church has throughout history stated that they wish to divide matters of faith from matters of reason, but it has also at the same time made what we now consider to be matters of science, matters of faith. These issues were once that of creation and illness for example, as well as the Ptolemaic system to an extent.

And even when the Church does base one of its conclusions on reason it had a habit of making such a conclusion "Official doctrine" whereby anyone who challenged it was viewed as a heretic to be silenced or punished.

Science and rational discussion do not operate this way. They do not work by threats and cannon. They also do not work by assuming conclusions with no evidence, like the trinity, genesis creation and Biblical History.

Are you going to tell me the Church had evidence for all the above throughout antiquity? Or that they did not believe any of the above them?


You and I both know the answers to the above.

Lastly, you seem very much to just ignore many bits of information that disagree with your thesis, no matter how compelling, this includes statements from the History of Science Society, a source not to be taken lightly:

Antiquity and the Middle Ages

People in the twentieth century are so used to thinking of science and religion as distinct endeavors that it is sometimes difficult for them to realize that in earlier times there was no necessary separation between them. Certainly among those whose representation of experience has been called mythopoeic, for example the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and the early Greeks, the actions of divine beings and the behavior of nature were often one and the same. Lightning, for example, was a weapon of the god Zeus, who threw bolts down from Olympus.

Later Greeks created the new category of "natural" processes by removing supernatural agencies from their explanations of nature. It is not gods who inhabit the planets and cause them to move; rather, the motion of the planets occurs in accordance with unchanging patterns as a result of "natural" motions. With this distinction came a new task: to discover and describe the patterns governing nature's behavior.


and:

If the love of God and one's neighbor formed the central concern of Western religion, then the search for an understanding of the physical world could not be expected to define a particularly valued activity. Such was indeed the case in the early Medieval world. At best what we call science, which involved applying the Greek gift of rational inquiry to nature, was invoked to confirm the greatness and wisdom of the Creator. According to the medieval historian of science Edward Grant, prior to the twelfth century the pursuit of scientific explanations did not entail a commitment to metaphysical beliefs; i.e., the attempt to describe nature's regularities did not require that one formulate a view about the nature of physical reality. Science was viewed simply as the "handmaiden to theology." In theology the Greek gift was brought to bear on God's program to redeem a fallen humankind. Here knowledge of and beliefs about the physical world were of secondary importance.


Note the part explaining how medieval christians downplayed reason for sake of faith.

http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/resources/mf_resources.html

This isn't something you should just shrug off. Also I find it odd that such a group would support extraordinary conclusions with little or no support based in paper.

On some of the Miscellaneous
issues:

On the issue of Thomas Aquinas and astrology:


This is an example of your not taking the time to read your own sources carefully. If you had, you would have realized that Aquinas (in the excerpt you linked) is condemning astrology. I think you were thrown off by his standard rhetorical method, which is to state opposing points of view and then refute them in turn. I suspect that you only read the first paragraph or so, in which Aquinas presents arguments in favor of the compatibility of astrology and Christian doctrine. You apparently skipped the rest of the piece, wherein Aquinas shoots down such arguments.


Quite the opposite actually.

Perhaps you were confused when Aquinas said:

Accordingly if anyone take observation of the stars in order to foreknow casual or fortuitous future events, or to know with certitude future human actions, his conduct is based on a false and vain opinion; and so the operation of the demon introduces itself therein, wherefore it will be a superstitious and unlawful divination.


But he later followed with:

On the other hand if one were to apply the observation of the stars in order to foreknow those future things that are caused by heavenly bodies, for instance, drought or rain and so forth, it will be neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination.


Thus stars may not tell us anything about a person's future but may tell us about a future natural event.

On Scholastics and Neo-Scholastics:

Hmm. I said "Medieval theologians rejected this"; you say in response "That is simply not true factually ? these concepts were not rejected until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries." Why are you disagreeing with me? We just said the same thing! Now that we've cleared that up, do you agree that it was crucial to the advancement of astrology for medieval theologians to condemn this assumption?

P.S. I think you meant the medieval Scholastics, not the modern neo-Scholastics.

Well I thought here you were refering to the Middle Ages, Neo-Scholasticism I believe arose in the High Middle Ages, and also I thought we were going by operational terms in which you meant by medieval Christian philosophy that which preceded Aristotelean influence or at least a traditional Christian position accepted since the beggining of Christianity. That is what is implied when you state Christians were correct where Aristotle erred, obviously saying this after Aristotle was re-introduced somewhat dampers this point as it means Christians were just as wrong as Aristotle on this for thousands of years and if they changed their minds, it obviously was not for reasons found in the Bible or original Christian traditions.

BTW I do mean Neo-Scholastics.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia (yet again!):

(1) Elimination of False or Useless Notions

Neo-Scholasticism rejects the theories of physics, celestial and terrestrial, which the Middle Ages grafted on the principles, otherwise sound enough, of cosmology and metaphysics; e.g. the perfection and superiority of astral substance, the "incorruptibility" of the heavenly bodies, their external connexion with "motor spirits", the influence of the stars on the generation of earthly beings, the four "simple" bodies, etc. It further rejects those philosophical theories which are disproved by the results of investigation; e.g. the diffusion of sensible "species" throughout a medium and their introduction into the organs of sense. Even the Scholastic ideas that have been retained are not all of equal importance; criticism and personal conviction may retrench or modify them considerably, without injury to fundamental principles.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Thus stars may not tell us anything about a person's future but may tell us about a future natural event.


Err, yes, and? Predicting natural events, such as tides, eclipses or tomorrow's weather by looking at the stars is not astrology.


(Edited to fix the quoting.)

[DialecticMaterialist]

I disagree strongly with your position. Science is one particular methodology for exploring and learning about the world, based on postulating theories, experimenting to falsify these theories and peer review of the works of the individiual scientists.

Technology is a more nebulous term but somewhat loosely it can be said to be the application of knowledge to further human endeavours.

In other words, technology is application knowledge while science is a pursuit of knowlegde. Science and technology do of course often intersect, in that technology is driven in part by scienctific progress and, in return, science uses technology to further itself. They are however quite distinct concepts, and while the Arab world was (in some ways) technologically and culturally superiour to western Europe during the Dark Ages and early middle ages, it was not superiour when it came to the pursuit of new knowledge - which is what science is all about.

And I am saying that such an assumption is unwarranted, what makes you think they made the relevant technological advances without any scholarly or intellectual? Do you believe they developed their technology by luck or are behaving like mindless robots?

How are we suppose to measure how advanced a civilization is in science save its technology?




I haven't seen CEO speaking "for christians" at all in this thread. He has been arguing against the claim that "The Christian Church was generally opposed to scientific progress" - he has not claimed to speak on the behalf of christians in general, nor of any particular group of christians. In fact, he has implied that he is not speaking as a Christian himself.

He has implied that the majority of christians do not adhere to any superstitions opposed to science, especially creationism. And that simply is not true.



It is, however, theologians who determine Church policy and, more importantly, Church doctrine.

Not always. Sometimes political necessity enters the picture I imagine. As well as catering to the sentiments of the majority.

All I'm saying is that it's wrong to take a Christian lay-man's opinions or statements as to be generally valid for Christianity (or a particular Christian Church), which it seemed to me was what you were doing.

They are generally the majority, I think its more wrong to ignore the Christian layman's opinions.




That's not my impression of the Christian theological history. I'm in no way an expert, or even a particularly well read lay-man on this matter, but my impression is that the Christian Church during the medieval period was suprisingly welcoming of theological discussions and arguments, at least when compared to the handfull of authoritarian Church decisions that are generally known.

In so far as an issued had to be settled it was welcomed, so long as nobody stepped over the line. But once an issue was settled, that was that.


quote:
Discussions were ultimately based on authority and faith, not reason. Sure some proximate reasoning may have taken place. Just as the New Agers "reason" among themselves over the nature of ghosts and Marxists the nature of Marxist theories. I'm not saying their discussion is utterly devoid of reason, if I said that then I'd be wrong, what I am saying is that ultimately these discussion came down to blind faith and authority.


Christian doctrine and practices are of course based on a certain set of axioms. You might disagree with these axioms (I personally do), but the theology that was developed from these axioms was to a large degree developed through rational thought and reasoned debate.



It is not blind faith to believe in the divinity of the Jesus (or Santa Clause or Muhammed.) Blind faith is to believe unquestionably and without doubt - something that in fact is a sin according to Catholic doctrine. Doubt, according to many Christian Churches, is an integral part of faith - you can, in fact, only have faith when you are in doubt.

That makes no sense and you have brought no proof. Are you saying you doubted Jesus divinity and were shown evidence? Or was it a sort of token "doubt"?


Science is, as I've said earlier, a methodology for pursuing progress, something which religion is not . Therefore, it's silly to contrast sciencie with religion as if they were two competing philosophies - they are not competing because they are not trying to achieve the same thing. Therefore my analogy with accounting and ship-building.

And like I said your analogy is flawed. Science and religion both attempt to describe reality in different manners, sure now at days the religious limit themselves to less wordly claims, sometimes even other dimensions. But such was a recent thing. And not all Christians do this even now at days i.e. Theistic evolution and creationism.

Ultimately though they are totally and utterly different methods for describing reality the one of blind faith i.e. belief based on irrational conviction/no evidence and reason i.e. belief based on evidence.


Why would that be a better analogy? Accountants do not try to predict the future, so why should they be contrasted to psychic hotlines - except as a cheap rethoric trick on your part?

Because it shows one method (accounting) based on reason and evidence, the other is based on faith. Both attempt to deescribe the same reality in a different manner.


I know that Creationism is a fringe belief in the UK, and I suspect the same is true of Australia. Again, I stand by my assertion that creationism is a phenomena mainly encountered in the US. (Is Creationism even popular in Canada?)

How fringe is it?

Also saying "just in the US" is hardly making matters better. Likewise do you think creationism is unpopular in Muslim nations? I doubt it.


The only sizeable Christian Church I know about which denies evolution in its doctrine is Jehove Witnesses - a Church which I hope you will accept is not considered to be mainstream. I know that the Catholic church officially accepts evolution as not being contrary to its teachings, and as far as I know, most of the European protestant churches do the same (but I'm not really in a position to know that for a fact.)


Ok here is what the stats say, roughly 90 percent of all people in the US are not Darwinists. Again are you saying that this includes no large churche's? Is that a reasonable conclusion?

What is ridiculous about it? The Church's treatment of prisoners were, for the times, lenient and humane. That is, in my opinion, cleary a progressive trait.

They were torturing and killing people for expressing freedom of conscience and for sake of superstition, hardly a lenient group.

While you have postulated that the Church have impeded scientific progress, you have done nothing to demonstrate that it actually did so.


That's very disingenuine, I actually have brought evidence via reasoning and shown many examples. Just because you don't like my conclusions doesn't mean you can simply dismiss my arguments.


The brouhaha is, though, not over research into stem cells, but the use of stem cells in research. Likewise, there are few, if any critical voices that opposes reasearch into genetic egineering - it is the use of genetic engineering that's being opposed.


That's spurrious as one sometimes needs to apply the technology to research it.

There are a lot of things that can allow for research opportunities, but which are not considered ethical. It does not follow that ethics, or the particular ethical views, are by nature anti-scientific.

Oh yes of course as long as they are unethical. And how does the Church decide this? Divine revelation and faith.


Personally, I don't believe it is. However, for people who believe that a human being has "full human value" from the time of conception, it logically follows that the use of human stem cells is unethical - as it unvariably (today, at least) means killing a human being. In other words, to them the very use of human stem cells is considered to be abuse of technology.


And is this not an example of the faithful impeding science for sake of questionable beliefs?

Oh please. Abortion has nothing to do with scientific or technological progress.

Look at your above comment concerning stem cell research.



You might as well replace the word "abortion" in the above with "murder", and the gist of your argument would remain the same.

Only if we presume a fetus has a soul, which is Church's main argument. Is that then not a religious conviction the Church is trying to impose on everyone else?



By your logic any ethical standpoint must be considered "anti-scientific" since its adherence might in some way adversely affect scientific progress.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Similarly, the slippery slope fallacy involves constructing a scenario in which one thing leads ultimately to an end so extreme that the first step should never be taken. For example: Eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream will cause you to put on weight. Putting on weight will make you overweight. Soon you will weigh 350 pounds and die of heart disease. Eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream leads to death. Don't even try it. Certainly eating a scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream may contribute to obesity, which could possibly, in very rare cases, cause death. But the consequence does not necessarily follow from the premise.


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm


One can do a lot better than "only wonder." One can actually read some history.

Total red herring. This fails to answer my argument which is based on inference.





Again, they are not trying to ban certain lines of research - they are trying to ban certain practices which happens to have some scientific use. There is a huge difference between opposing slavery and opposing the farming of cotton.

I've already gone over this and must likewise question the ridiculous analogy between GE research/application and slavery.



Again, you postulate, but do nothing to support your claim.

It follows from basic reasoning and induction. Are you saying the Church was just as strict or perhaps less strict and/or less powerful then it is today?


To, for instance, the Catholic Church it isn't different between using a fetus and a grown man for research - as they are both considered to be fully human.

Yes and that's the problem. Their entire rationale is based purely on faith with no other merit whatsoever. And this faith based conclusion is interfering with science.

That's like if a group of New Agers wanted to cancel NASA for fear of angering the Galactic Spirit.



Do you, however, have any examples where the Church has actively hindered scientific research along those lines?

Not by means of coercion but it shows how behind science the Church is. DO you think things were better or worse in the 11th century? In the 16th century?

Again you can only deny my argument at this point by denying the most obvious implications.

[Gregor]

I'm reading with interest.

DM I sincerely appreciate your in-depth research and responses to this topic, and I think your arguments are quite strong - though I am biased, as I agree with them.

[abiogenesis]

I agree with DM as well, and I find the discussion very enlightening. However, I think it casts too broad a net for the topic of this thread: Is religion slowing us down? We need not debate the definitions of science and technology or consider the "progressive" nature of any particular church.

Religion is an institution which promotes faith as a viable method of finding truth. I claim (and I don't believe that I am alone in this) that faith is not a viable method.

Historically, religious "truths" have been proven wrong by those that would use reason and empirical evidence to understand the universe. With great protest and frequent violence, religion has been forced to retreat from each of these debates, abandoning or modifying their "truths" to avoid direct conflict with observation.

At each turn, science has eroded the domain of religion and increased our understanding of the universe. Religion has outlived its (questionable) usefulness and now its influence is bordering on the dangerous.

It all boils down to this: Religion promotes faith, belief without evidence as the best way to discover the truth. Faith is, in fact, a very ineffectual method of finding the truth. Therefore, the promotion of faith is slowing us down.

Now, if someone can provide evidence that faith has been anything but a negative influence on our development, I'd be interested to hear it.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Sorry to have to respond in fragments:

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
It's quite obvious that [for a thousand years European religious institutions were "burning and torturing any person that spoke up"] via the Inquisition. Unless you can point me to some atheist literature or literature that criticized christianity that came out during that time?I can accept that there the way in which conflicts over spiritual doctrine were approached arguably bears some relevance to the way in which ostensible conflicts over natural science were approached, but this validates neither your general point (that the Church carried an innate hostility toward science) nor your specific observation (that, again, the Church burned and tortured any person that spoke up).

You have identified a total of zero examples of researchers being burned and/or tortured for their scientific conclusions (and if your thesis is correct, one would expect scores, if not hundreds of such instances). You seem to attribute no significance to the fact that, by the standards of the day, the Church was generally far less inclined to burn and torture people (for any reason) than were other institutions of social authority, although you do not refute it either. As your own follow-up research showed, reports of the extent of such atrocities have been staggeringly exaggerated (including, initially, by you).

If I understood you correctly, you also have inferred from the fact that the Church was, especially by modern standards, theologically authoritarian that scientists declined en masse to pursue research out of fear of lethal reprisals from Rome. However, you adduce no specific historical confirmation to this effect (and here again, you ought to be able to bring forward numerous instances of this). Indeed, this does not seem to have been the case even with Galileo, whose writings (including but not limited to parts of his correspondence with Kepler (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterkepler.html)) suggest that he was reluctant to publish portions of his research chiefly for fear, not of religious censure, but of professional ridicule from his scientific peers.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Stem cell research, cloning and genetic engineering are good examples of this. In fact the Church wishes to ban such things, not just speak out against them.Many medical ethicists and researchers of all religious (or nonreligious) persuasions have adopted a similar position on philosophical grounds. Such people may be wrong as to those specific issues, but I doubt they could fairly be described as dogmatically opposed to science.

I also question the distinction you seek to draw between wishing to ban such things and merely speaking out against them, particularly when coupled with the implication that the former is somehow unacceptable. When people or groups speak out against a social practice or phenomenon (whether human cloning, handguns, the income tax or what have you), it generally is in the context of a desire to see said practice or phenomenon banned.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[Theological discussion and arguments] ultimately came down to authority (of the Bible or Pope) which then became dogma: not to be questioned less one be anathema.Assuming the truth of the foregoing statement, why do you still insist on collapsing any distinction between Christian theological method and Christian scientific method? The Church has long considered them to be different (though not irreconcilable) areas of inquiry requiring different approaches - both, incidentally, according a role to the development and exercise of human rational faculties.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
US, Britain and Australia, and it's almost 50 percent of the US at that, with another 40 percent believing in the almost as unscientific theory of Theistic Evolution.I'm not sure how you would define the theory of "theistic evolution". If by that you mean evolution within the framework of intelligent design, then as far as I can tell the distinction between "theistic evolution" and plain old "evolution" does not imply any empirical consequences. If the difference between any two theories does not imply any empirical consequences, then it seems correct to say that the theories are scientifically identical, albeit that they may be philosophically distinct. In this connection, I would note that the distinction between biblical creationism and evolution obviously does imply empirical consequences - and those consequences are exactly the same regardless of whether the evolutionary theory in question is theistic or non-theistic.

On this basis, your lumping theistic evolutionists together with believers in biblical creationism - and especially your assertion that theistic evolution is "almost as unscientific" as creationism - is unjustifiable. From a scientific standpoint (the standpoint of observable phenomena), it is more appropriate to group believers in theistic and non-theistic evolution together than it is to group creationists with theistic evolutionists.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That's almost 80-90 percent of the US being non Darwinian for religious reasons, are you saying that this includes no large churches? No Catholics?I have read that a fairly large minority of Catholics (perhaps as much as around 40%) do not fully believe in evolution. However, there is no institutional religious reason for this, because their faith does not require this view. As far as I am aware, the Church has never taught that evolutionary theory was incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Indeed, Catholic schools were not behind secular state schools in adopting the widespread teaching of evolutionary theory (source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm)).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also the Church persecuted for philosophical reasons as well, while Royalty and other authorities merely for political. The former is likely to get more in the way of scientific and philosophical progress then the latter.Although we now know that the extent of such persecution by the Church was never as imposing as has lately been believed, and although the substantial overlap between politics and philosophy should not be downplayed, I can provisionally agree with the first part of this. However, one must bear in mind that many of the persecutions laid at the feet of the Church, and cloaked in religious terms, were in reality caused by the political maneuverings of secular powers over which the Church could exercise very little control except (as in the case of the Spanish Inquisition) to attempt to intervene to mitigate the most oppressive practices.

Also, you certainly haven’t assembled more than a highly circumstantial, speculative and anecdotal case that scientific progress was actually retarded by the Church during this era.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I can likewise though list more purely philosophical examples, where the Church for example refuses to admit to the idea that human beings are products of instincst and enviroment for the belief in a soul based free will, where the Church refuses to admit that the mind is merely a part of the brain for the sake of Cartesian Dualism and where the Church still refuses to aknowledge Darwinism for the sake of more teleological theories of evolution.Fascinating. You yourself acknowledge that these are "purely philosophical" points, yet you then criticize the Church for stubbornly refusing to admit them as though they were empirical matters.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
On Scholastics and Neo-Scholastics:

Well I thought here you were refering to the Middle Ages, Neo-Scholasticism I believe arose in the High Middle Ages …
…
BTW I do mean Neo-Scholastics.This is a minor point, but Scholasticism was the original medieval movement (corresponding to the high Middle Ages). Neo-Scholasticism, as its name suggests, was a late 19th-century revival of interest in, and further development of, Scholastic philosophy:

http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/neoschol.htm

If it was really your intent to bring 19th-century Neo-Scholasticism into the discussion, please make the relevance clearer.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Slippery slope fallacy.Yes, I believe Leif was suggesting that you had fallen prey to this fallacy - to the extent one might reasonably infer from your posts that you think any reservations coming from religious quarters about bioethical matters is precisely the type of meddling that, if unchallenged, will eventually lead to the frustration of scientific progress. However, you haven't really responded to the charge.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I can accept that there the way in which conflicts over spiritual doctrine were approached arguably bears some relevance to the way in which ostensible conflicts over natural science were approached, but this validates neither your general point (that the Church carried an innate hostility toward science) nor your specific observation (that, again, the Church burned and tortured any person that spoke up).


Actually I showed a list of how the church tortured and burned hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even millions in all of history.

I also showed the Church was willing to ban some of the most important scientific literature in history. The Church also threatened Galileo with torture, what makes you think they would threaten Galileo with it and not do it to other scientists?

Secondly I have shown how the Church and science conflict over basic method, which leads to rather large conflict when they both then examine the same claim.

You have identified a total of zero examples of researchers being burned and/or tortured for their scientific conclusions (and if your thesis is correct, one would expect scores, if not hundreds of such instances).

This is because in all likelyhood exact names and descriptions are either not present or not available for public record.

However getting this specific is not necessary for me to establish my case. All I need to show is the Church was willing to burn/kill/torture people for contrary opnions and that they would sometimes persecute scientists(even major scientists).

I have shown both, so its reasonable to assume that the Church did so.

Your premise concerning this matter is wrong, as the Church I imagine harmed many Jews, Protestants and those accused of witchcraft and other heresies, but there are little records of specific names and descriptions of that.




You seem to attribute no significance to the fact that, by the standards of the day, the Church was generally far less inclined to burn and torture people (for any reason) than were other institutions of social authority, although you do not refute it either.

And you have failed to prove this was the case.



As your own follow-up research showed, reports of the extent of such atrocities have been staggeringly exaggerated (including, initially, by you).


Now you make two very different claims and tie them together rather underhandidly.

First yes some people did exagerate the amount of people tortured and killed by the Catholic Church, as they have done with the Nazis and the Soviets, this doesn't change the fact that the Church still did what it did in a harsh way on a massive scale.

Likewise I only made one very minor "exageration" when I stated that the amount of people killed was what was actually the amount of people tortured. Hardly proof of anything.

And even given the above two premises held would your conclusion (the Catholic Church wasn't that bad) even follow?

They still tortured and killed tens or thousands and hundreds of thousands of people(in all of history perhaps millions) for expressing opinions. This doesn't even include all the people who were threatened.

If I understood you correctly, you also have inferred from the fact that the Church was, especially by modern standards, theologically authoritarian that scientists declined en masse to pursue research out of fear of lethal reprisals from Rome.

This is not true. I never said all scientists declined en mass, only some may have and those who did accept a theory had to think twice or beat around the bush. Likely many did not pursue certain lines due to fear of reprisals. Saying it was some sort of major boycott though is very misleading. Scientists if they are committed will try to find a way to work within the system, just like others. Even Stalin's opression did not make scientists stop doing research en masse.



However, you adduce no specific historical confirmation to this effect (and here again, you ought to be able to bring forward numerous instances of this).

Well it's not like they kept extensive records back then of scientists who decided not to pursue certain lines of questioning out of fear. Supposing that is very unrealistic.

Also I do not need to be as specific as you demand. Such an objection can be made at any time(and you are hardly one to ask for specifics on the matter, especially as you just make blanket statements concerning Church philosophy, science and Aristotle's effect) no matter what information is given.

I have shown the general tendencies of the Church, now it is up to you to explain why scientists would be an exception when their opnions differed from the Church's, not mine to "prove my case more."

But I can find some examples, though lists of even promimnent scientists at the time are few:

This includes Ulisse Aldrovandi:

He was charged (along with others from Bologna) with heresy around 1550, but was found innocent upon the election of a new pope.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/aldrvndi.html

Barocius , Franciscus
:

[b] Religion
Affiliation: Catholic

Barozzi was tried by the Inquisition (charge unknown) and found guilty about 1583.

In 1587 there was another charge, this time of apostacy and heresy, from the sentence apparently charges of engaging in occult magical practices.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/barocius.html

Bellini, Lorenzo:



5. Religion
Affiliation: Catholic

Bellini was accused of impiety and atheism well along in his career. For a time he lost the favor of the Grand Duke.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/bellini.html

Borro, Girolamo
:

Religion
Affiliation: Catholic, Heterodox

In 1567 he was implicated in the third heresy trial of Pietro Carnesecchi. In 1582, he again had difficulties with the Roman Inquisition, but was freed through the intercession of Pope Gregory XIII. It seems clear that he held heterodox views, undoubtedly (considering other elements in his career) naturalistic, Aristotelian ones, perhaps reminiscent of Pomponazzi, and that he was saved from their consequences only because he had the protection of the Pope and the Grand Duke.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/borro.html

Bruno, Giordano:

In Germany, Bruno got into difficulties with a Protestant pastor at Helmstedt who excommunicated him.

Soon after he retuned to Italy, he was accused of heresy against the Catholic faith, arrested at Venice on 23 May 1592, and eventually burned in Rome on 17 February 1600.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/bruno.html

Campanella, Tommaso:

In May 1592 (or perhaps 91) he was denounced to the Inquisition for heresy and was confined to the Convent of San Domenico (in Venice). Thus began a long series of imprisonments, trials, tortures, and other punishment that ended only with his release in 1629.

In 1634 the Inquisition discovered yet another plot in Naples by one of Campanella's followers and Campanella was implicated. He fled Rome before he could be arrested.

Perhaps it is wrong to list him as heterodox. Campanella always considered himself a Catholic. Nevertheless, he was in trouble with the Inquisition through virtually his entire life.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/campnela.html




Cardano, Girolamo

5. Religion
Affiliation: Catholic

In 1570 he was imprisoned for a few months by the Inquisition. He was accused of heresy, particularly for having cast the horoscope of Christ and having attrbuted the events of His life to the influence of the stars. He was sentenced to abjuration and agreed to give up teaching.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/cardano.html

I found this interesting tidbit about Galileo:

5. Religion
Affiliation: Catholic

It is known to everyone that Galileo was denounced to the Inquisition in 1615 and that he was tried and condemned by the Inquisition in 1633, living the rest of his life under house arrest. All of this was for Copernicanism, not for any heretical theological views.

For his science, not his theology.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/galilei_gal.html

I found this case interesting as well:

Magni, Valeriano


In 1655 the combative Magni's long-standing feud with the Jesuits, against whom he harbored the deepest suspicions (he had incited Urban VIII, a close friend, against them) led to his being accused of heresy. He was arrested in Vienna at the end of 1655. The emperor's intervention secured his release the following February, whereupon he was sent to Salzburg, where he lived the rest of his life under virtual arrest in a monastery. The opposition of the Jesuits prevented Magni's elevation to the cardinalate.

So it seems as if aristocracy and politicans sometimes saved people from the Church.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/magni.html

Porta, Giambattista della


Religion
Affiliation: Catholic

He was examined by the Inquisition about 1578, and he was forced to disband his Academy dei segreti. In 1592 all further publication of his philosophical works was prohibited. Apparently the ban did not include literary works, but he apparently did need prior permission. This ban was not lifted until 1598.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/porta.html

Sarpi, Paolo:



Sarpi was the subject of frequent charges of heterodoxy. He was accused before the Inquisition no less than three times-- in c. 1575 for questioning the Trinity, again in 1594, and then in 1607.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/sarpi.html













Also then can you show me some specifics about how Aristotle slowed down the ancient world? Can you list some scientists back then who ended research prematurely or were persecuted for questioning Aristotle? Perhaps you can also show me specifically how Aristotle slowed down the Muslim world.

Also you can show specific cases where scientific discoveries directly came from Christian philosophy.





Indeed, this does not seem to have been the case even with Galileo, whose writings (including but not limited to parts of his correspondence with Kepler ) suggest that he was reluctant to publish portions of his research chiefly for fear, not of religious censure, but of professional ridicule from his scientific peers.

I find that questionable as Galileo's peers could not use force to prosecute him while the Inquisition could:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial95/


and did.


ACTUAL COURSE OF EVENTS:



If the accused still refused to abjure and confess, the Inquisitor could use torture. Torture was afflicted upon the accused until such time as he signified a readiness to confess his sin. The most common type of torture was the strappado -- a rope hanging over a pulley attached to the ceiling. The hands of the accused were tied behind his back and attached to the rope. The rope was raised to the ceiling and allowed to fall, thus dislocating the shoulder blades. Torture was not widely reported, but most assuredly happened -- it was the blackest mar the Holy Office ever bore.

When the Inquisitor was pleased with the confession, he pronounced his sentence. This ranged from the accused wearing crosses to going on a pligrimmage, to burning at the stake. Penance of some kind was almost always imposed, and that person wore a stain on their character for the rest of their life. However, it is important to remember the Inquisition was to reform, not condemn or punish. This was welcome by both sides because the accused was not a convicted criminal, although his moral character could be questionable. So concludes the history of the medieval inquisition.


http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial95/inquisition.html


I'm not sure about you but that would make me think twice about promoting a theory contrary to the Church.

Also Galileo was warned by the Church:

Galileo's belief in the Copernican System eventually got him into trouble with the Catholic Church. The Inquisition was a permanent institution in the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresies. A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy. Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories.


http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Bio/narrative_7.html









Many medical ethicists and researchers of all religious (or nonreligious) persuasions have adopted a similar position on philosophical grounds. Such people may be wrong as to those specific issues, but I doubt they could fairly be described as dogmatically opposed to science.

I also question the distinction you seek to draw between wishing to ban such things and merely speaking out against them, particularly when coupled with the implication that the former is somehow unacceptable. When people or groups speak out against a social practice or phenomenon (whether human cloning, handguns, the income tax or what have you), it generally is in the context of a desire to see said practice or phenomenon banned.

Yes and some scientists had legitmate criciticisms of Galileo. This doesn't change the fact that the Church was tryng to interfere with a scientist. So while legitmate problems may be present in the cases of genetic and stem cell research, that doesn't justify the religious attempts to ban it a whit. let alone mitigate it.

Likewise their attempt to interfere with science now via superstitions does have the impact of supporting scientific illteracy. Again such was likely much worse in the past.





.Assuming the truth of the foregoing statement, why do you still insist on collapsing any distinction between Christian theological method and Christian scientific method? The Church has long considered them to be different (though not irreconcilable) areas of inquiry requiring different approaches - both, incidentally, according a role to the development and exercise of human rational faculties.

They tried to separate the two but they could never fully do it for obvious reasons. And in practice the two would often collide.

Also to do this they need to arbitrary end scientific or rational inquiry to a point. This means you just cut off thinking when it makes you uncomfortable, and where do you then draw the line? Throughout Church history is has been drawn and re-drawn.




I'm not sure how you would define the theory of "theistic evolution". If by that you mean evolution within the framework of intelligent design, then as far as I can tell the distinction between "theistic evolution" and plain old "evolution" does not imply any empirical consequences.

Nope, wrong there. Theistic evolution is teleological and guided for supernatural purposes, Darwinism is not. These means we can look for explanations then from purpose or without natural selection or other known mechanisms in place. For example many theistic "evolutionists" think man's intelligence was some sort of miracle.



If the difference between any two theories does not imply any empirical consequences, then it seems correct to say that the theories are scientifically identical, albeit that they may be philosophically distinct. In this connection, I would note that the distinction between biblical creationism and evolution obviously does imply empirical consequences - and those consequences are exactly the same regardless of whether the evolutionary theory in question is theistic or non-theistic.

You are not even sure what theistic evolution is and yet you are already saying this?

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

* Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980)



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#continuum





On this basis, your lumping theistic evolutionists together with believers in biblical creationism - and especially your assertion that theistic evolution is "almost as unscientific" as creationism - is unjustifiable. From a scientific standpoint (the standpoint of observable phenomena), it is more appropriate to group believers in theistic and non-theistic evolution together than it is to group creationists with theistic evolutionists.



They can often times be just as unscientific with assertion pertaining to man's evolution being some sort of miracle.


I think the "not enough time" problem bothers atheists more than it bothers me. I believe that God directs the processes that we call "random", and that He can engineer an unlikely event according to His plan. With God Almighty in charge, the unlikely becomes certain. I would be more comfortable with a theory that includes proper statistical measures, but I do not require it. Atheists require it.


http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

And that is by far one of the tamer accounts of theistic evolution.

Here is the exact belief in the poll:

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

That's 40 percent of Americans. About 47 percent were young-earth creatinists.

About 9 percent were Darwinists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Also:

However, the Roman Catholic church has by no means accepted the concept of Naturalistic Evolution in its entirety:
[bullet] Naturalistic evolution includes the belief that all aspects of humanity evolved from earlier species. This conflicts with the church teaching that each individual's "spiritual soul is directly created by God." Naturalistic evolution concludes that what the church calls human spirit emerged "from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter." The pope regards this as "incompatible with the truth about man...[and] incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person."
[bullet] The church teaches that God created the world and the rest of the universe from nothing. "Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must 'confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing' (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5)." 14
[bullet] Although the church accepts evolution as more than a hypothesis, it does not teach that evolution was driven by purely natural forces. Rather, it teaches that evolution was and is under God's control and guidance.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I especially like their point on Islam:

Islam: At least in the West, some Muslims allow for belief in theistic evolution. Iqbal Hossain, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake said: "If you believe in God and in the Qur'an, you have to believe that everything that was in the universe was created by God. "If there was an evolutionary process, that process was created and put in place by God." However, others totally attack evolution.









I have read that a fairly large minority of Catholics (perhaps as much as around 40%) do not fully believe in evolution.

It seems none of them fully believe in it. BTW its about 47 percent of Catholics who believe in Young-Earth creationism.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/07042.htm



However, there is no institutional religious reason for this, because their faith does not require this view.

To them it does, so is the nature of faith. Are you ready to tell them their faith is wrong? And is this not then faith interfering with science?



As far as I am aware, the Church has never taught that evolutionary theory was incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Indeed, Catholic schools were not behind secular state schools in adopting the widespread teaching of evolutionary theory (source)

The Church never taught otherwise?

The Roman Catholic Church had never formally condemned the theory of evolution. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal encyclical letter Humani Generis which discouraged belief in evolution because it played into the hands of materialists and atheists.


It was also only until 1925 that the creation story was considered symbolic, and not even until 1990 until the Catholic Church formerly embraced theistic evolution. Even the Church of England was ahead of them on that.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm




. Although we now know that the extent of such persecution by the Church was never as imposing as has lately been believed, and although the substantial overlap between politics and philosophy should not be downplayed, I can provisionally agree with the first part of this.

However, one must bear in mind that many of the persecutions laid at the feet of the Church, and cloaked in religious terms, were in reality caused by the political maneuverings of secular powers over which the Church could exercise very little control except (as in the case of the Spanish Inquisition) to attempt to intervene to mitigate the most oppressive practices.


The second part I believe is unproven conspiracy thinking.

In fact I show above, in some cases royalty and government even saved people from the Church.

Also, you certainly haven?t assembled more than a highly circumstantial, speculative and anecdotal case that scientific progress was actually retarded by the Church during this era.

That is what history ultimately is. One will never find absolute proof in such matters because there is none. But I have brought what I consider strong sources, including renown professors, the History of Science Society, encyclopedias(even using the Catholic Encyclopedia) and an atlas concerning genocide and mass murders.

What have you brought? "Commentaries from extremely biased authors, hearsay and speculation on your part."

At least that's what I would say if I decided to play your game and downplay your research. However I aknowledge some of your sources are fairly solid, they are just at odds with more compelling sources and evidence.




You yourself acknowledge that these are "purely philosophical" points, yet you then criticize the Church for stubbornly refusing to admit them as though they were empirical matters.

They are philosophical points that get in the way of science. They are philosophical in the sense that justification is philosophical, not in the sense of having nothing to do with science in effect.






If it was really your intent to bring 19th-century Neo-Scholasticism into the discussion, please make the relevance clearer.

Ok then the Catholic belief in divine stars didn't end until the 19th century, not the high middle ages as I supposed.
Yes, I believe Leif was suggesting that you had fallen prey to this fallacy - to the extent one might reasonably infer from your posts that you think any reservations coming from religious quarters about bioethical matters is precisely the type of meddling that, if unchallenged, will eventually lead to the frustration of scientific progress. However, you haven't really responded to the charge.


This would be true if I had no basis for my extrapolation but I do. It is well known and supported by history that the Catholic Church was stricter back then, would punish people for their opnions and that they had more power then they do now.

It is also known that people back then were more, not less, superstitious and bigoted.

Hence my argument is not a slippery slope for it fits in easily with what we know of history.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is not true. I never said all scientists declined en mass, only some may have and those who did accept a theory had to think twice or beat around the bush. Likely many did not pursue certain lines due to fear of reprisals. Saying it was some sort of major boycott though is very misleading. Scientists if they are committed will try to find a way to work within the system, just like others. Even Stalin's opression did not make scientists stop doing research en masse.Speculating that "some" scientists "may have" been hampered in their research in the past on this basis is not a very strong foundation for some of the conclusions you’ve drawn about religious oppression of science.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But I can find some examples, though lists of even promimnent scientists at the time are few:Aside from Galileo, whose case is especially complicated and which I hope to address more fully in a subsequent post, you've come up with 10 names: Aldrovandi, Barocius, Bellini, Borro, Bruno, Campanella, Cardano, della Porta, Magni and Sarpi.

Let’s consider these 10 cases in order to draw a few salient conclusions (I've relied for the most part on your sources):

70% of these people can clearly be described as scientists.

20% (Borro and Campanella) can only loosely be called scientists; Borro was purely a natural philosopher, while Campanella was only a scientific dilettante whose primarily pseudoscientific and occult interests largely offset his modest interests in astronomy and experimentation.

Although Giordano Bruno did engage in a bit of speculative astronomy from time to time, he was not a scientist but a self-styled Hermetic sorcerer (the biographical page you linked lists his primary "scientific" discipline - indeed, his sole discipline - as “Occult Philosophy”).

80% of the scholars in your examples actually received ecclesiastical patronage and support of their scholarly endeavors, often quite substantial and coming from the highest levels of the Church.

One of the figures, Bellini, does not seem ever to have been charged with heresy. His biographical page says he was accused of impiety and atheism, but since the only result of this appears to have been a damaged reputation (the Inquisition never intervened), one may defensibly presume that these were not formal accusations but merely rhetorical attacks from his personal and political enemies.

Of the remaining 9 figures who were formally investigated on suspicion of heresy:

0% (none) can be shown to have been accused on the basis of their scientific work.

67% were, based on their biographical pages, certainly or almost certainly accused for specific reasons having little or nothing to do with scientific endeavors (e.g. on the basis of theological writings or obviously unscientific occult practices, or as a result of political maneuvering against them).

33%, the remainder (Aldrovandi, Borro and della Porta), were charged on somewhat unclear grounds, but there is nothing to indicate that any of their cases were science-related.

Of the figures who were clearly either charged or condemned (except Barocius, whose sentence was unclear):

37.5% (Aldrovandi, della Porta and Sarpi) suffered no imprisonment.

37.5% spent no more than a few months in prison. I must count Magni among this number because getting shipped off to a monastery after his release cannot fairly be construed as penal imprisonment for a member of a strict religious brotherhood.

Bruno was executed, and Campanella languished in prison for a long time. But although Campanella’s condemnation had little or nothing to do with science, the scientific historian who wrote the Campanella page noted that there is no other known case of a scientist receiving such harsh treatment at the hands of religious authorities (apart from Bruno, whose questionable relevance I have already addressed).

In the course of my career I've occasionally been forced to incorporate some unfavorable fact sets into my arguments, so I can sympathize, but I have to say that these examples of yours are extremely unhelpful to your case. They do not establish a pattern of repression of science, nor do they testify to an extraordinarily severe ecclesiastical penal system. Moreover, they prompt a few inferences that, quite frankly, work against your general thesis.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And you have failed to prove this was the case [that ecclesiastical penal systems were comparatively progressive and that many of the more enlightened features of modern secular criminal justice systems are due to the influence of ecclesiastical systems].I did direct you to evidence in support of this, but you never addressed it either in this thread or in the other one I linked. There's more where that came from, too, if we ever get that far.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Nope, wrong there. Theistic evolution is teleological and guided for supernatural purposes, Darwinism is not. These means we can look for explanations then from purpose or without natural selection or other known mechanisms in place. For example many theistic "evolutionists" think man's intelligence was some sort of miracle.
…
You are not even sure what theistic evolution is and yet you are already saying this?I said I was unsure of what you thought theistic evolution is. Thanks for clearing it up. I’m happy to use the talkorigins.org definition because it squares nicely with some of my earlier observations.

Can theistic evolutionary theory be scientifically (not philosophically, of course) identified with regular Darwinian evolutionary theory? It certainly seems so. Theistic evolutionary theory invokes theology solely as a purpose, or first cause, for the result of evolution by natural selection. The only distinction between theistic evolutionary theory (at least of a certain commonly encountered kind) and non-theistic evolutionary theory is a metaphysical one that obviously can never be refuted scientifically. As I said, that component of the theory dictates no observable consequences that would differ from those predicted under standard Darwinism.

Theistic evolutionary theory makes no unique predictions of its own that can be empirically evaluated. You have vaguely suggested that it does, but what would those predictions be? This is why, as I said, if they are evaluated solely as scientific theories (which obviously excludes consideration of metaphysical issues), theistic and non-theistic evolution are functionally identical; the science of theistic evolutionary theory is fully Darwinian. But your reasons for wanting to group evolutionary theists and creationists together are based on philosophy, not science. Even the creationism-evolution continuum on the talkorigins.org page you linked puts evolutionary theism firmly on the "evolution" end of the spectrum.

Much other material at talkorigins.org supports my conclusion; check out this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

R. J. Berry, professor of genetics at University College, London, says the following:Despite the common misperception, this view [theistic evolution] does not conflict with Darwinism, since evolutionary theory does not pretend to know how life began. Natural-selection biology only seeks to explain how life that already exists evolves into new forms. Though Darwin mused about whether a prehistoric "warm pond" of chemicals struck by lightning started the chain of biology, this was strictly a musing. Natural selection theory makes no claim of explaining the creation of life.

Thus it is perfectly possible to believe in evolution as a principle of biology and simultaneously believe in a creator God. True, some people who accept evolutionary theory use it to argue against faith. But the theory itself doesn't intrude on divine questions; the theory itself says nothing about how life was first formed. Many evolutionary biologists regard the creation of life as a kind of ultimate mystery - much the way many religious believers do.

(Source: R. J. Berry, "Between God and Darwin", Christian Science Monitor (Sept. 1, 1999))Francis Collins, a geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health, confirms this:"I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God. Why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?"

(Source: "Science and God: a warming trend; scientists believe that rational inquiry and spiritual conviction can coexist", Science (Aug. 15, 1997))This seems to me to correspond to theistic evolution. It occurs to me that the fact that you don't perceive or agree with what talkorigins.org and Drs. Berry and Collins are referring to, sheds some light on why you are finding it so difficult to abandon the faulty notion of a general conflict between science and Christianity.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
They [evolutionary theists] can often times be just as unscientific with assertion pertaining to man's evolution being some sort of miracle.As I remarked to someone else in another thread:You are correct that the Church attaches certain conditions to belief in evolution, but … these are doctrinal conditions, not scientific conditions (e.g. evolution should not be construed to establish that souls are not the product of special creation). In other words, they don't contradict anything that evolutionary science has to say.

By the way, I am preparing to address many of the other matters you've raised, so please don't think I've necessarily ignored or dropped them. It's just a question of my available research and writing time.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Speculating that "some" scientists "may have" been hampered in their research in the past on this basis is not a very strong foundation for some of the conclusions you?ve drawn about religious oppression of science.


That is a false dillema i.e. either scientists all declined "en mass" or they were not opressed.

Also the above is not my case, my case is that given what context we can establish (from some examples, the history of Church censorship, the history of the Church executing/imprisoning/torturing people and some modern day extrapolation) the conclusion is reasonable.





Let?s consider these 10 cases in order to draw a few salient conclusions (I've relied for the most part on your sources):

70% of these people can clearly be described as scientists.

20% (Borro and Campanella) can only loosely be called scientists; Borro was purely a natural philosopher, while Campanella was only a scientific dilettante whose primarily pseudoscientific and occult interests largely offset his modest interests in astronomy and experimentation.


On the site(which is about scientists and history) they were called scientists. I'm inclined to take that researchers opinion over yours. Especially seeing as your dismissal looks very superficial.

And yes though many of these scientists were into the Occult, who wasn't? Even the man you claimed was the first scientist was into alchemy and astrology.

Although Giordano Bruno did engage in a bit of speculative astronomy from time to time, he was not a scientist but a self-styled Hermetic sorcerer (the biographical page you linked lists his primary "scientific" discipline - indeed, his sole discipline - as ?Occult Philosophy?)

And from that simple statement you have derrived all the above?


Also I don't think you really know about this matter, as the reason for Bruno's execution remains somewhat controversial.


80% of the scholars in your examples actually received ecclesiastical patronage and support of their scholarly endeavors, often quite substantial and coming from the highest levels of the Church.

Again that is irrelevant as they were still either tried or harassed by the Inquisition.

Stalin likewise paid for most of the research that went on back in the 1930s Soviet Union: does that excuse Stalin's opression?

Lastly I'm somewhat glad you brought this up.

As many of the scientists were supported by their own means, royalty or the government: not the Church or with the Church playing only a partial role.


Aldrovandi, Ulisse


Means of Support
Primary: Academia, Schoolmastering, Government Secondary: Law

For a time in the early 40's, Aldrovandi practiced as a notary (i.e, lawyer) to earn a living. He abandoned law as soon as his economic means permitted.

In 1553 he was admitted to the Collegio dei Dottori of Bologna, a membership entitled him practice medicine (though I have seen no evidence that he did practice) and teach in the university. He was also appointed a teacher of logic and philosophy in the university of Bologna.

He became professor of the history of "simples" in 1556- 7, and received a full professorship in 1561.

Aldrovandi himself mentions lots of private lessons.

I consider the directorship of the botanical garden as a governmental position. He was also the medical examiner (protomedico) of Bologna.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/aldrvndi.html


Barocius , Franciscus



[b] 7. Means of Support
Primary: Personal Means

He lectured on the sphere of Sacrobosco at the University of Padua in 1559. But it is clear that he never held a university appointment and, as an aristocrat, was in fact legally excluded from such.

Barozzi had extensive estates which yielded an income of 4,000 ducats in Candia, and he lived there at least part of his life. His correspondence seems to indicate that he lived in Venice for the most part.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/barocius.html




Bellini, Lorenzo




7. Means of Support
Primary: Academia, Patronage, Medicine

Professor of theoretical medicine at Pisa, 1663-1668.

Professor of anatomy, 1668-1703.

First physician to Duke Cosimo III of Tuscany, ca. 1693- 1704.

As a result of the charges of atheism, Bellini lost favor with Ferdinand II and lost his academic position. He lived for a time on his practice alone. When Cosimo succeeded Ferdinand, he appointed Bellini as his personal physician. And Bellini was even medical consultor to Pope Clement XI.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/bellini.html


Porta, Giambattista della

7. Means of Support
Primary: Personal Means

Secondary: Patronage

Della Porta travelled extensively while he was young through Italy, France, and Spain. When he returned to Naples, he shut himself up in his villa and devoted himself to learning. He left a considerable estate.



Of that Patronage only part was by the Church:

8. Patronage
Types: Aristrocrat, Eccesiastic Official, Court Official

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/porta.html

It is quite clear he could have made that on his own without Church aid.

Of the rest it seems a siezable portion came from both the Church and the government:


Cardano, Girolamo




7. Means of Support
Primary: Medicine, Academia, Patronage Secondary: Schoolmastering

.....

8. Patronage
Types: Eccesiastic Official, Aristrocrat, Government Official


http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/cardano.html

Galileo:



7. Means of Support
Primary: Academia, Patronage, Schoolmastering Secondary: Instruments

.....

8. Patronage
Types: Scientist, Aristrocrat, Eccesiastic Official, Court Official, City Magistrate


And the rest where the Church clearly plays an important role it still only played a partial role.

Sarpi was supported by both the Church and the government, Bruno was also supported by aristocracy and the courts, Borro recived aid from both the Church and the courts, and Campanella recieved aid from the Church, as a school master, and from aristocracy as well as the courts.

Of this only Sarpi would seem to be the one totally dependent on the Church, yet he also recieved support from other sources as well. Hence saying:

80% of the scholars in your examples actually received ecclesiastical patronage and support of their scholarly endeavors, often quite substantial and coming from the highest levels of the Church.


As if the information given even mentioned how much support came from where, or as if these men would have never made it but for the Church is hardly a "salient conclusion." (in logic we call that slanting.)







One of the figures, Bellini, does not seem ever to have been charged with heresy. His biographical page says he was accused of impiety and atheism, but since the only result of this appears to have been a damaged reputation (the Inquisition never intervened), one may defensibly presume that these were not formal accusations but merely rhetorical attacks from his personal and political enemies.

And for them he lost favor with the grand duke. Also when did we say all cases would be limited to the Inquisition? Did you ask for examples of religion interfering with scientists or just the Inquisition doing so?


0% (none) can be shown to have been accused on the basis of their scientific work.

And what were they in trouble for then?

Also 0 percent? Are you sure? Cause I could have swore it said Galileo got in trouble for his Copernican system explicitly.



67% were, based on their biographical pages, certainly or almost certainly accused for specific reasons having little or nothing to do with scientific endeavors (e.g. on the basis of theological writings or obviously unscientific occult practices, or as a result of political maneuvering against them).

Oh so you bemoan my "assumption" that they were in trouble for scientific reasons, then come up with some spurrious reasons of your own.



33%, the remainder (Aldrovandi, Borro and della Porta), were charged on somewhat unclear grounds, but there is nothing to indicate that any of their cases were science-related.

This is a case of again, religion(which would include the Inquisition) interfering with science via interfering with scientists.

To show this all I have to do is bring cases where they harassed or persecuted scientists, not for any stated reason of persecuting scientists.

Now you are digging deep and playing something like a game. Every example I bring is now to be dismissed as "incomplete" and one could do this literally forever.(show me one historical argument or doument that is not in some way incomplete). However at this point, seeing as so many scientists got in trouble, the biggest even being said explicitly to have been in trouble for his science back then, what remains the most parsimonious explanation?

Do we suppose that they were in trouble for science or their inquiries, or do we just suppose the unwarranted and highly speculative claim of "political maneuverings?"

Of the figures who were clearly either charged or condemned (except Barocius, whose sentence was unclear):

37.5% (Aldrovandi, della Porta and Sarpi) suffered no imprisonment.


Did they have to? Also I'm not quite sure I trust your percentages on a fly right now, especially since your "0 percent" was an obviously wrong conclusion. Also what are you saying, about 1 out of 3 escaped? Hardly good odds.

37.5% spent no more than a few months in prison. I must count Magni among this number because getting shipped off to a monastery after his release cannot fairly be construed as penal imprisonment for a member of a strict religious brotherhood.

So house arrest is no longer arrest?

Likewise what do you mean "no more then a few months improsonment". As if that was a good thing.

Bruno was executed, and Campanella languished in prison for a long time. But although Campanella?s condemnation had little or nothing to do with science, the scientific historian who wrote the Campanella page noted that there is no other known case of a scientist receiving such harsh treatment at the hands of religious authorities (apart from Bruno, whose questionable relevance I have already addressed).

That's how one explains away the other 25 percent. They weren't "real scientists". What a coincidence. Also are you really saying there is literally no other case of a scientist recieving such harsh treatment from historians? One must wonder if you really do know this, or if you are just saying this based on speculation from examples that are given(which are just that btw examples, not all scientists ever persecuted by the Inquisition or religious authorities/groups.)


Well there is also:

Vanini, Giulio Cesare


He was accused of atheism. Whatever the truth of this, there seems no doubt that he held radically heterodox opinions. He advanced a naturalistic philosophy according to which the world is eternal and governed by immanent laws. For him all of nature with its immanent laws is what divine providence means. He held that the human soul, which is similar to animal souls is mortal. For these ideas Vanini's book was condemned and three years later, in 1619, known under the pseudonym, Pompeo Uciglio, he was savagely executed in Toulouse.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/vanini.html






In the course of my career I've occasionally been forced to incorporate some unfavorable fact sets into my arguments, so I can sympathize, but I have to say that these examples of yours are extremely unhelpful to your case. They do not establish a pattern of repression of science, nor do they testify to an extraordinarily severe ecclesiastical penal system. Moreover, they prompt a few inferences that, quite frankly, work against your general thesis.

That point you made about your career is irrelevant. The examples I gave have not been refuted nor were they even meant to strongly establish my case.

The reason why is because when dealing with specific examples you can do just that. Unless the Catholic Church for some odd reason kept record of every scientists or natural philsopher executed and/or tortured/imprisoned by them and a crowd throughout history and I was willing to list all 1,000 of such cases with a brief summary on this message board, such would not establish my case. Such would be unreasonable to expect so we have to use different standards. The standards I am hencing using is the argument that the Catholic Church was willing to execute men for holding contrary opinions to that of Church dogma, that Church dogma was many times irrational and unscientific, and that such resulted in the death's/torture of thousands, perhaps in all of history even millions. I have done this.

My examples were made just make things a bit more explicit for you, and I had very much implied this before.

Also you say the cases failed to show how "extraordinarily" severe the penal system was back then, even though people were killed and tortured for their ideas. That to me seems pretty severe.


So far you have not even brought up any facts to say otherwise. All you have done is add some percentages before the name, based on questionable categories and standards of categorization. And put in your own subjective/ad hoc evaluations.

Things like "well he wasn't a real scientist anyways" and "that's the only case where a scientist was treated so badly' and "it was probably more a matter of political maneuvering(with no evidence for this at all)".

Those are not cases of unpleasant fact, but unpleasant fancy.

These are not salient conclusions but arbitrary judgements made to look objective by merely adding a percentage but as Shermer has stated:

5. Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science

Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of science by using scientific language and jargon, as in "creation-science," means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration. Because science has such a powerful mystique in our society, those who wish to gain respectability but do not have evidence try to do an end run around the missing evidence by looking and sounding "scientific." Here is a classic example from a New Age column in the Santa Monica News: "This planet has been slumbering for eons and with the inception of higher energy frequencies is about to awaken in terms of consciousness and spirituality. Masters of limitation and masters of divination use the same creative force to manifest their realities, however, one moves in a downward spiral and the latter moves in an upward spiral, each increasing the resonant vibration inherent in them." How's that again? I have no idea what this means, but it has the language components of a physics experiment: "higher energy frequencies," "downward and upward spirals," and "resonant vibration." Yet these phrases mean nothing because they have no precise and operational definitions. How do you measure a planet's higher energy frequencies or the resonant vibration of masters of divination? For that matter, what is a master of divination?


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm


Just because you add a percentage sign before your statements does not make them any more true, as they are still categorized according to your standards and judgements, which may or may not be accurate or agreeable.










[that ecclesiastical penal systems were comparatively progressive and that many of the more enlightened features of modern secular criminal justice systems are due to the influence of ecclesiastical systems].
I did direct you to evidence in support of this, but you never addressed it either in this thread or in the other one I linked.

Oh yes your link to another forum, on which the only source I could find was "Ecclesia Militans: The Church Militant"

An article taken from a " March, 1998 issue of Catholic Family News".

http://www.geocities.com/militantis/inquisition2.html

Perhaps I can start quoting atheist, humanist or freethought sites?

You have quoted questionable sources before (Including the semi-fundamentalist Baylor) on such issues.

This means to me you are obviously well read on such Christian right-wing sources, and you may find them convincing but I do not. No more then I would find the "World Socialist web". Nor do I think you would believe me if I quoted such an article (which I can easily get from my Marxist friends).



There's more where that came from, too, if we ever get that far.


Sure.

I said I was unsure of what you thought theistic evolution is.

Nothing ambiguous about that....


Can theistic evolutionary theory be scientifically (not philosophically, of course) identified with regular Darwinian evolutionary theory? It certainly seems so.

It can but that sounds more like naturalistic evolution in the relevant polls.



Theistic evolutionary theory invokes theology solely as a purpose, or first cause, for the result of evolution by natural selection.

Not in all cases. Again in the polls that would have been naturalistic evolution.



The only distinction between theistic evolutionary theory (at least of a certain commonly encountered kind) and non-theistic evolutionary theory is a metaphysical one that obviously can never be refuted scientifically.

We have went from "can be equated to Darwinism" to "theistic evolution is" quite suddenly. Your argument is hence invalid.



As I said, that component of the theory dictates no observable consequences that would differ from those predicted under standard Darwinism.

That depends on the theory, the poll which asked if evolution worked purely by natural means or was directed by agency clearly did not mean this.

Theistic evolutionary theory makes no unique predictions of its own that can be empirically evaluated.

Some versions may not, but that hardly justifies the above assertion pertaining to all theistic evolution. Again you make the unwarranted leap from "can be" to "is."



You have vaguely suggested that it does, but what would those predictions be?

That evolution worked in a teleological manner in order to create man, that the first life forms appeard by Gods hand and that evolution is directed by supernatural agency: not natural forces. At least that's what the poll asked.

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.


as opposed to young-earth creationism and:

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I.e. evolution via natural means vs spiritual means. Though I am not sure what it means by "God's part" is i.e. supernaturalist intervention, I have some reasonable guesses.

Notice the above is pertaining to evolution, not the big bang, earth's creation or even abiogenesis. Evolution itself.





This is why, as I said, if they are evaluated solely as scientific theories (which obviously excludes consideration of metaphysical issues), theistic and non-theistic evolution are functionally identical;

Something you have not proven. Please bring me a source that says this. (Again we leap from "can be" to "are" and do a bait a switch between the poll and talk origins, the former of which has a narrower definition).



the science of theistic evolutionary theory is fully Darwinian. But your reasons for wanting to group evolutionary theists and creationists together are based on philosophy, not science.

It's based on both. As undoubtedly they let their religious view get in the way of their philosophical views.



Even the creationism-evolution continuum on the talkorigins.org page you linked puts evolutionary theism firmly on the "evolution" end of the spectrum.

Did I ever say it wasn't "evolution"? I just said it was a less scientific version.


R. J. Berry, professor of genetics at University College, London, says the following:
Despite the common misperception, this view [theistic evolution] does not conflict with Darwinism, since evolutionary theory does not pretend to know how life began. Natural-selection biology only seeks to explain how life that already exists evolves into new forms. Though Darwin mused about whether a prehistoric "warm pond" of chemicals struck by lightning started the chain of biology, this was strictly a musing. Natural selection theory makes no claim of explaining the creation of life.


That's somewhat amusing as it is somewhat of a non sequitur. As theistic evolution is not in the polls concerned merely with abiogenesis.

Likewise what is the man above saying? That we can use darwinisn to explain life but then magically invoke a creator, or that there are no scientific theories of abiogenesis out?

To me then that would be an area where theistic evolution interfered with scientific reasoning. Thus your very claim proved my point.

Francis Collins, a geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health, confirms this:
"I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God. Why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?"


Again very interesting, as merely believing in both God and evolution is not what I(or the poll) meant by theistic evolution. You built a nice straw man though.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


And I am saying that such an assumption is unwarranted, what makes you think they made the relevant technological advances without any scholarly or intellectual? Do you believe they developed their technology by luck or are behaving like mindless robots?


I'm not making that assumption, and I can't really see what I've said to make you believe that I do. There are of course other ways than the scientific method to gain knowledge about the world. Even today we use other methods for gaining knowledge in areas that are not suitably for study by the scientific method. Areas such as history, linguistics or mathematics uses other ways to progress and even in such "hard" fields as metallurgy or chemistry they'll sometimes use systematic trial and error.

However, in the areas where the scientific method is suitable it is superior to all the other methods and it was the development of the scientific method in Europe that caused the skyrocketing technological advance which resulted in the industrial revolution and the modern world.

It's easy to forget that continuous technological progress was not always the order of the day - but for much of history technology, and the understanding of the world, remained generally stagnant. Iron-making was known throughout the ancient world but only in Europe, after the scientific method was developed, did it lead to metallurgy. Chinese alchemy was advanced, but only in Europe, aftsmwd, did alhemy lead to chemistry. The Romans created advanced and sophisticated waterways, had indoor plumbing and public fountains - but only in Europe, aftsmwd, did we get hydrodynamics.

You can of course argue that the scientific method could have been developed anywhere - but the fact is that it didn't. It developed in Europe and only in Europe. At that, it developed in a Europe that culturally and politically was in many ways inferior to other contemporary and bygone cultures.

Was Christianity necessary for the development of the scientific method? No, there's no reason to presume there's anything magical about Christianity that makes it an irreplaceable prerequisite for the scientific method.

Was Christianity integral to the development of the scientific method in the way it actually took place? That's a much more relevant question when we want to consider if religion is slowing us down or not - and it's also a much more relevant question when considering the various claims in this thread that religion has halted progress. As CEO has shown, there are arguments in the favour of the view that Christianity was integral to the development of modern science (i.e. based on the scientific method), and I personally tend to that view. However, the interaction between religion, culture, politics, economy and philosophy is complex and hard to discern, and I do not believe the issue is clear cut in any way. (Which is why your various assertions that Christianity absolutely, definetively and without the shadow of a doubt had no positive impact on the development of science annoys me.)


How are we suppose to measure how advanced a civilization is in science save its technology?


The level of technology and science is connected, and in general the technological level of a society is a fair assessment of it's scientific level. However, science and technology is not the same, and for a fairer assessment of the scientific level in a society you will have to look at its scientific writings.



He has implied that the majority of christians do not adhere to any superstitions opposed to science, especially creationism. And that simply is not true.


I doubt very much that the majority of christians believe in creationism. Can you back up that claim?

Other than that, CEO has been arguing that the christian worldview is not in general opposed to science - something I happen to agree with, and you happen to disagree with. To go from that to claiming that "ceo tries to speak for all christians" is ... Let's just say it's a leap of faith on your side. ;-)




Not always. Sometimes political necessity enters the picture I imagine. As well as catering to the sentiments of the majority.


Even when they decide on the basis of real-politics, it is still theologians who make the decisions about doctrine. To argue that what "some Christians say" matters when discussing theology is like arguing that what "some voters say" matters when discussing foreign policy.


They are generally the majority, I think its more wrong to ignore the Christian layman's opinions.


Ah, but we are not talking about the christian layman's opinion - you were talking about how the christian layman argued. Two different things entirely.



In so far as an issued had to be settled it was welcomed, so long as nobody stepped over the line. But once an issue was settled, that was that.


I disagree with your bold, unsupported statement. This is not my impression of the Christian theological process at all - and although I'll admit I don't have much factual knowledge about it, I strongly suspect that neither do you.

[SNIP]

Christian doctrine and practices are of course based on a certain set of axioms. You might disagree with these axioms (I personally do), but the theology that was developed from these axioms was to a large degree developed through rational thought and reasoned debate.



That makes no sense and you have brought no proof. Are you saying you doubted Jesus divinity and were shown evidence? Or was it a sort of token "doubt"?


Hmm. Seems I spoke too soon on this matter - it seems I was mistaken.

By the way, could you please stop assuming I am a christian just because I don't agree with your view of the religion?


And like I said your analogy is flawed. Science and religion both attempt to describe reality in different manners, sure now at days the religious limit themselves to less wordly claims, sometimes even other dimensions. But such was a recent thing. And not all Christians do this even now at days i.e. Theistic evolution and creationism.


I don't agree that science and religion are both trying to do the same thing. Religion might assume certain truths, but it is not trying to progress the understanding of the world. It's purpose is to give spiritual succor, to be a social glue in a community, save souls, appease the gods to prevent misfortune etcetera.

I also disagree that it's a recent thing that religion "stopped making wordly claims." Christianity, at the very least, has generally adjusted to new knowledge rather than fight it.


Ultimately though they are totally and utterly different methods for describing reality the one of blind faith i.e. belief based on irrational conviction/no evidence and reason i.e. belief based on evidence.


I don't think modern religion is concerned with describing reality at all. Sure, it tries to explain reality, but that's not the same thing.

(Furthermore, with the danger of getting too methaphysical, any belief-system must be based on a set of axiom that's fundamentally unproveable.)



Because it shows one method (accounting) based on reason and evidence, the other is based on faith. Both attempt to deescribe the same reality in a different manner.


*shrugs* I still consider it a cheap rethoric trick - my point was that science and religion do not try to achieve the same thing; so there's no real reason why it would be more apt to make an a comparison of accounting to fortune telling - they're as diverse in what they're trying to achieve as accounting and ship-building is.


How fringe is it?


Fringe enough that creationism isn't an issue.


Also saying "just in the US" is hardly making matters better. Likewise do you think creationism is unpopular in Muslim nations? I doubt it.


It does, however, mean it's not a general Christian trait - so you can't really use it as an argument that Christianity is generally opposed to science. I don't see why wether or not creationism is popular in Muslim nations should matter one iota when discussing if Christianity was impeding science.



Ok here is what the stats say, roughly 90 percent of all people in the US are not Darwinists. Again are you saying that this includes no large churche's? Is that a reasonable conclusion?


I don't agree that people who believe in theistic evolution should be considered "not Darwinists." As far as I know, Darwin himself was christian.

I'm saying that I don't know of any sizeable christian churches besides the Jehova Witnesses whiche are officially opposed to evolution. On the other hand I do know that the largest church, the Catholic, is officially not opposed to evolution - and that most, if not all, large Europeon protestant churches doesn't seem to have a problem with it either. I'm not saying that there isn't any - just that I don't know of them.



They were torturing and killing people for expressing freedom of conscience and for sake of superstition, hardly a lenient group.


Compared to the standard of the time, the church was lenient in its treatment of prisoners. Its tortures were comparatively light, and its trials comparatively fair. They were not lenient by our standards, but then we must measure a progressive force by contemporary standards.



That's very disingenuine, I actually have brought evidence via reasoning and shown many examples. Just because you don't like my conclusions doesn't mean you can simply dismiss my arguments.


You have only supported your assertion with a handful of anecdotes - you have not in any way shown a general trend. That there are instances where the church opposed science is hardly surprising - considering the size of the church and the number of scientists there has been. It would be amazing if there wasn't such incidents. To show that there were such incidents do nothing to prove your assertion - they are on their own merely anecdotal.


That's spurrious as one sometimes needs to apply the technology to research it.


I'm afaraid that being a scienticst or conducting science does not give you an ethical carte blanche. Ethical standards are as necessary in science as they are anywhere else in society. I'll spare you the Dr. Mengele example, but there are many cases of scientific experiments that should not have been conducted because they were unethical.

Some people believe that scientific experiments using stem cells are unethical and should not be conducted and wether you like it or not, those people have as much right to try and influence the ethical standards in society - and in science - as you do.


Oh yes of course as long as they are unethical. And how does the Church decide this? Divine revelation and faith.


So? It still doesn't follow that the church is anti-scientific if it opposes a particular scientific practice.


And is this not an example of the faithful impeding science for sake of questionable beliefs?


No. It is an example of the church trying to stop a particular practice, which has some scientific uses. It is not an example of the church being anti-scientific.

It's not like it's only the church that's opposed to using stem cells, you know.


Look at your above comment concerning stem cell research.


In which ways have the church's opposition to abortion impeded technological or scientific progress?


Only if we presume a fetus has a soul, which is Church's main argument. Is that then not a religious conviction the Church is trying to impose on everyone else?


I wasn't saying that abortion equals murder. I was saying that your argument that the church's view on abortion has "interferred with science and is therefore anti-scientific" is identical to claiming that "the church's view on murder has interferred with science and is therefore anti-scientific."



Slippery slope fallacy.


Not at all. Your argument was that some ethical standpoints were inherently anti-scientific, merely because adherence to them could interfere with scientific research. I'm saying that you haven't given any reason why a particular ethical standpoints should be considered anti-scientific.

The only thing separating the ethical standpoints you consider anti-scientific from any other ethical standpoint, seem to be that they are held by the church. Separating on that, though, is begging the question. "The church is anti-scientific because it holds anti-scientific ethical standpoints which are anti-scientific because they are held by the church."


Total red herring. This fails to answer my argument which is based on inference.


Not at all. You were implying that the church "must" have been impeding scientific progress more when it had a stronger position in societey than today. I merely tried to point out that if you wanted to make that argument, you had to support it with historical data.



I've already gone over this and must likewise question the ridiculous analogy between GE research/application and slavery.


I wasn't making an analogy between slavery and genetic engineering. I was using the slavery and cotton farming as an example of the difference between being opposed to a particular practice of a phenomena and being opposed to the phenomena itself.


It follows from basic reasoning and induction. Are you saying the Church was just as strict or perhaps less strict and/or less powerful then it is today?


Your hypothesis might follow from basic reasoning and induction. However, this is not mathematics - and you need to support it with actual data to show that it is correct.


Yes and that's the problem. Their entire rationale is based purely on faith with no other merit whatsoever. And this faith based conclusion is interfering with science.


That's your position yes. In my opinion, however, it is not correct.


That's like if a group of New Agers wanted to cancel NASA for fear of angering the Galactic Spirit.


However, unless you can show that they've actually managed to cancel NASA, you have no grounds to claim that they have impeded science.



Not by means of coercion but it shows how behind science the Church is. DO you think things were better or worse in the 11th century? In the 16th century?


I don't understand your argument here at all. Nobody has argued that we haven't progressed. That's the only thing we've all agreed on.


Again you can only deny my argument at this point by denying the most obvious implications.

What is your argument at this point?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And from that simple statement you have derrived all the above [about Giordano Bruno]?No. I said I relied only "for the most part" on your sources. In Bruno's case I actually referred to the sole book in the bibliography in the Bruno page you cited: Frances A. Yates' Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also I don't think you really know about this matter, as the reason for Bruno's execution remains somewhat controversial.No, I don't think so. Yates' book, which is widely regarded as the authoritative work on Bruno's life, pretty clearly indicates that Bruno was condemned for a heretical theology he had constructed and which was not based on any scientific propositions.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Lastly I'm somewhat glad you brought this up.

As many of the scientists were supported by their own means, royalty or the government: not the Church or with the Church playing only a partial role.I did not say the contrary. My observation stands, and you misunderstand it if you think my point was to show that all of these scholars could not have done their work without material support from the Church (although some possibly could not have). The fact is that the Church remained an active patron of the sciences during the Renaissance. It really doesn't advance your argument, or detract from mine, for you go to such lengths to establish that these scientists had access to other means of support.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And for them [Bellini] lost favor with the grand duke. Also when did we say all cases would be limited to the Inquisition? Did you ask for examples of religion interfering with scientists or just the Inquisition doing so?Well, the specific context was your contention that the Church tortured and killed scientists who "spoke up". How you hope to pin the blame for Bellini's misfortunes on organized religion is beyond me. If you feel the need to make such a case, though, you are grasping at straws at this point.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And what were they in trouble for then?

Also 0 percent? Are you sure? Cause I could have swore it said Galileo got in trouble for his Copernican system explicitly.That's a bit disingenuous, as I expressly excluded Galileo from the scope of my statement. I promise we'll take up Galileo's case separately in the near future. Meanwhile, consult your own sources:

- Aldrovandi’s charge is not clear, but there’s no suggestion it was science-related.
- Barocius got in trouble for occult magical practices.
- Borro's charge is not clear; it seems to be linked to his unorthodox philosophical views and there's no suggestion it was science-related.
- Bruno (and I base this on the source cited by your source) got in trouble for heretical theology.
- Campanella, it is strongly suggested, got in trouble for his writings about the Church and the Spanish monarchy; what finally landed him in jail is described as a "political conspiracy".
- Cardano got in trouble for trying to apply astrology to Catholic theological matters.
- Magni got in trouble as a result of a political feud with other clergymen; his few scientific activities are not mentioned in this connection.
- Della Porta appears to have gotten in trouble for his philosophical writings (his specialty, remember, being occult philosophy) and the esoteric circle he founded to pursue such ideas.
- Sarpi got in trouble in his capacity as the religious advisor to Venice, for siding with the city in a power struggle against the papacy and counseling Venice to defy papal orders.

That's all the people my statement was based on. If you do the math I think you'll find that, as I said, "0% (none) can be shown to have been accused on the basis of their scientific work."
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Oh so you bemoan my "assumption" that they were in trouble for scientific reasons, then come up with some spurrious reasons of your own.Your assumption was obviously wrong, unless the reasons cited in your sources are spurious (and even if they are, your assumption was still unfounded).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is a case of again, religion(which would include the Inquisition) interfering with science via interfering with scientists.

To show this all I have to do is bring cases where they harassed or persecuted scientists, not for any stated reason of persecuting scientists.You keep moving the goalposts. Now you intend to stake your claim that the Church opposed science on the mere fact that the set "members of the general population who ran into trouble with the Church for non-scientific reasons" includes a subset "scientists who ran into trouble with the Church for non-scientific reasons"? Good luck.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Now you are digging deep and playing something like a game. Every example I bring is now to be dismissed as "incomplete" and one could do this literally forever.(show me one historical argument or doument that is not in some way incomplete). However at this point, seeing as so many scientists got in trouble, the biggest even being said explicitly to have been in trouble for his science back then, what remains the most parsimonious explanation?

Do we suppose that they were in trouble for science or their inquiries, or do we just suppose the unwarranted and highly speculative claim of "political maneuverings?"First, what "so many scientists got in trouble"? Were scientists singled out? Second, has it occurred to you that the reason you're having difficulties coming up with solid examples might not be solely the incompleteness of historical investigation, but at least partly because the phenomenon you're looking for did not occur with the frequency you suppose (which, at this stage, is the most parsimonious explanation)? Third, I propose that, for the moment, we suppose that those people were in trouble for the reasons I summarized above, because those reasons are the only ones reflected in the sources.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Did they have to? Also I'm not quite sure I trust your percentages on a fly right now, especially since your "0 percent" was an obviously wrong conclusion. Also what are you saying, about 1 out of 3 escaped [imprisonment]? Hardly good odds.Those are far better odds than one would expect from an oppressive system supposedly dedicated to eradicating anyone who speaks out. I hesitate to extrapolate too much from those figures, of course, but for what it's worth, that is roughly in the neighborhood of the corresponding modern rate in U.S. trials for imprisonable offenses. The offenses are different, obviously, but that's a separate matter.

Remember that you suggested that the Inquisition struck fear into the hearts of scientists, and I'm examining whether there was much basis for that.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So house arrest is no longer arrest?I merely thought that there was a difference between Magni, a monk, being packed off by his superiors to a monastery, and a court sentencing you or I to detention in a prison. Members of monastic religious orders, especially in Magni's day, could expect to live much of their lives under conditions that most non-monks would consider to resemble house arrest, and I strongly suspect that what your source described as virtual house arrest in a monastery was not that different from the experience of the other monks in the monastery. Still, even if we put Magni in the category of long-term prison inmates, it does not make your examples any more probative of, or relevant to, your arguments here. Accordingly, I'll concede your point if you feel strongly about it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Likewise what do you mean "no more then a few months improsonment". As if that was a good thing. It's not a good thing, but it's a far cry from indiscriminate burning and killing.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That's how one explains away the other 25 percent. They weren't "real scientists". What a coincidence. Also are you really saying there is literally no other case of a scientist recieving such harsh treatment from historians? One must wonder if you really do know this, or if you are just saying this based on speculation from examples that are given(which are just that btw examples, not all scientists ever persecuted by the Inquisition or religious authorities/groups.)As it happens, I didn't make that claim. I simply noted that your own source made a remark to that effect in his piece on Campanella.

Anyhow, we can consider these people scientists arguendo if you want to, although it’s a mystery to me why you would want to focus on people who had very few scientific activities, when you could be focusing on people who had substantial scientific activities that would at least give the Church something to target if it wanted to. If you stick to the latter category, your argument will have much more force.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well there is also:

Vanini, Giulio CesareI see that Vanini got in trouble (fatally) for heterodox theological assertions that formed part of a speculative heretical philosophy he’d created.

Whatever else can be learned from these examples, they are at least consistent with a point I made much earlier: the Church certainly tried to enforce conformity to its doctrines, but the disputes were nearly always over theology - not between science and theology.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The reason why is because when dealing with specific examples you can do just that. Unless the Catholic Church for some odd reason kept record of every scientists or natural philsopher executed and/or tortured/imprisoned by them and a crowd throughout history and I was willing to list all 1,000 of such cases with a brief summary on this message board, such would not establish my case. Such would be unreasonable to expect so we have to use different standards. The standards I am hencing using is the argument that the Catholic Church was willing to execute men for holding contrary opinions to that of Church dogma, that Church dogma was many times irrational and unscientific, and that such resulted in the death's/torture of thousands, perhaps in all of history even millions. I have done this.Still, the Church kept good records by the standards of the time, and it would have been interesting to read about, say, even a half-dozen serious cases in which conflicts arose because scientific propositions actually conflicted with theological propositions.

Church dogma may have been unscientific, but generally only in the sense that it dealt with non-scientific subjects. It cannot be shown to be intrinsically hostile to science (although I won't say that no religion’s dogma is).

But what do you think your argument has succeeded in showing, besides the fact that religious institutions are no exception to the rule that powerful organizations tend to stifle dissent by all feasible means, unless that temptation is checked in some way?

Again, sociologist/historian Stark (same work as before):Heretical theologies directly threaten the authority of those in control of religious organizations and institutions in a way that science seldom does. Thus even as they pursued heresy, the Spanish Inquisitors paid virtually no attention to science per se. In his remarkable recent study [The Spanish Inquisition (1997)], Henry Kamen [University of Chicago professor of history] reported: "Scientific books written by Catholics tended to circulate freely. The 1583 Quiroga Index had a negligible impact on the accessibility of scientific works[.]"
…
Insofar as the suppression of science is concerned, the bloodiest incidents have been recent and have had nothing to do with religion. It was the Nazi Party, not the German Evangelical Church, that tried to eradicate "Jewish" physics, and it was the Communist party, not the Russian Orthodox Church, that destroyed "bourgeois" genetics and left many other fields of Soviet science in disarray. No one has been prompted by these examples to propose an inherent incompatibility between politics and science. … It is, rather, that autocrats do not tolerate disagreement.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also you say the cases failed to show how "extraordinarily" severe the penal system was back then, even though people were killed and tortured for their ideas. That to me seems pretty severe.This was not an era of fully modern-style intellectual freedom anywhere. People were being killed, imprisoned and tortured far more vigorously by civil governments (and often for their ideas - there were no civilly guaranteed rights to free expression), so this does not furnish a basis to distinguish religious power from secular influence. The Renaissance ecclesiastical penal system was not severe by the general penal standards of its day.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
These are not salient conclusions but arbitrary judgements made to look objective by merely adding a percentage but as Shermer has stated:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm

Just because you add a percentage sign before your statements does not make them any more true, as they are still categorized according to your standards and judgements, which may or may not be accurate or agreeable.I did not apply any arbitrary criteria. Moreover, my modest attempt at simplifying the presentation for you is not at all the sort of thing Shermer was talking about.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Oh yes your link to another forum, on which the only source I could find was "Ecclesia Militans: The Church Militant"

An article taken from a " March, 1998 issue of Catholic Family News".

http://www.geocities.com/militantis/inquisition2.html

Perhaps I can start quoting atheist, humanist or freethought sites?First of all, that was not the only source I gave. Second, as for the online article, I could have directed you to the non-online scholarly sources referenced in the article but since I'd found something handy online that happened to include bibliographical quotations to several of those same sources, I figured you'd prefer that. Next time I'll just provide cites to the paper books. I'll get back to you.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You have quoted questionable sources before (Including the semi-fundamentalist Baylor) on such issues.Good grief, I can’t believe you’ve raised that. I quoted an article by a distinguished colleague, not affiliated with Baylor, that was published in the Baylor Law Review. The author's credentials, and the good scholarly reputation of the Baylor Law Review, were not in question. You didn't know what you were talking about then, and you still don't.

Gotta run.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I merely thought that there was a difference between Magni, a monk, being packed off by his superiors to a monastery, and a court sentencing you or I to detention in a prison.


A modern parallell might be a military officer that's "given a post at McMurdo" after a transgression.

[ceo_esq]

DM,

I promised I would eventually address the Galileo affair as part of my argument.

Unquestionably, Galileo was unfairly treated by the religious authorities who supervised his case. He should never have been condemned on suspicion of heresy (though, somewhat ambiguously, he was never found guilty of actual heresy), and before long it became apparent that even by the ecclesiastical-juridical standards of his day, his conviction was improper. Although thankfully Galileo was never tortured, sentenced to prison or executed, his career, work and reputation suffered considerably for no justifiable reason.

My interest is in considering why this happened, and what it says about the relationship between religion (specifically, in this case, 17th-century Catholicism) and the scientific enterprise.

To put the matter in historical (and scientific) perspective requires us to go back to Copernicus. Copernicus, a Catholic clergyman, wrote De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a work of mathematical astronomy in which he set forth what has become known as the Copernican system. He proposed a model of the solar system with the sun in the center, circled by the known planets. (Apart from this, just about all of the details of Copernicus’ model are factually wrong.)

Copernicus actually finished work on De revolutionibus some years before its eventual publication in 1543. He was in his late 60s before he eventually yielded to the entreaties of two senior Church figures, Cardinal Schömberg and Bishop Tiedemann Giese, to give up the manuscript so that it could be published. Copernicus was so concerned about the ridicule and critiques that his work would encounter from his scientific peers that he sought and obtained the permission of Pope Paul III to dedicate De revolutionibus to him, hoping that this papal "seal of approval" might help deflect criticism from mathematicians and natural philosophers. Copernicus noted at the same time that he was not worried about any attacks based on religious objections.

For the next 73 years, a period covering ten papacies, the Copernican heliocentric theory was widely circulated and studied in Europe without ever provoking Catholic religious controversy (if there had been, it would have been surprising and hypocritical, since De revolutionibus, as I mentioned, was published under the auspices of the Church). There were numerous Protestant religious attacks on Copernicanism during this time, however, including from Martin Luther personally. There were also many critiques from scientists as Copernicus had predicted; indeed, the empirical evidence (parallax shifts in stellar positions) required to confirm the correct portions of Copernican theory would not become available until well after Galileo.

Years later, as Galileo discussed with Kepler (in the correspondence I linked earlier) his reservations about publishing work that incorporated, among other things, certain of Copernicus' ideas, he mentioned fear of scientific ridicule but not fear of religious reprisal by the Church. DM, you said earlier that you found this "questionable" because "Galileo's peers could not use force to prosecute him while the Inquisition could" (it was not clear whether you were questioning the fact that Galileo had expressed only fear of professional disparagement, or simply questioning Galileo’s judgment in not worrying about religious persecution).

It seems to me perfectly reasonable, however, that Galileo should have felt this way. Why? On the one hand, Galileo had every reason to fear the attacks of other scientists, because the empirical support for his theories was shaky, and this is exactly what happened to Copernicus under similar circumstances. On the other hand, Galileo had no obvious historical reason to fear the censure of the Inquisition, because Copernicus never ran into trouble with the Church, and the Copernican hypothesis had peacefully coexisted in close association with Catholicism for many decades. In any event, despite your attempts to locate a precedent, it seems that the Church did not make a habit of persecuting people for their scientific beliefs, so how could Galileo have foreseen that the Inquisition would eventually become involved?

Viewed against this historical background, it is possible to draw one of two conclusions about Galileo's problems with the Church. As I've pointed out, while the Church certainly sought sometimes forcibly to suppress dissent from its doctrines, as a rule such conflicts were theological in nature rather than arising from a conflict between scientific propositions and theological propositions. So the Galileo affair constitutes either (1) an exception to the rule (i.e. it brought religion into direct conflict with science) or (2) a confirmation of the rule (i.e. it was really about theological matters all along rather than physical, scientific matters). Which is it? Even if it's the first possibility, then Galileo's case by its very nature as an exception does not evidence a historical animosity between the Church and science, much less an a priori irreconcilability between religion and science. However, I think the evidence favors, even if only slightly, the second possibility: Galileo got in trouble for his theology, not his science.

English historian of science John Hedley Brooke, in his 1991 book Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (part of the excellent Cambridge History of Science series) argues that Galileo's troubles arose from espousing at least three different propositions that, ironically, advocated the mutual relevance of science and theology. Brooke makes clear that although the propositions referred to the scientific enterprise in an abstract way, they were theological propositions rather than scientific ones:First, instead of being content to rest his case on the distinction between commonsense [(biblical metaphorical)] language and scientific language, [Galileo] insisted that certainties in science, having been once established, should be regarded as aids in biblical exegesis. And not merely aids, but the "most appropriate aids". The wise [theological] expositor, in short, had to be one such as Galileo[.] …

[The second difficulty was Galileo's argument that it was the sacred duty of theologians to show that demonstrated physical truths (which Galileo's planetary theories were not, since he did not possess the technology to confirm them empirically) did not contradict Scripture.]

The third respect in which Galileo's theologizing backfired arose from his taking that office upon himself. Not content to rest his case on the prudence with which the Holy Spirit had left astronomy out of the scriptures, he proceeded to show that the miracle of Joshua's long day made more sense if the text was read from a Copernican standpoint. Joshua's command to the sun to stand still was best understood, according to Galileo, as a command to halt the sun’s rotation on its axis - a rotation in which Galileo took special interest since it was required by his interpretation of the sunspots. Because the sun's rotation drove the planets around, the whole system would have come to a gentle halt for the duration of the miracle. By contrast, the sun could not have stopped, on the Ptolemaic interpretation, without violating the interconnected motions of the spheres.

Galileo's argument reflects neither an ultimate separation of science from religion nor the use of science to impugn the miraculous. The reference in Joshua 10:13 to the sun standing still "in the midst of the heavens" was surely more consonant, Galileo suggested, with the Copernican system than with a geocentric system? His point was that, even if physical propositions were a matter of faith … the Copernican system would have the edge [over competing astronomers' theories]. It was a clever but risky move … to tie a biblical text, even conjecturally, to a particular scientific theory[.]Professor Brooke notes later that while Galileo was under ban, he received unambiguous assurances from the Church that he was free to discuss Copernican or other systems so long as his arguments remained on the level of mathematical astronomy.

Professor Stephen Shapin agrees that the first "difficulty" identified by Brooke was a major reason for Galileo's troubles with the Inquisition; namely, Galileo's insistence "on at least the equal status of natural philosophers as experts on interpreting divinely inspired texts" rather than strictly his advocacy of Copernicanism. (Stephen Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996).)

Professor Stark comments:The primary issue was Church [theological] authority, and as the Counter-Reformation proceeded, the limits of orthodox theology were defined far more narrowly than they had been. However, most Church leaders, including the pope, were not ready to condemn science and propose an unflinching orthodoxy. Rather, they proposed ways for scientists to sidestep theological conflict. For example, Friar Marin Mersenne (http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/periodictable/html/Mn.html) advised his network of correspondents that God was free to place the earth anywhere he liked, and it was the duty of scientists to find out where he had put it. Other influential Catholics … noted that there were no theological objections to proposing hypothetical or mathematical conclusions.

In this spirit, the pope [as Brooke also notes] reassured Galileo that he had nothing to fear as long as he made it clear that he spoke as a mathemetician, not a theologian. …

However, when he published his famous [I]Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems (in 1632), Galileo … put [a few of Pope Urban’s words] in the mouth of Simplicio, the dullard who voiced all the "errors," the correction of which was the main thrust of the book. Moreover, he deceived the pope about when the book would appear, so that it came out unexpectedly, touching off a storm of controversy that required response. Understandably, the pope [who had been an ardent admirer and supporter of Galileo’s astronomical work since before Galileo had dedicated the Assayer to him in 1623] felt betrayed. But Galileo seems never to have understood this and was inclined to blame all his troubles on the Jesuits (who probably played no important role, despite his insults) and on true believers in Aristotle, especially professors (who had also suffered as a group from Galileo’s acidic humor). Despite all this, the pope did thwart efforts to impose more serious consequences on Galileo.Professor Stark goes on to observe that the scandal caused by Galileo did indeed help to stimulate a general, albeit temporary, crackdown on intellectual freedom by the Church, but that by that point Stark says it was far too late to undo the Church's essential contributions to the rise of science.

At any rate, one may well argue that whatever injustice to Galileo's scientific legacy may indirectly have flowed from his conflict with the Church was remedied in 1741 when, as I noted earlier, the Church sponsored the first-ever compilation of Galileo's collected works.

EDITED TO ADD:

Albeit rooted in theological matters, the Galileo affair unfortunately resulted in the Church overreaching in its "turf war" with Galileo. Particularly in terms of the remedial measures imposed, the affair resulted in a historically un-Christian theological encroachment on the scientific domain (just as Galileo's position represented a historically un-scientific encroachment on the religious domain). To the extent this occurred, John Hedley Brooke calls it a "tragic ... aberration" (emphasis mine). According to Brooke, "[o]ne can lose a sense of perspective if the condemnation of Galileo is taken to epitomize the attitude of Catholic authorities toward the natural sciences."

[DialecticMaterialist]

No. I said I relied only "for the most part" on your sources. In Bruno's case I actually referred to the sole book in the bibliography in the Bruno page you cited: Frances A. Yates' Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.

I thought you said you were relying on my sources not the above. Also am I simply supposed to trust this hearsay? You have exagerated and slanted such claims many times before so I'm sorry if I seem skeptical.



No, I don't think so. Yates' book, which is widely regarded as the authoritative work on Bruno's life, pretty clearly indicates that Bruno was condemned for a heretical theology he had constructed and which was not based on any scientific propositions.

Actually the Galileo Project says:

It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings.


http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/People/bruno.html

So obviously not all scholars agree with you.

You have a habit of exagerating on these matters. You find one or two scholars who support your positions and it turns into "all scholars believe" or "this matter is not disputed" or "generally all agree."

An example of this is with Jared Diamond, when you said all scholars agree that Church is the reason science rose in the west. You said all scholars basically agreed with you, I showed you a major scholar that did not and of course you just shrugged him off.

Another example is when you stated virtually all scholars agreed with you on the matter of Christianity being the basis of common law, I showed a list of almost a dozen that said "no". This was simply dismissed of course as "coming from an American's United for the Separation of Church and state" and hence biased. (Nevermind you likewise have quoted biased Christian and Catholic information groups/person's time and again.)


This displays two well known errors in reasoning:

18. Hasty Generalization

In logic, the hasty generalization is a form of improper induction. In life, it is called prejudice. In either case, conclusions are drawn before the facts warrant it. Perhaps because our brains evolved to be constantly on the lookout for connections between events and causes, this fallacy is one of the most common of all. A couple of bad teachers mean a bad school. A few bad cars mean that brand of automobile is unreliable. A handful of members of a group are used to judge the entire group. In science, we must carefully gather as much information as possible before announcing our conclusions.




You find a hnadful of scholars(usually Christian and far-right ones) that agree with your position and it soon becomes "all scholars" or virtually all scholars".

and:

11. Failures Are Rationalized

In science, the value of negative findings -- failures -- cannot be overemphasized. Usually they are not wanted, and often they are not published. But most of the time failures are how we get closer to truth. Honest scientists will readily admit their errors, but all scientists are kept in line by the fact that their fellow scientists will publicize any attempt to fudge. Not pseudoscientists. They ignore or rationalize failures, especially when exposed. If they are actually caught cheating -- not a frequent occurrence -- they claim that their powers usually work but not always, so when pressured to perform on television or in a laboratory, they sometimes resort to cheating. If they simply fail to perform, they have ready any number of creative explanations: too many controls in an experiment cause negative results; the powers do not work in the presence of skeptics; the powers do not work in the presence of electrical equipment; the powers come and go, and this is one of those times they went. Finally, they claim that if skeptics cannot explain everything, then there must be something paranormal; they fall back on the unexplained is not inexplicable fallacy


When shown that some scholars or facts disagree with your position, the discrepency is rationalized. They are shrugged off or dismissed for making imagined errors. i.e. "Diamond doesn't confront the issue of cultural influence".

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm


I did not say the contrary. My observation stands, and you misunderstand it if you think my point was to show that all of these scholars could not have done their work without material support from the Church (although some possibly could not have). The fact is that the Church remained an active patron of the sciences during the Renaissance. It really doesn't advance your argument, or detract from mine, for you go to such lengths to establish that these scientists had access to other means of support.

No it detracts from yours as you implied the Church was almost the sole financier and supporter of scientific research, hence it is "the reason" science arose in Europe. This has been shown as patently false, as science was funded and supported by multuple sources.


This leaves all your argument then hinging on the idea of "philosophical support" or some sort of unwarranted estimate of the Church providing a great deal. Both of which represent weak arguments as either such philosophical statements are pure conjecture(and at odds with the fact that other societies were ahead of Europe in developing science for many years) and specific enough information isn't around to support the latter claim.



Well, the specific context was your contention that the Church tortured and killed scientists who "spoke up". How you hope to pin the blame for Bellini's misfortunes on organized religion is beyond me. If you feel the need to make such a case, though, you are grasping at straws at this point.

I have given you examples, the above blanket claim really does not apply without at least some support for the assertions. The very question is whether organized religion got in the way of science, showing that the church threatened, opressed, imprisoned, tortured and even tortured some scientists for their viewpoints i.e. "speaking up" confirms this.

quote:


That's a bit disingenuous, as I expressly excluded Galileo from the scope of my statement. I promise we'll take up Galileo's case separately in the near future.

No you didn't actually.



Meanwhile, consult your own sources:

- Aldrovandi’s charge is not clear, but there’s no suggestion it was science-related.
- Barocius got in trouble for occult magical practices.
- Borro's charge is not clear; it seems to be linked to his unorthodox philosophical views and there's no suggestion it was science-related.
- Bruno (and I base this on the source cited by your source) got in trouble for heretical theology.
- Campanella, it is strongly suggested, got in trouble for his writings about the Church and the Spanish monarchy; what finally landed him in jail is described as a "political conspiracy".
- Cardano got in trouble for trying to apply astrology to Catholic theological matters.
- Magni got in trouble as a result of a political feud with other clergymen; his few scientific activities are not mentioned in this connection.
- Della Porta appears to have gotten in trouble for his philosophical writings (his specialty, remember, being occult philosophy) and the esoteric circle he founded to pursue such ideas.
- Sarpi got in trouble in his capacity as the religious advisor to Venice, for siding with the city in a power struggle against the papacy and counseling Venice to defy papal orders.

That's all the people my statement was based on. If you do the math I think you'll find that, as I said, "0% (none) can be shown to have been accused on the basis of their scientific work.


There is Galileo and some of the other people are plausible. You should be certain or have some definite support for your assertion before you declare flat out that "0%" got in trouble for scientific assertions.

Also I did give another example.

Likewise does the Catholic Church have to say explicitly with its charges "we are punishing you for speaking up or for your science" before it can be presumed that it interfered with scientists?

When Stalin persecuted scientists, or when a fundamentalist regime in the Middle East does, they never declare flat out "you are in trouble for conducting science in a way we do not like." They give a rationale based on political and philosophical reasons, but the effect is always the same and that is what's important: whether they were persecuting scientists for their opinions or not. Because persecuting people merely for their opinions ultimately gets in the way of science and in itself includes much of science that would question Church dogma.

Your assumption was obviously wrong, unless the reasons cited in your sources are spurious (and even if they are, your assumption was still unfounded).

I believe you made an error in your above assertion. Not trying to imply you are wrong of course, but how can making spurrious assertions cause me to avoid being wrong?

Likewise I don't think it's sound or in any way valid to simply dismiss my argument as "obviously wrong."



You keep moving the goalposts. Now you intend to stake your claim that the Church opposed science on the mere fact that the set "members of the general population who ran into trouble with the Church for non-scientific reasons" includes a subset "scientists who ran into trouble with the Church for non-scientific reasons"? Good luck.

I'm not moving the goal post, I'm just rejecting your unreasonable standards of evidence from the onset, and this includes allowing for a certain amount of inference and concentrating on the effects of Church policy.

Of course the Church isn't going to say directly "We don't like that science." They are going to make ad hoc arguments.



First, what "so many scientists got in trouble"? Were scientists singled out?

Obviously not, but do they have to be?



Second, has it occurred to you that the reason you're having difficulties coming up with solid examples might not be solely the incompleteness of historical investigation, but at least partly because the phenomenon you're looking for did not occur with the frequency you suppose (which, at this stage, is the most parsimonious explanation)?

I have given some examples and shown enough concerning Church policy at the time for a reasonable inference.


Third, I propose that, for the moment, we suppose that those people were in trouble for the reasons I summarized above, because those reasons are the only ones reflected in the sources.

Some of the reasons put above are pretty much just assumed without any supporting evidence or based on one or two examples. I'm sorry but I will simply suppose that every scientist or even most were either targets of or engaged in purely political maneuverings.

Those are far better odds than one would expect from an oppressive system supposedly dedicated to eradicating anyone who speaks out.

So do you have an overview of opressive systems then? A basis for this comparison?


I hesitate to extrapolate too much from those figures, of course, but for what it's worth, that is roughly in the neighborhood of the corresponding modern rate in U.S. trials for imprisonable offenses. The offenses are different, obviously, but that's a separate matter.

That is an extraordinary claim and it will take more then a few percentages attached to the front of an evaluation to support this. Are you seriously suggesting that the modern day US legal system is as bad as the Catholic Church of the medieval ages?

I have to ask because if I had accused you of saying that I'm sure people would have dismissed such as a straw man, and I do not wish to attacl a straw man.

Remember that you suggested that the Inquisition struck fear into the hearts of scientists, and I'm examining whether there was much basis for that.

Galileo refused to publish his book and express opinions under house arrest for reasons of this fear: it was real. Had I seen others burned and tortured for expressing what the Church believed to be "heterodox" opinions I would be afraid of disagreeing with the Church on any matter, scientific or not.

I merely thought that there was a difference between Magni, a monk, being packed off by his superiors to a monastery, and a court sentencing you or I to detention in a prison. Members of monastic religious orders, especially in Magni's day, could expect to live much of their lives under conditions that most non-monks would consider to resemble house arrest, and I strongly suspect that what your source described as virtual house arrest in a monastery was not that different from the experience of the other monks in the monastery.

True there is a difference in this matter, but it is still imprisonment. And it was a punishment.



even if we put Magni
in the category of long-term prison inmates, it does not make your examples any more probative of, or relevant to, your arguments here. Accordingly, I'll concede your point if you feel strongly about it.

It does as it shows the Church punishing a scientist for expressing his opinions when they are contrary to the Church.

Let me ask you did the Church punish people for expressing contrary opinions? And if so, do you believe they made exceptions for scientists? Is there any evidence that the Church made exceptions for scientists when they had evidence?


I didn't make that claim. I simply noted that your own source made a remark to that effect in his piece on Campanella.

Where? The man was dug up from a list of scientists of those ages, its rather strange then that my source would put in nonscientists.

Anyhow, we can consider these people scientists arguendo if you want to, although it’s a mystery to me why you would want to focus on people who had very few scientific activities, when you could be focusing on people who had substantial scientific activities that would at least give the Church something to target if it wanted to. If you stick to the latter category, your argument will have much more force.

Well not all scientists are of course major scientists and I think this is especially true of back then. Hence expecting them all to be Galileo's or Kepler's is a bit unrealistic.


I see that Vanini got in trouble (fatally) for heterodox theological assertions that formed part of a speculative heretical philosophy he’d created.Whatever else can be learned from these examples, they are at least consistent with a point I made much earlier: the Church certainly tried to enforce conformity to its doctrines, but the disputes were nearly always over theology - not between science and theology.

This is very, very disingenuous as my example was made to answer your point about no other scientist being treated as badly as Bruno. I gave one, and then you change the subject as if my example was used to prove something different. Please don't play bait and switch, its very irritating.

Secondly this does show a conflict between science and theology as scientists are being executed for their opinions or for disagreeing with theology. The inference is very valid and very slight, and one can only avoid it by means of putting forth great effort to avoid the obvious.

Again the Church of course will never say "We don't like science" but by persecuting scientists for their opinions the effect is the same as if they had.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Still, the Church kept good records by the standards of the time, and it would have been interesting to read about, say, even a half-dozen serious cases in which conflicts arose because scientific propositions actually conflicted with theological propositions.


"At the time" is a key word here(one that is also not supported by any evidence coming from you.)



Church dogma may have been unscientific, but generally only in the sense that it dealt with non-scientific subjects. It cannot be shown to be intrinsically hostile to science (although I won't say that no religion’s dogma is).


Are you saying the Church never made claims which conflicted with science? The Galileo affair says differently, the Church's position on illness says differently, as does the Church's view on the origin of life and human history.

I'm not saying the Church delcares outright that it is hostile to science, you have knocked that straw man over enough. I am saying it has method which lead to conflict.


But what do you think your argument has succeeded in showing, besides the fact that religious institutions are no exception to the rule that powerful organizations tend to stifle dissent by all feasible means, unless that temptation is checked in some way?

That the Church, repressed opinions contrary to its dogma and this included scientific discovery and impeded scientific thinking.


Again, sociologist/historian Stark (same work as before):
[quote]
Heretical theologies directly threaten the authority of those in control of religious organizations and institutions in a way that science seldom does. Thus even as they pursued heresy, the Spanish Inquisitors paid virtually no attention to science per se. In his remarkable recent study [The Spanish Inquisition (1997)], Henry Kamen [University of Chicago professor of history] reported: "Scientific books written by Catholics tended to circulate freely. The 1583 Quiroga Index had a negligible impact on the accessibility of scientific works[.]"

The above is simply not true, and both the History for Science society, the Galileo Project and many of my own sources have already refuted this. Please stop quoting your own pet sociologist whom we know little about on this matter. (I notice you do this a lot and it seems questionable: stick to one scholar ad naseum. Most likely because he is perhaps the only one that agrees with you, along with one or two others.)




Insofar as the suppression of science is concerned, the bloodiest incidents have been recent and have had nothing to do with religion. It was the Nazi Party, not the German Evangelical Church, that tried to eradicate "Jewish" physics, and it was the Communist party, not the Russian Orthodox Church, that destroyed "bourgeois" genetics and left many other fields of Soviet science in disarray. No one has been prompted by these examples to propose an inherent incompatibility between politics and science. … It is, rather, that autocrats do not tolerate disagreement.


Yes I have heard this all before. And it is frankly wrong. Suprression of science is nothing new, and it did not just explode in the twentieth century. It's interesting to note however CEO that using your own reasoning the above examples can be dismissed: Hitler persecuted on the basis of race "not science", Stalin for political purposes "not just science."


Also the above forgets to mention how the Russian Orthodox Church greatly interfered when Peter the Great brought scientific innovations and technology to Russia.

Also the above attacks a straw man, how was the Russian Orthodox Church going to attack the science of genetics when it wasn't even proposed?


It seems your view of history is backwards, scientific liberty became more not less free as time progressed. The evidence shows this quite clearly, while you just assume the contrary based on an overreliance on (questionable) authority.






This was not an era of fully modern-style intellectual freedom anywhere. People were being killed, imprisoned and tortured far more vigorously by civil governments (and often for their ideas - there were no civilly guaranteed rights to free expression), so this does not furnish a basis to distinguish religious power from secular influence.

Evidence and relevance for the above? 0 percent.

Also the Church again persecuted for different reasons then civil governments, reasons more relevant to science.




I did not apply any arbitrary criteria. Moreover, my modest attempt at simplifying the presentation for you is not at all the sort of thing Shermer was talking about.

You did apply your own personal arbitrary criteria and how the heck do you know what Shermer was talking about? He was bringing up a principle not a specific case. Your statement on the matter of what "Shermer is talking about" is likewise arbitrary.



Oh yes, for lack of other sources its back to hearsay and proof surrogate. And a couple scholars equalling "all scholars."

[quote]

Good grief, I can’t believe you’ve raised that. I quoted an article by a distinguished colleague, not affiliated with Baylor, that was published in the Baylor Law Review. The author's credentials, and the good scholarly reputation of the Baylor Law Review, were not in question. You didn't know what you were talking about then, and you still don't.

It is in question as far as I'm concerned as the University has sent out trash before, and even considered bringing in creationism. Baylor has also been accused many times of dubious business practices and even racism. Making the LawReview questionable.

Also what kind of article would Baylor put in its review? One that spoke ill of religion? Do you really think a University that almost introduced creationism itself would be objective on such matters?

Sorry but testimony is almost always a matter of trust, and I don't trust Baylor. Please find a more objective source, and an overview or society if you plan on saying "the vast majority of scholars say agree."

[DialecticMaterialist]

DM,

I promised I would eventually address the Galileo affair as part of my argument.

Unquestionably, Galileo was unfairly treated by the religious authorities who supervised his case. He should never have been condemned on suspicion of heresy (though, somewhat ambiguously, he was never found guilty of actual heresy), and before long it became apparent that even by the ecclesiastical-juridical standards of his day, his conviction was improper. Although thankfully Galileo was never tortured, sentenced to prison or executed, his career, work and reputation suffered considerably for no justifiable reason.

My interest is in considering why this happened, and what it says about the relationship between religion (specifically, in this case, 17th-century Catholicism) and the scientific enterprise.

To put the matter in historical (and scientific) perspective requires us to go back to Copernicus. Copernicus, a Catholic clergyman, wrote De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a work of mathematical astronomy in which he set forth what has become known as the Copernican system. He proposed a model of the solar system with the sun in the center, circled by the known planets. (Apart from this, just about all of the details of Copernicus’ model are factually wrong.)


Stop right here, do you have any evidence that the vast majority of what Copernicus claimed was wrong? "Just about all the details" as you put it? Or were just a few of the details wrong?

Also do you mean by knowledge back then or now at days?

Copernicus actually finished work on De revolutionibus some years before its eventual publication in 1543. He was in his late 60s before he eventually yielded to the entreaties of two senior Church figures, Cardinal Schömberg and Bishop Tiedemann Giese, to give up the manuscript so that it could be published. Copernicus was so concerned about the ridicule and critiques that his work would encounter from his scientific peers that he sought and obtained the permission of Pope Paul III to dedicate De revolutionibus to him, hoping that this papal "seal of approval" might help deflect criticism from mathematicians and natural philosophers.

So he was only concerned with other natural philosophers and scientists and asked the Church to save him? Why does this account sound incredible? That religion never conflicted with his science?

Especially with so little evidence....

Some facts also suggest otherwise:


There was another problem. A stationary Sun and moving Earth also clashed with many biblical passages. Protestants and Catholics alike often dismissed heliocentrism on these grounds. Martin Luther did so in one of his "table talks" in 1539, before De Revolutionibus had appeared. (Preliminary sketches had circulated in manuscript form.) In the long run, Protestants, who had some freedom to interpret the bible personally, accepted heliocentrism somewhat more quickly. Catholics, especially in Spain and Italy, had to be more cautious in the religious climate of the Counter Reformation*, as the case of Galileo clearly demonstrates. Christoph Clavius, the leading Jesuit mathematician from about 1570 to his death in 1612, used biblical arguments against heliocentrism in his astronomical textbook.











Copernicus noted at the same time that he was not worried about any attacks based on religious objections.

I really doubt this. Show me where this is proven. Of course Copernicus would likely not insult the Church, (for obvious reasons) but that does not mean he did not fear an authority that had tortured and killed dissentors in the past.


For the next 73 years, a period covering ten papacies, the Copernican heliocentric theory was widely circulated and studied in Europe without ever provoking Catholic religious controversy (if there had been, it would have been surprising and hypocritical, since De revolutionibus, as I mentioned, was published under the auspices of the Church).

The system was not given trouble as long as it was proposed as an unproven mathematical hypothesis, officially, though it still faced religious backlash.

There were numerous Protestant religious attacks on Copernicanism during this time, however, including from Martin Luther personally. There were also many critiques from scientists as Copernicus had predicted; indeed, the empirical evidence (parallax shifts in stellar positions) required to confirm the correct portions of Copernican theory would not become available until well after Galileo.

Actually Protestants accepted the Copernican system sooner then Catholics.

Years later, as Galileo discussed with Kepler (in the correspondence I linked earlier) his reservations about publishing work that incorporated, among other things, certain of Copernicus' ideas, he mentioned fear of scientific ridicule but not fear of religious reprisal by the Church. DM, you said earlier that you found this "questionable" because "Galileo's peers could not use force to prosecute him while the Inquisition could" (it was not clear whether you were questioning the fact that Galileo had expressed only fear of professional disparagement, or simply questioning Galileo’s judgment in not worrying about religious persecution).

Well first off its unlikely he would wish to provoke the Church more then necessary and would therefore not write ill of it. Secondly, my argument does stand as a more probable interpretation.

You really have no evidence that scientists and astronomers engaged in amssive fearful fits of ridicule at the time, however there is evidence the Church did torture, kill and imprison people. Who would you then be more afraid of?

Also I did give a source that suggested fear of the Inquisition.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable, however, that Galileo should have felt this way. Why? On the one hand, Galileo had every reason to fear the attacks of other scientists, because the empirical support for his theories was shaky, and this is exactly what happened to Copernicus under similar circumstances.


His empirical support was not shaky, it was right. He did get a few details wrong, as we know from modern science. But overall his theory was much better supported by evidence then the Ptolemic.

Galileo's theories wereactuallt the best supported by evidence of the day, including the telescope.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Astronomy96/

It was based largely on expiriments, observations and parsimony:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial95/

Most importantly you seem to forget most astronomy back then was based on Aristotelian physics, something you dismissed in non-empirical or even harmful to empiricism. Strange now that you seem to imply such beliefs were better grounded in observation then Galileo's.


On the other hand, Galileo had no obvious historical reason to fear the censure of the Inquisition, because Copernicus never ran into trouble with the Church, and the Copernican hypothesis had peacefully coexisted in close association with Catholicism for many decades.


Imteresting nevermind this fact:

Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Bio/narrative_7.html




In any event, despite your attempts to locate a precedent, it seems that the Church did not make a habit of persecuting people for their scientific beliefs, so how could Galileo have foreseen that the Inquisition would eventually become involved?

The warning may have tipped him off....

Viewed against this historical background, it is possible to draw one of two conclusions about Galileo's problems with the Church. As I've pointed out, while the Church certainly sought sometimes forcibly to suppress dissent from its doctrines, as a rule such conflicts were theological in nature rather than arising from a conflict between scientific propositions and theological propositions.

A proposition you have not proven. You have merely shown that more people were punished for theological reasons then scientific, not that scientists were exempted and only those who dissented on purely theological were punished.


So the Galileo affair constitutes either (1) an exception to the rule (i.e. it brought religion into direct conflict with science) or (2) a confirmation of the rule (i.e. it was really about theological matters all along rather than physical, scientific matters).

Or maybe we should put the false dillema aside and go with option 3) It confirms the rule that the Church was willing to persecute people for their scientific beliefs. Again this would be an example of you rationalizing failures then, find a contrary fact? A scientist persecuted by the Church for his beliefs?

Then that must somehow conform to your thesis, not have your thesis change or create a problem with it. Such must be an exception or prove the rule. Of course it must....



Which is it?

Both/neither/either. ;)



Even if it's the first possibility, then Galileo's case by its very nature as an exception does not evidence a historical animosity between the Church and science, much less an a priori irreconcilability between religion and science.

Not by itself, it at most can represent a famous example, though it does show the Church was willing to persecute scientists on matters of science.



However, I think the evidence favors, even if only slightly, the second possibility: Galileo got in trouble for his theology, not his science.

I already showed you a statement from the Galielo Project that says the contrary.

It is known to everyone that Galileo was denounced to the Inquisition in 1615 and that he was tried and condemned by the Inquisition in 1633, living the rest of his life under house arrest. All of this was for Copernicanism, not for any heretical theological views.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Catalog/Files/galilei_gal.html


I'm not sure how you could have missed it.



The rest of your evidence I will ignore as proof surrogate and hearsay. Such may only be the minority viewpoint of two scholars, one of which by now is obviously favorable to religion.

Likewise seeing the context of such a dispute is difficult and so far we only have your word and your own excerpt.





Albeit rooted in theological matters, the Galileo affair unfortunately resulted in the Church overreaching in its "turf war" with Galileo. Particularly in terms of the remedial measures imposed, the affair resulted in a historically un-Christian theological encroachment on the scientific domain

This is interesting. When the Church engages in a practice that is harmful to science, it does not speak ill of Christianity or religion but shows the practice was "Unchristian".

I suppose then Stalin's practices or China's do not show a failing with Marxism but show the state's were "UnMarxist."

This is known as the "No True Scotsman fallacy".

And is very questionable as I do not believe you are the one that is the authority on what Christian is, and it ignores the fact that religion is composed partially of its traditions and practices.



(just as Galileo's position represented a historically un-scientific encroachment on the religious domain).

Not really, he may have made some theological assertions but such is hardly "unscientific". I'm not saying its science but to say its at odds with science is unwarranted.


Also I have sources that maintain the contrary and are available online.

On one hand it is unfair to merely view the tension between Galileo and the Catholic Church as a struggle between science and religion. On the other hand, it may be naive to blame secular scientists for the mistrial of Galileo and to de-emphasize the religious elements in this academic debate. Whitehead (1926) noted that "whatever suggests a cosmology, suggests a religion." (p. 141) No matter whether a cosmology is built upon astronomy, physics, mathematics, or speculation, it must carry certain assumptions relating to the inner structure of reality. Thus, the inquiry of cosmology inevitably steps into the realms of philosophy and religion. Besides the heliocentric worldview, which appears to contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, Galileo's science contains certain elements that threaten the established theology of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the trial of Galileo could be viewed as a battle of old theology and new theology, as well as old science and new science.

Three major aspects of Catholic theology were challenged by Galileo's cosmology. First, the notions that Heaven and God are unalterable and that the universe is governed by static order were shaken by Galileo's unification between celestial and terrestrial mechanics. Second, mathematical reasoning, which plays a central role in Galileo's methodology, was in sharp contrast to divine revelation as the source of truth and the Church as the authority of judgment. Third, the importance of humans, which was affirmed by the geocentric worldview, was diminished by the heliocentric cosmology. The objectives of this article are to explain the first two of Galileo's notions and to discuss their implications to other disciplines.



http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/education/hps/galileo.html

There is something to be said for the view that the Church was not altogether antagonistic to the development of science, at least when it developed models but did lay claim to describe reality. On the other hand,it clearly set out to control developments in theology, philosophy and science. We have already looked at the Church's attitude to teaching at the University of Paris in the thirteenth century. Was that the only instance, apart from its interaction with Galileo of interference? No, here are a few examples:

Roger Bacon (1214-1294), who argued for the application of mathematics in science and is thought to have discovered the principle of the telescope, is an example. In 1257 (after already writing and lecturing at Oxford) he entered the Franciscan order and was forbidden to lecture or write on science. Pope Clement, who seems to be have been sympathetic to him, asked to see his writings, but Clement died in 1268, and in 1278 Bacon's opinions were condemned and in 1280 he was imprisoned for life..

Ockam is another example. This is relevant to the development of science, because, as has already been argued, Ockam's philosophy contributed to a kind of empiricism, to criticism of Aristotle, and to an an accommodation between the Church and Science. However, Ockam did not have an altogether an easy ride.

in 1323 Ockam was required by his order (the Franciscans) to attend a chapter at Bristol where his views were criticised. In the aftermath, someone made an accusation to the Papal Court in Avignon, and Ockam was required to go to Avignon,
from 1324-1328, Ockam was in Avignon, some say under house arrest,
the result was not an official condemnation, but there was some criticism
meanwhile, the Franciscans themselves were in difficulties with the Pope over a theological matter, because they held that the Apostles were beggars who did not own property, and the Pope disagreed with this,
consequently, the head of the Franciscan Order asked Ockam to give an opinion on the Pope's views and Ockam accused the Pope of heresy and declared that he was therefore no longer Pope (also he fled, together with the head of his order and others, from Avignon to join the court of the Holy Roman Emperor which was in dispute with the Papacy and he remained under its protection,
the Pope excommunicated Ockam,
from then on Ockam wrote on political matters until his death.

Yet another example is, Nicholas of Autrecourt, sometimes thought of as the medieval Hume, who held Hume-like views on induction, and was also an atomist. In 1340-48, proceedings against him were carried through at the Papal Court, and then consequently at the University of Paris. 66 propositions were condemned as false, dangerous or heretical, and writings of his were burned. He recanted.


Thus, it can be seen that a variety of figures who were instrumental in scientific, and/or philosophical developments associated with science, faced action from the Church, albeit not always directly because of their views in science/philosophy of science. It is misleading to claim that Galileo, or even Galilelo, together with the banning of teaching at Pairis and Toulouse, were isolated cases of interference. Nevertheless, science did progress.


http://www.dundee.ac.uk/philosophy/young/lec4.htm

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I thought you said you were relying on my sources not the above. Also am I simply supposed to trust this hearsay? You have exagerated and slanted such claims many times before so I'm sorry if I seem skeptical. What I said, precisely, was "Let's consider these 10 cases in order to draw a few salient conclusions (I've relied for the most part on your sources)”. There wasn't enough information in your source on Bruno to draw a conclusion. Is it any surprise that I followed your source's advice (it was his bibliography, after all) and looked up the Yates book?

I am careful not to exaggerate or slant claims, DialecticMaterialist, probably because I give you more intellectual credit than you give me. If you think I misrepresent my sources (and again, this particular one is not my source so much as it is your source’s source), then go ahead and challenge me. But do it on the basis of having looked at the work in question. That's why people write bibliographies.

Incidentally, why is it objectionable when I base something on the Yates book, and not when one of your sources bases something on the same book?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You have a habit of exagerating on these matters. You find one or two scholars who support your positions and it turns into "all scholars believe" or "this matter is not disputed" or "generally all agree."

An example of this is with Jared Diamond, when you said all scholars agree that Church is the reason science rose in the west. You said all scholars basically agreed with you, I showed you a major scholar that did not and of course you just shrugged him off. Kindly refrain from mischaracterizing what I've actually said here. I never said that all scholars agree that the Church is the real reason science arose in the West (although I think there is good scholarly support for the position that Christianity was instrumental to such rise). The closest I came to it (and it's still a far cry from your strawman) was my quotation of the following claim by Stark: "Of course, these millennia of technological and intellectual progress were vital to the eventual development of science, but it is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe."

That claim says nothing about the reasons why science arose in Europe. And so far as I can tell, Jared Diamond agrees with this point of view - after all, wasn't his book an explanation of why science had trouble developing in China? The claim about scholarly agreement there was Stark's, not mine; yet my readings in the history of science have not yet given me reason to doubt that the general consensus to which he refers actually exists.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Another example is when you stated virtually all scholars agreed with you on the matter of Christianity being the basis of common law, I showed a list of almost a dozen that said "no". This was simply dismissed of course as "coming from an American's United for the Separation of Church and state" and hence biased. Obviously I based my assessment there on a survey of the scholarly literature in the field, plus published judicial opinions. It turned out that those scholars were presenting their arguments not in a scholarly forum, but in an amicus brief (I’m still trying to find a copy of it). The same arguments, curiously, do not turn up in the academic legal literature, so I hope I can be excused for not noticing them.

Also, I seem to recall that you asserted that a friend-of-the-court brief (which any lawyer can submit) was generally as reliable a source as a peer-reviewed professional journal. No wonder your instincts are way off when it comes to weighing the credibility of sources.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This displays two well known errors in reasoning: I've noticed your fondness for pointing out ostensible "well known errors in reasoning". Most of the time, the errors you evoke are not really present in the argumentation. You seem to have a theoretical grasp of such fallacies, but difficulty recognizing them in practice.

For example, you've characterized the claim that "most scholars agree that the Church is the real reason science arose in the West" as a hasty generalization. I agree that it would be one. However, it turns out to be a claim that I never made.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No it detracts from yours as you implied the Church was almost the sole financier and supporter of scientific research, hence it is "the reason" science arose in Europe. This has been shown as patently false, as science was funded and supported by multuple sources. I never suggested that the Church was always almost the sole financier and supporter of scientific inquiry. By the middle to late Renaissance, there were certainly other public and private sources of patronage, although the Church certainly remained active in this area.

Now, I did repeat David Lindberg’s observation that for a significant portion of Western history the Church was "one of the major patrons - perhaps the major patron - of scientific learning". David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992) (emphasis in original). Lindberg, as it happens, was speaking of a period that preceded the Renaissance.

That's been the extent of my claims in this area. Your additional inferences were unjustified.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No you didn't actually [exclude Galileo from the scope of your "0%" statement]. I think you'll find that I did, and the relevant passage is the following:Aside from Galileo, whose case is especially complicated and which I hope to address more fully in a subsequent post, you've come up with 10 names: Aldrovandi, Barocius, Bellini, Borro, Bruno, Campanella, Cardano, della Porta, Magni and Sarpi.

Let’s consider these 10 cases in order to draw a few salient conclusions[.]It was obvious that the 10 cases I based my figure on excluded Galileo; I said so at the time.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You should be certain or have some definite support for your assertion before you declare flat out that "0%" got in trouble for scientific assertions. I said that none of the 10 referenced individuals can be shown (based on your sources) to have gotten in trouble for reasons of science. That statement is absolutely true.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I believe you made an error in your above assertion. Not trying to imply you are wrong of course, but how can making spurrious assertions cause me to avoid being wrong? Okay, that was a little ambiguous. Let me clarify: your assumption (that those folks got in trouble for scientific reasons) is wrong if the reasons cited in your sources (which I summarized earlier, and none of which were science-related) are the correct ones. If the reasons in your sources were spurious, then perhaps the true reasons were science-related - in which case your assumption might coincidentally be correct. However, even in that case, your assumption would still not be a warranted assumption, since you have no grounds to suspect that the reasons listed are not the true ones.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Of course the Church isn't going to say directly "We don't like that science." They are going to make ad hoc arguments. Why can't the Church say it directly about science? It’s extremely direct about what it likes and doesn’t like in plenty of other areas.

Of course the federal government isn't going to say directly "We want to hand over control of the United States to the UN." They'll do it through ad hoc policies. But those policies will seem far more consequential if I'm interpreting them to fit into an overall scenario the truth of which I've already assumed. I suspect you are engaging in a similar kind of question-begging.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Some of the reasons put above are pretty much just assumed without any supporting evidence or based on one or two examples. I'm sorry but I will simply suppose that every scientist or even most were either targets of or engaged in purely political maneuverings. The reasons I set forth above are based directly on statements in your sources. It's not a question of supporting evidence. The only assumption I've made is that, where your source offered a reason for the person's investigation or condemnation, it was correct. Can you identify any ones I got wrong?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That is an extraordinary claim and it will take more then a few percentages attached to the front of an evaluation to support this. Are you seriously suggesting that the modern day US legal system is as bad as the Catholic Church of the medieval ages?

I have to ask because if I had accused you of saying that I'm sure people would have dismissed such as a straw man, and I do not wish to attacl a straw man. All I'm suggesting, DM, is that I’d estimate that if you are the subject of a felony prosecution in most U.S. states, you stand something in the vicinity of a one-in-three chance, on average, of escaping punishment (conviction rates can vary widely according to the specific crime). I am surprised the claim strikes you as an extraordinary one. In some countries (such as Japan, reportedly), you wouldn't stand much better than a one-in-ten chance of escaping punishment under the same circumstances.

Why did I mention this? Simply because you suggested that a one-in-three chance of escaping punishment at trial constituted poor odds. I offer no opinion as to this, but I meant to point out that it's a highly subjective judgment.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Let me ask you did the Church punish people for expressing contrary opinions? And if so, do you believe they made exceptions for scientists? Is there any evidence that the Church made exceptions for scientists when they had evidence? 1. Yes.
2. No, although when the opinions in question are non-scientific ones, why would it matter whether someone was a scientist or not? It's an irrelevant categorization.
3. Not that I'm aware of, but doesn't that merely suggest a science-neutral approach to combating heresy?

The argument seems to have gone from establishing whether the Church specifically disfavored scientists to establishing whether it failed specifically to favor them.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Where? The man was dug up from a list of scientists of those ages, its rather strange then that my source would put in nonscientists. The claim I was referring to by your source was not that Campanella was not a scientist, but that his harsh sentence was extremely rare:I do not know how to categorize the long imprisonment, and on the whole I am simply ignoring it since there is no other similar case. (Alas, Bruno.)
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is very, very disingenuous as my example was made to answer your point about no other scientist being treated as badly as Bruno. I gave one, and then you change the subject as if my example was used to prove something different. Please don't play bait and switch, its very irritating. I apologize; I thought you were offering that as support for a different claim - one I actually made. Now I realize you meant to refute the claim I just quoted above. However, I didn't personally advance that claim, I simply noted that your source made a comment to that effect when discussing Campanella's punishment.

In fact, I don't know why he made that remark about Bruno and Campanella. Statistical probability would suggest that the thousands of people who were executed or imprisoned by the Inquisition over time did actually include a few more scientists than the cases we've considered. Of course, until shown otherwise, I have no reason to believe that the same pattern did not hold true: the victims were likely punished for reasons that had nothing to do with a conflict between science and religion.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Secondly this does show a conflict between science and theology as scientists are being executed for their opinions or for disagreeing with theology. The inference is very valid and very slight, and one can only avoid it by means of putting forth great effort to avoid the obvious.

Again the Church of course will never say "We don't like science" but by persecuting scientists for their opinions the effect is the same as if they had. Scientists being persecuted for their non-scientific opinions, the same way non-scientists were, does not demonstrate a conflict between science and theology (and even if it did, I assume you agree that it wouldn't reveal an a priori conflict).

As I view it, the current version of your argument goes something like this:

- The Church persecutes people.
- Some people are scientists.
- Therefore, the Church persecutes scientists.

The conclusion is formally correct, but it does not really tell us anything about the Church's attitude toward science. You could replace "scientists" with "left-handed people" in this argument and learn just as much (or little, rather) about how the Church feels about that issue. Indeed, you could replace "scientists" with "anti-science advocates" or "creationists" and draw the same conclusion, equally useless in practical terms.

Unless you can show that the censured conduct is distinctively linked to scientific investigation or ideas, then you have no reason to single out scientists as a discrete group for purposes of this analysis.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Are you saying the Church never made claims which conflicted with science? The Galileo affair says differently, the Church's position on illness says differently, as does the Church's view on the origin of life and human history. I think that the Church virtually never made dogmatic claims that conflicted with scientifically demonstrated truths about the natural world. The Galileo affair comes closest, but still no cigar in my view. So far as I am aware, the Church never took a formal position on the causes of illness; it certainly was not a doctrinal claim or an article of the faith, just a common misconception of the time. The Church's doctrine on the origin of life does not conflict, to my knowledge, with any scientific claim.

By "conflict", I mean two claims that cannot rationally both be true, which I take to be the commonly understood sense.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I really doubt this. Show me where this is proven. Of course Copernicus would likely not insult the Church, (for obvious reasons) but that does not mean he did not fear an authority that had tortured and killed dissentors in the past.

You do realise that one doesn't generally "prove" things in historical discussions, right? History is not a hard science. A better question would be to ask what his foundation or sources were for that statement.

While not directly about the reaction of the church, I think the following is relevant. From http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Copernicus.html Underlining added by me.


Copernicus's cosmology placed a motionless sun not at the centre of the universe, but close to the centre, and also involved giving several distinct motions to the Earth. The problem that Copernicus faced was that he assumed all motion was circular so, like Ptolemy, was forced into using epicycles (see for example [78]). It was consequently considered implausible by the most of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers until the middle of the seventeenth century. In the intended Preface of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium Copernicus showed that he was fully aware of the criticisms that his work would attract:-

Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded.

To so easily dismiss arguments against his works based on the scripture (even if the passage is clearly directed at his peers and not the Church), does not sound like the voice of a man who's worried about being dragged in front of an inquisitional hearing and "tortured and killed" as a dissenter.

(Edited to fix a problem with italics.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

It is in question as far as I'm concerned as the University has sent out trash before, and even considered bringing in creationism. Baylor has also been accused many times of dubious business practices and even racism. Making the LawReview questionable.

Also what kind of article would Baylor put in its review? One that spoke ill of religion? Do you really think a University that almost introduced creationism itself would be objective on such matters?

Sorry but testimony is almost always a matter of trust, and I don't trust Baylor. Please find a more objective source, and an overview or society if you plan on saying "the vast majority of scholars say agree."

This is well-poisoning if I ever saw it. Academic publications published by universities are, as a rule, not underlaid editorial control from the university's administration. This is necessary to ensure academic integrity. A quick internet search would further reveal that the Baylor Law Review's editorial board consists exclusively of students, and in other words no members of the administration at all.

You are painting with a far too wide brush if you wish to taint every publication at Baylor university with actions and statements from the administration. Unless you have a particular complaint about the Baylor Law Review in particular you have no reason to dismiss an article published in it as "not objective".

(Honestly, the form of "argument" you're conducting here is underhand and intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to take umbrage at ceo_esq's behalf or on the behalf of Baylor Law Review or the original author, but I'll advice you that you might have crossed the line from merely rude to insulting.)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The above is simply not true, and both the History for Science society, the Galileo Project and many of my own sources have already refuted this. Please stop quoting your own pet sociologist whom we know little about on this matter. (I notice you do this a lot and it seems questionable: stick to one scholar ad naseum. Most likely because he is perhaps the only one that agrees with you, along with one or two others.) Your sources have may have disputed this, but certainly not refuted it. Although the Galileo Project pages contest the theological angle in Galileo's case, asserting that it really was heliocentrism that caused the problem, I do not find there any contradiction of Stark’s general assertion. Please specify. The same goes for your use of the History of Science Society pages.

Interestingly, I note that the History of Science Society highly recommends (http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/resources/mf_resources.html) my principal source regarding the Galileo science/theology question (click on the "Reading the History of Science" link): Brooke, John Hedley. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge UP, 1991. A comprehensive narrative/analysis of the changing relationship between scientific and religious ideas, set in the context of recent history-of-science scholarship. Dense, detailed, and demanding, but written with acute insight and brilliant clarity of expression.They also recommend some of my other "questionable" sources, including David Lindberg and Stephen Shapin.

As for quoting Stark, the work I've been referring to is one of the few recent ones to devote a lot of words to the precise issues we've been discussing; most general histories of science, for example, don’t give it an in-depth treatment. Stark's book seems to me to be well-researched and has an outstanding bibliography, and I think there’s every reason to keep quoting it as long as it’s relevant.

There is as much information about Stark available as you care to look up. Here is Princeton University’s write-up for the book in question:

http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7501.html

Here’s a description of Stark’s standard sociology textbook, "considered to be a living classic among introductory sociology texts":

http://newtexts.com/newtexts/book.cfm?book_id=1171

Clearly the guy is a major figure in his field, not some shady fringe element.

If it's Henry Kamen's book about the Spanish Inquisition (quoted by Stark in the relevant paragraph) that you don't feel sure about, we can address that too. Here's the Yale University write-up:

http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/075227.htm

and here are some reviews:

http://www.dennisprager.com/dennis_recommends/spanish.html
http://www.greenline.co.nz/books/The-Spanish-Inquisition_A-Historical-Revision.htm
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I really doubt this. Show me where this is proven. Of course Copernicus would likely not insult the Church, (for obvious reasons) but that does not mean he did not fear an authority that had tortured and killed dissentors in the past. Leif Roar beat me to it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You really have no evidence that scientists and astronomers engaged in amssive fearful fits of ridicule at the time, however there is evidence the Church did torture, kill and imprison people. Who would you then be more afraid of? I can only say that Copernicus and, initially, Galileo claimed to be more worried about the reception their work would get from their peers than the reception it would get from the Church. Anything more calls for speculation.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is interesting. When the Church engages in a practice that is harmful to science, it does not speak ill of Christianity or religion but shows the practice was "Unchristian".

This is known as the "No True Scotsman fallacy".I said it was "historically un-Christian", meaning that it is historically atypical of Christianity. I did not intend to suggest that such an act should arbitrarily be exempted from the definition of Christianity. Hence, an awkward choice of words on my part, but no "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And is very questionable as I do not believe you are the one that is the authority on what Christian is, and it ignores the fact that religion is composed partially of its traditions and practices. True enough as to the first part. Again, my statement referred more to historical patterns of practice by the Church than to any particular definition of Christian orthodoxy.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Not really, [Galileo] may have made some theological assertions but such is hardly "unscientific". I'm not saying its science but to say its at odds with science is unwarranted.I didn't say it was at odds with science, either. In fact, I don't think Christian theological propositions of any sort are generally are at odds with science. It was not science, though; it was theology.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also I have sources that maintain the contrary and are available online. I concede that this matter remains the subject of academic controversy. Nevertheless, your source’s conclusions are somewhat ambivalent: "The conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church is indeed religious and theological in essence". What seems to me to be the most weakly supported part of this article is the charge that heliocentrism itself posed a direct challenge to Catholic doctrine, which are unaccompanied by any solid explanation of why this was so. I am not confident that (1) the "Catholic views" the author describes are not, in fact, strawmen and (2) that such views, to the extent they carried doctrinal force, were necessarily incompatible with heliocentrism.

In this regard, I find Brooke's analysis of the theological issues to be more persuasive. There, at least, the conflict with Catholic doctrine is readily apparent from Galileo's own statements, and not does rely on naked suppositions about how specific scientific views supposedly contradict theological views attributed to Catholicism.

[Ossai]

Kind of revelant to this thread. After all, the devil is in the details.

Testament of Sovereignty: Table of Contents (http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos.php)

Apparently a strictly American occurrence. But given this, others similar, and creationists religion is definitely not only slowing progress they want to turn it back.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kind of revelant to this thread. After all, the devil is in the details.

Testament of Sovereignty: Table of Contents (http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos.php)

Apparently a strictly American occurrence. But given this, others similar, and creationists religion is definitely not only slowing progress they want to turn it back.

There is a fair jump from "some religous people would impede scientific progress if they got their will" to "religion is definetively impeding scientific progress."

You're assuming that the religious powers that want to oppose or denounce scientific advances are efficent at doing so. While I don't doubt that they can be efficent at that, I think it's worth noting that despite the large support creationism has (and has had) in Christian circles in the USA, the USA is not lagging behind the rest of the world in science and technology related to biology and genetics.

More importantly, you ignore any possible positive effects religion might have had (or has) on the progres of science. If there are positive effects that outweighs the negative effects then religion can not be said to generally impede the scientific progress.

[Ossai]

Leif Roar
You're assuming that the religious powers that want to oppose or denounce scientific advances are efficent at doing so.

First try
The report Politics and Science in the Bush Administration finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/)

President's Remarks at National Prayer Breakfast (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-1.html)

and then look at the lists of news stories at
National Center for Science Education (http://www.natcenscied.org/)

Ossai

[abiogenesis]

I still think the issue comes down to the fundamental methods and ideals of science and religion. I've read, in earlier posts, claims that religion and science concern themselves with different pursuits, that a peaceful coexistence is possible and desired. I don't see how this could be the case.

Science is used in the examination of the universe. Through observation and experimentation, answers to some very important questions have been found. Of equal import with these answers are the additional questions that are raised through the process of discovery. Science is constantly adapting and opening new areas of learning.

Religion, on the other hand, is not concerned with discovery. It is instead based on the acceptance of inspired truth. Religion does not encourage questioning, let alone testing, the claims made in holy scriptures. To suggest that the word of god is fallible would be blasphemous. The biggest issue I have with religion is that it promotes divine revelation, and acceptance of such on faith, as a valid method of obtaining answers. It has been demonstrated that this is not the case.

Many of the inspired "truths" of religion have since been challenged by legitimate inquiry. The Earth is not the center of the universe. The heavens do not operate in a divine manner, separate from the mechanics on Earth. The universe was not created in seven days. Humanity, in all likelihood, is not special or unique in the universe.

Whether or not the Church actively engaged in suppressing these discoveries, or persecuted the scientists responsible, is not the critical issue. The fundamental problem is that religion promotes faith as a viable means of obtaining answers. This promotion of faith has muddied the waters of human thinking and poisoned the minds of millions of people. The fact that this bankrupt policy is seen as a virtue by the vast majority of people on this planet is evidence that we have been slowed down. Imagine how many more great scientists there may have been if their minds were not fettered by faith.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
Science is constantly adapting and opening new areas of learning.Hopefully, the historical examination we've been conducting here (particularly as it pertains to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance) has shown that religious philosophy and understanding is also constantly adapting. Moreover, the history of religion - at least in the West - is also largely a story of opening new areas of inquiry (some of those being areas of scientific inquiry).
Originally posted by abiogenesis
Religion, on the other hand, is not concerned with discovery. It is instead based on the acceptance of inspired truth. Religion does not encourage questioning, let alone testing, the claims made in holy scriptures. To suggest that the word of god is fallible would be blasphemous. The biggest issue I have with religion is that it promotes divine revelation, and acceptance of such on faith, as a valid method of obtaining answers. It has been demonstrated that this is not the case.I think you're making an unwarranted generalization about religion (and I'll limit my remarks to what I perceive about the most historically influential Western religion, Catholicism). The claims made in Scripture are understood to be claims about spiritual and moral truths, not empirical or mathematical truths. Remember Cardinal Baronius' quip to Galileo that "the Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go"? Historically, there has occasionally been some confusion about which is which, but the basic gist has been clear for a very long time.

Even St. Augustine, writing in the early 5th century, warned about trying to draw conclusions about the natural world by assuming that the Bible is a manual of scientific truths. He suggested that Christians have a religious duty to educate themselves also in those areas in which truth may be discovered through "reason and experience" ("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"), because otherwise informed non-Christians would ridicule them and mistakenly deduce that Scripture was an equally unreliable source of spiritual and moral truths as well. When you consider the contemporary problem of fundamentalist creationism, it becomes clear that Augustine was at least partly right.

Different types of questions are susceptible to different methods of inquiry. This may seem like a truism, but I can at least admire (as an outsider) the fact that it's a notion deeply ingrained in Christianity. Science doesn't propose that it yields (or will ever yield) the answers to certain kinds of inquiries, and even scientists usually protest when good science is wrongfully pressed into service to justify answers to questions beyond the confines of their discipline. The gap between the descriptive and the normative is almost universally acknowledged, for example, and for a long time Christian philosophy (among others) has been standing in the breach, helping (or trying to help) science and religion to inform one another.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
Many of the inspired "truths" of religion have since been challenged by legitimate inquiry. The Earth is not the center of the universe. The heavens do not operate in a divine manner, separate from the mechanics on Earth. The universe was not created in seven days. Humanity, in all likelihood, is not special or unique in the universe.Yet except for possibly the last one, these were never truths of religion even when they were universally believed. Rather, they were the type of spurious conclusions Augustine warned about, and while many believers have fallen prey to them, such propositions were always sensibly excluded from the articles of the faith. As for whether humanity is "special", no scientific inquiry will ever establish the truth one way or another. Science can tell us what humanity does, how it is physically constituted, how it got where it is today, and so forth - but "specialness" is not fundamentally an empirical concern. Ultimately, if we're still interested in posing the question after learning all that science can tell us, we'll have to take it outside.

[abiogenesis]

CEO,

You didn't address the last paragraph of my post:Whether or not the Church actively engaged in suppressing these discoveries, or persecuted the scientists responsible, is not the critical issue. The fundamental problem is that religion promotes faith as a viable means of obtaining answers. This promotion of faith has muddied the waters of human thinking and poisoned the minds of millions of people. The fact that this bankrupt policy is seen as a virtue by the vast majority of people on this planet is evidence that we have been slowed down. Imagine how many more great scientists there may have been if their minds were not fettered by faith.The official position of a particular religion is not the issue. The question is whether or not religion, in general, has slowed us down. My claim is that the dependence on faith has slowed us down. Religion is, by far, the most active proponent of faith and is, therefore, guilty of slowing us down. It isn't necessary to discuss particular areas of scientific study or the reaction by the catholic church. It is a question of the efficacy of faith. If faith is ineffective, then its promotion is a hindrance.

It's like the fundamentalists demanding that creation be taught alongside evolution in schools. The promotion of faith, alongside science, as a way to discern the truth is detrimental. The church's official stance in support of scientific inquiry doesn't seem to have much influence on the general population. Many people in the US are unashamed to profess their ignorance of science, while their faith in the supernatural is unshakable. I believe that this is evidence of faith, and thereby religion, slowing us down.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
CEO,

You didn't address the last paragraph of my post:Sorry. All appearances to the contrary (given the length of some of my posts), I'm not being paid by the word. :)
Originally posted by abiogenesis
The official position of a particular religion is not the issue. The question is whether or not religion, in general, has slowed us down.OK, although I think an examination of the official position of the most influential religion is at least relevant to the debate.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
It is a question of the efficacy of faith. If faith is ineffective, then its promotion is a hindrance.But aren't we mixing two different ideas here? For example, despite certain conceptual and methodical contributions made by philosophy to science, philosophy per se is an ineffective way of obtaining scientific answers. Yet that does not mean that the promotion of philosophy, by that inefficacy alone, is a hindrance to the scientific enterprise.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
It's like the fundamentalists demanding that creation be taught alongside evolution in schools. The promotion of faith, alongside science, as a way to discern the truth is detrimental.I grant you that the promotion of faith as a way to discern truths about the natural world (and by this I mean truths that are theoretically susceptible to empirical verification) would be detrimental to scientific progress. The promotion of faith as a way to discern spiritual and moral truths would not, by itself, appear to pose an obstacle to such progress. So perhaps we should focus on whether it has been the overall tendency of religion, in the aggregate, to promote faith in the first (harmful) way or the second (innocuous) way. Looking back over the history of religion in our culture, I think that the second strain has, by and large, predominated.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
The church's official stance in support of scientific inquiry doesn't seem to have much influence on the general population.It certainly had a general historical influence on scientific learning in the West, and individually a powerful influence on any number of outstanding scientists.

In addition, we are trying to determine the net effect of religion on scientific progress. That means that all of the contributions and support (philosophically, inspirationally, educationally, materially and otherwise) that religion has provided directly or indirectly to science and scientists needs to be weighed against the negative effects. This is no small task, but I think I have a non-arbitrary basis for concluding that the net effect has been positive.

We can subdivide the issue further; for example, I think the net effect of fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism on scientific progress in the past century has probably been negative, and if you remove that particular religion from the picture the overall relationship between science and religion appears rosier.

[ceo_esq]

I'm taking advantage of this relative lull in the discussion to return to one of the points explored earlier, regarding whether science arose in Chinese culture and, if not, why not.

I've been reading more by the nuclear physicist and historian of science Stanley Jaki. In The Savior of Science, Dr. Jaki considers this problem:A generation or two [prior to the Maoist cultural revolution], leading Chinese scholars saw in Confucian tradition the antidote against modern Western science, which they took for an exploitation of nature and for a dehumanization of man. [This] reaction to science was only in part due to the scientistic spirit in which science was introduced around the turn of the century in the new Chinese universities. A century earlier Chinese scholars denounced the microscope as an instrument that forced nature into a straitjacket. …

Such an attitude to science foreshadowed a reluctance to see any merit in probing into the causes of the backwardness of China, although this backwardness should have appeared especially glaring with regard to science. The memorable claim of Yu-lan Fung, made in 1922 in the pages of the International Journal of Ethics, that there had been no science in China because Chinese culture was and would be better off without it, may have aimed at nipping in the bud the need to face up to a painful facet of Chinese history. The birth and robust growth of science in the West could but make that facet appear all the more conspicuous.I earlier noted that Alfred North Whitehead puzzled over the failure of science to develop independently in China, or indeed anywhere outside of the Christian West. Interestingly, however, Whitehead's Principia Mathematica co-author Bertrand Russell puzzled over the exact same problem. Both of these great philosopher-mathematicians agreed that there had to be a reason for the absence of Chinese science, but they disagreed as to what it was. Whitehead concluded that faith in the possibility of science was "an unconscious derivative of medieval theology". Russell couldn't come up with any persuasive reason, but like DialecticMaterialist, he incorrectly assumed that the Church had hindered scientific development in the West. Accordingly, he predicted that the Chinese, having been introduced to science by Westerners, and with a change in their material situation, would rapidly overtake the West in scientific progress in the absence of Christianity:Although Chinese civilization has hitherto been deficient in science, it never contained anything hostile to science, and therefore the spread of scientific knowledge encounters no such obstacles as the Church put in its way in Europe. I have no doubt that if the Chinese could get a stable government and sufficient funds, they would, within the next thirty years, begin to produce remarkable work in science. It is quite likely that they might outstrip us, because they come with fresh zest and with the ardour of renaissance.

(Source: Bertrand Russell, The Problem of China (1923))Jaki criticizes Russell's reasoning here in the following terms:[W]as it true that the most modern Chinese mind, so ancient and yet so modern, needed only "new material" from the West to start out on a scientific quest and soon overtake the West? Were not the Chinese the first, a thousand years ago, to have such new items as magnets and gunpowder? Was not China the birthplace of the basic type of printing?

Block printing is not such a far cry from printing with movable type as it appears to be. In a sense the puzzle is not so much that in the West block printing of entire pages, introduced in the late 1300s, was transformed into printing with movable type long before Gutenberg appeared on the scene with a highly perfected form of the art. In view of the speed with which that transformation (so elementary and obvious, and yet so ingenious and revolutionary) took place in the late medieval West, one should be puzzled by the inability of the Chinese to catch a glimpse of the obvious during the many centuries they spent in block printing.
…
It tells something of the utter falsity of the "empiricist" approach to the rise of science [à la Jared Diamond, one presumes] that Joseph Needham, the chief modern expert on the history of science in China, found it wholly inadequate. Not that he, an avowed Marxist, did not look for some empirico-sociological cause for the failure of science to be born in China. To his own consternation and to the bafflement of many of his readers, he felt impelled to fall back on a theological consideration. Its essence is the parting of the pre-Confucian Chinese with their erstwhile believe in an only God (Creator) and Lawgiver. Once this belief (for whose existence Needham saw convincing evidence in early Chinese lore) was replaced by a quasi-pantheistic identification of man and society with Nature writ large, the Chinese of old, Needham argued, had an intellectual failure of nerve. They no longer felt confident that their limited mind could grasp and control the laws of Nature because Nature itself was not subject to a Mind and Lawgiver who transcended it.Once again, as Professor Stark concurs, "[f]undamental theological and philosophical assumptions determine whether anyone [in this case, the Chinese] will attempt to do science."

[ceo_esq]

Based on the suggested reading list at the History of Science Society homepage (to which DialecticMaterialist was kind enough to direct me) I've been reviewing some additional works of scholarship.

Thanks to the HSS, I'm currently reading The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages by Edward Grant (Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science, and Professor Emeritus of History, at Indiana University). Like the John Hedley Brooke book I've already cited, it's part of the Cambridge History of Science series published by Cambridge University Press.

Grant argues that the Middle Ages were the formative period of modern science, and that there were chiefly three indispensable "contextual pre-conditions" that made the scientific revolution possible: (1) the translation of Greek and Arabic science and natural philosophy into Latin during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; (2) the formation of the medieval university (he notes, incidentally, that "nothing in Islam, China or India was comparable to … the [European] medieval university"), and (3) the emergence of a class of Christian theologian-natural philosophers. He states:Because of the intimate relationship between theology and [proto-scientific] natural philosophy during the Middle Ages … it fell to the theologians to apply natural philosophy to theology and theology to natural philosophy. Their training in both disciplines enabled them to do this with relative ease and confidence … . Theologians had a remarkable degree of intellectual freedom to cope with such problems and rarely allowed theology to hinder their inquiries into the physical world. If there was any temptation to produce a "Christian science," medieval theologians successfully resisted it. Biblical texts were not employed to "demonstrate" scientific truths by appeal to divine authority.

The relatively small degree of trauma that accompanied Greco-Arabic science and natural philosophy into Western Europe and the subsequent high status that science and natural philosophy achieved in Western thought were in no small measure attributable to the class of theologian-natural philosophers. … They were significant contributors to both natural philosophy and science … Indeed, some of the most noteworthy accomplishments in science and mathematics during the Middle Ages came from theologians, as the names of Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, John Pecham, Theodoric of Freiberg, Thomas Bradwardine, Nicole Oresme, and Henry of Langenstein bear witness. So enthusiastically did theologians embrace natural philosophy in their theological treatises that the Church had at times had to admonish them to refrain from frivolously using natural philosophy to resolve theological problems.
…
The favorable attitude of Christianity toward natural philosophy in the West was not derived solely from the hundreds of years in which Christianity adjusted to pagan learning. … [A] positive feeling toward natural philosophy may inadvertently have been fostered by the Christian attitude toward the state. … Although many Christian churchmen, such as Saint Augustine, proclaimed the superiority of the church over the state, the Christian church did acknowledge and accept the separation of church and state, which allowed for the development of a secularly oriented natural philosophy.

In medieval Islam, by contrast, truly secular government was absent, and church and state were one. … Where religion is strong, as is the case with Islam, it is very likely to dominate secular activities like science, unless the activity is recognized as independent, is protected by a secular state, or is favorably regarded by religious authorities. In medieval Islam, none of these conditions was met, whereas in late medieval Latin Christendom the third condition was clearly in effect. Because the Church looked with favor on science, secular authorities also adopted a beneficent approach toward it … Because the second and third conditions were fulfilled, the first was almost met as well during the late Middle Ages. Although theological constraints never vanished, they tended to be moderate and posed few obstacles to the practice of science and natural philosophy.
…
Latin Christianity provided a sympathetic environment for the sustenance and advance of natural philosophy and science. It posed few obstacles to their practice and development. In fact, by allowing natural philosophy to form the graduate curriculum in the medieval universities, medieval Christianity showed that it was prepared to do mere than merely tolerate its existence. It actively promoted natural philosophy in an open and public way.(Emphasis mine.)

All of this is more or less in accordance with the points I've been arguing.

[thaiboxerken]

Ceo. You're not going to convince me that religion promotes science. Religion is the antithesis of science, one assumes truth and the other looks for it.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ceo. You're not going to convince me that religion promotes science. Religion is the antithesis of science, one assumes truth and the other looks for it.

Ironically enough, this comment of yours strikes me as more assuming the thruth than looking for it. If you're unwilling to question your assumptions and knowledge about religion and its effect on science, aren't you comitting the same error as you accuse religion of doing?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ceo. You're not going to convince me that religion promotes science. Religion is the antithesis of science, one assumes truth and the other looks for it. This strikes me as ironic. You have assumed the truth of your proposition, whereas I've been examining the available data in order to determine if that proposition can be shown to be false.

I haven't asserted here that all religions promote science. I've asserted that at least one has. You show no interest in historical, a posteriori arguments to this effect, so perhaps you think the statement that "no religion can promote science" is true a priori. But if so, you haven't constructed a logical proof for it. Maybe you should give it a shot. I predict failure, however, primarily because I think such a proof will need to include as an intermediate step "A religion cannot simultaneously assume the truth of certain theological propositions and promote the search for the truth of certain empirical propositions" (or some variation thereon), and there appears to be no logically necessary reason why this should be so. If, on the other hand, you think that such proposition is true contingently but not necessarily, then you're going to have to give due consideration to the historical analyses I've presented.

I'll be interested to see what you come up with, but in the meantime I'm a little dismayed by your statement that I'm simply not going to convince you. That suggests that your belief is invincible, which in turn betrays a deeply unscientific approach to the question.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Ironically enough, this comment of yours strikes me as more assuming the thruth than looking for it. If you're unwilling to question your assumptions and knowledge about religion and its effect on science, aren't you comitting the same error as you accuse religion of doing? You've beaten me to the draw again, Leif.

[thaiboxerken]

This strikes me as ironic. You have assumed the truth of your proposition, whereas I've been examining the available data in order to determine if that proposition can be shown to be false.

Hardly, because the philosophical differences of religion and science dictate that my position is true.


I haven't asserted here that all religions promote science. I've asserted that at least one has.

Only to a degree has it promoted science, and even then they place restrictions on what they promote so that the doctrines and dogma's aren't questioned.

You show no interest in historical, a posteriori arguments to this effect, so perhaps you think the statement that "no religion can promote science" is true a priori. But if so, you haven't constructed a logical proof for it.

Religion assumes truths, that's a fact. Science looks for evidence. 2 different philosophies.

Maybe you should give it a shot. I predict failure, however, primarily because I think such a proof will need to include as an intermediate step "A religion cannot simultaneously assume the truth of certain theological propositions and promote the search for the truth of certain empirical propositions" (or some variation thereon), and there appears to be no logically necessary reason why this should be so.

Religions do not promote the search for empirical truths if it seems that it might contradict the theological truths that they have already dictated as fact.

If, on the other hand, you think that such proposition is true contingently but not necessarily, then you're going to have to give due consideration to the historical analyses I've presented.

Your historical analysis is well and fine, several religions have promoted science. None have promoted the search for truths that may contradict their theological truths.


I'll be interested to see what you come up with, but in the meantime I'm a little dismayed by your statement that I'm simply not going to convince you. That suggests that your belief is invincible, which in turn betrays a deeply unscientific approach to the question.

This isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical question about the general attitudes of religions vs sciences. You might come up with exceptions to the rules, but the majority of the time, religion and science do not mix well.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Ironically enough, this comment of yours strikes me as more assuming the thruth than looking for it. If you're unwilling to question your assumptions and knowledge about religion and its effect on science, aren't you comitting the same error as you accuse religion of doing?

Nope. Ceo comes up with exceptions to the rules.

[Lord Kenneth]

Religion can lead to good things as an outcome.

So can murder.

Religion is based on an irrational means of "gaining" knowledge. Isn't that enough?

If you subscribe to religion you subscribe to faith. Well, that's not always true-- some people who buy into a religion are simply mislead-- they are not operating off of faith.

Faith can lead us to ANY conclusion, and you don't admit you are wrong or that evidence is even a factor needed for the decision.

Hence why faith itself is a bad concept. Religion is just a result of faith-thinking. Religion is an organized belief system based on faith. It doesn't matter what they preach, they are intellectually dishonest for doing so and hinder truth and progress by the very nature of how they try to defend their claims.

One could say you can have faith in a conclusion until science disproves it. This leads us to three potential problems--

1) Unfalsifiable doctrine. "If science disproved reincarnation, Buddhism will have to change its views." Something similar was mentioned to have been said by the Dalai Lama in The Demon-Haunted World. Science can NEVER "disprove" reincarnation, the philosophical foundations of reincarnation are unfalsifiable (there is an intangible "soul"). Thus people believe (and are motivated and influenced by in many aspects of life and thinking) this and it will not be allowed to change,

2) Denying the science is accurate. Evolution, anyone? This hinders scientific progress GREATLY-- far too much time is spent on the anti-evolutionists-- if people understood evolution better just imagine how much of that knowledge could be applied to everyday life and medicine.

3) Preconcieved notion. People are think something is true before we can verify whether it is or not. This is like "looking before you leap." Science just may not be able to find the answer for some time, and people will continue to believe a possible lie-- this is "god of the gaps".

[abiogenesis]

I think the problem in this discussion is its focus on catholicism's official stance toward science and its specific dealings with scientists. Scientists are responsible for much of our progress as a species. Whether this is because of, or inspite of, religion is not the issue.

I believe the core of the matter lies in the effect of religion and faith-based ideals on the general populous. It's nice that the church officially endorses scientific inquiry into the natural world. That doesn't change the fact that it demands faith in the supernatural world. Because of their dependence on faith, many people are more inclined to believe the outrageous claims of pseudo-scientists like the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org).

Scientists are, by definition, trying to progress human understanding. You can't look at their achievements and say "See? Religion isn't slowing us down. The scientists are making progress!" That's what they do. You have too look at the churchgoing masses who buy magnetic bracelets (http://www.magnettherapy.com) and are inspired by The Bible Code (http://www.biblecodedigest.com).

Faith has fettered the minds of the believers and made them less responsive to reason. Humanity would be in a much better place if we could put aside our petty superstitious disagreements and focus on what matters.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Nope. Ceo comes up with exceptions to the rules. How can you justify saying this, when hardly any examples clearly confirming this supposed rule have been adduced in this discussion. So far, we've seen many more "exceptions" than confirmations. How many counterexamples would you need to see before you take a cue from the scientific method, conclude that your hypothesis has been falsified, and discard the rule?
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hardly, because the philosophical differences of religion and science dictate that my position is true.It sounds from this as though you are suggesting that it’s true a priori. Still waiting to see a formally correct proof of this, though.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Only to a degree has it promoted science, and even then they place restrictions on what they promote so that the doctrines and dogma's aren't questioned.Here, though, it seems as though you're suggesting your position is true only a posteriori. Which is it?
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Religion assumes truths, that's a fact. Science looks for evidence. 2 different philosophies.Different? Yes. Necessarily incompatible? I don't think so, as long as the kinds of truths involved are understood to be different.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Religions do not promote the search for empirical truths if it seems that it might contradict the theological truths that they have already dictated as fact.This probably varies from religion to religion. But the search for empirical truths can never contradict the theological "truths" of certain religions (e.g. God exists; human beings have souls; etc.) because the theological truths are not empirically falsifiable. So why couldn’t such a religion promote the search for empirical truths all (or at least most) of the time?

Note, also, the typical historical attitude of Western Christianity in the rare cases where an empirical falsehood was mistaken for a theological truth. "We assumed X was a theological truth. We now realize that X is not only capable of empirical falsification, but has in fact been undisputably falsified. X goes into the dustbin, and let’s be more careful in the future about confusing spiritual and moral truths with scientific ones." That seems downright conciliatory, and is in fact consistent with the attitude urged by Saint Augustine to which I referred earlier.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Your historical analysis is well and fine, several religions have promoted science. None have promoted the search for truths that may contradict their theological truths.First, as I already noted, empirical truths by their nature do not ordinarily contradict spiritual and moral truths. So how much of a negative influence can flow from the exception you've carved out?

Second, I take your statement to concede that some religions have, in fact, exercised a beneficial influence on the scientific enterprise. Can we determine whether their net influence has been beneficial? If we can determine that (and I think we can), and if the answer is yes (and I think it is), then won't the basic question motivating this thread be settled at that point?
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical question about the general attitudes of religions vs sciences. You might come up with exceptions to the rules, but the majority of the time, religion and science do not mix well.I disagree with your first statement. Whether religion has (or certain religions have) by and large benefited science or slowed it down is not entirely a philosophical question. It's one that can be established, albeit with difficulty and somewhat imprecisely, by historical evidence. To this extent, it is an empirical question - and that is why an "unscientific approach" to it does not help.
Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Religion is based on an irrational means of "gaining" knowledge. Isn't that enough?No, it's not enough. This is just intellectual laziness and/or sloppiness, as I tried to point out before to thaiboxerken. If your thesis about the ostensible antipathy between religion and science is necessarily true, it should be susceptible to logical proof (and it won't be a one-step proof, either). If it's contingently true, on the other hand, then there should be empirical consequences for the historical record that need to be examined, accounted for, and weighed. Either way, what you've said is not enough to make your case.
Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
One could say you can have faith in a conclusion until science disproves it. This leads us to three potential problems—

1) Unfalsifiable doctrine. "If science disproved reincarnation, Buddhism will have to change its views." Something similar was mentioned to have been said by the Dalai Lama in The Demon-Haunted World. Science can NEVER "disprove" reincarnation, the philosophical foundations of reincarnation are unfalsifiable (there is an intangible "soul"). Thus people believe (and are motivated and influenced by in many aspects of life and thinking) this and it will not be allowed to change,You've just demonstrated one of my points. That some claims are unfalsifiable by scientific means is simply part of the nature of science. Look at it this way: science is a tool designed, like all tools, for a specific purpose - obtaining facts about the physical world. It's the best tool we have for that job. Religion is a tool designed for a different job, one involving spiritual and moral truths. Or rather, each religious philosophy is a different design of tool for that job, and no one really knows for sure which one (if any) is the best one for the job.

How is tool A's ability to do job A necessarily affected by the fact that people are trying to work on job B with a host of different tools? I don't think it is: the only problem would be if people were advocating tool B for job A, and my historical analysis has partly been intended to demonstrate that Christianity, at least, tends to avoid this.
Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
2) Denying the science is accurate. Evolution, anyone? This hinders scientific progress GREATLY-- far too much time is spent on the anti-evolutionists-- if people understood evolution better just imagine how much of that knowledge could be applied to everyday life and medicine.Most religious people do not attack the science behind evolution. To the extent that some do attack it, especially in the United States, I grant you that there’s probably a negative effect on science (although one could argue that the scientific community has done a much better job investigating, double-checking and clarifying the science behind evolution precisely because it's suffered attacks). This hearkens back to my earlier analogy about misguidedly trying to use tool B for job A.

The question is, can we quantify the hindrance to science posed by stubborn creationists? If so, then we can incorporate it into our general historical assessment of the relationship between science and religion.
Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
3) Preconcieved notion. People are think something is true before we can verify whether it is or not. This is like "looking before you leap." Science just may not be able to find the answer for some time, and people will continue to believe a possible lie-- this is "god of the gaps".But religion, at least for most of Western history, has not really been dwelling in those gaps. It's been dwelling in conceptual places that are beyond science entirely. And in the instances where, as I said, an empirical falsehood is mistaken for a theological truth, as soon as the gap has been closed by science, the mainstream religious understanding has self-corrected just like (and because of) the scientific understanding. The exceptions to this rule (such as with biblical creationist denominations) are just that: exceptions.

[ceo_esq]

DialecticMaterialist,

I've noticed that the History of Science Society, in your words "a source not to be taken lightly", has honored three of the authorities upon whom I've relied with the Sarton Medal, the Society's most prestigious annual prize - Joseph Needham (1968), Edward Grant (1992) and David C. Lindberg (1999):

http://www.hssonline.org/society/awards/sarton.html

Lindberg argues that Christianity has not represented a net obstacle to the development of science. Needham and Grant argue that Christianity has been a beneficial factor without which science as we know it could not have developed.

I'm not asserting (nor have I ever asserted) that all scholars agree with these three, and I realize that winning a medal doesn't transform an erroneous historical thesis into a correct one. However, the sooner you quit disparaging this point of view as a fringe theory, the better.

[thaiboxerken]

It's apparent the ceo is a good apologist for christianity. So, because of this, I will end my conversation. I can't stand apologists.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2003-06/nigeria.html

This is christian science here.

[abiogenesis]

ceo_esq,

Again, I believe that you're missing the point of the question by focusing on science and scientists. The subject of the thread is "Is religion slowing us down?" While scientists are a valuable constituent of "us", they are, unfortunately, not a majority.

In this respect, a better question thanOriginally posted by ceo_esq
...can we quantify the hindrance to science posed by stubborn creationists?is

Can we quantify the hindrance to stubborn creationists posed by religion?

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's apparent the ceo is a good apologist for christianity. So, because of this, I will end my conversation. I can't stand apologists.


So you'll only discuss religion with people who agree with your viewpoints and argumentation, or those who disagree but are bad at arguing their case?

My view of this thread is that ceo_esq is defending Christianity from an attack he feels is not warranted. He's not trying to advance Christianity, appologise for it or convince anyone that Christianity is the "One True Way." All he has been saying is, that as far as he's able to see, the statement that Christianity has impeded science is not actually correct. If that's being a "apologist for christianity" to you, your standards for argument is not very high.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Nope. Ceo comes up with exceptions to the rules.

It's only exceptions to the rule if your position is correct. So if you base your position on ceo_esq only "coming up with exceptions" then you are begging the question.

Science works through the disproval of theories. If you really wanted to attack this discussion with a scientific mindset, you'd ask yourself the question "How can I see if my position is wrong?" and work from that.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by abiogenesis

Can we quantify the hindrance to stubborn creationists posed by religion?


Well, for the sake of discussion I'll put up a starting point for discussion (and for that reason I'll formulate it somewhat pointedly):

The universal education, particularly in reading and writing, which we have throughout the western world today, was only introduced for religious reasons. There is no reason to assume that the idea that a basic education should be given to every member of the population would have formed from purely secular sources, and even less that it would have been implemented for only secular reasons.

So while religion might have turned the creatinists into close-minded speed-bumps on the highway of intellect, it was also religion which made them educated enough to be close-minded about something in the first place.

[abiogenesis]

Educated enough to be close-minded? What does that mean? The problem is that the creationists were educated with an ineffectual method of obtaining knowledge. Such are the effects of faith.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
Educated enough to be close-minded? What does that mean? The problem is that the creationists were educated with an ineffectual method of obtaining knowledge. Such are the effects of faith.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

That was really just a tongue-in-cheek quip. To be able to understand and accept evolution really requires a basic education (otherwise you'll only accept it on faith - which is no better than any other belief founded on faith.) There can be made a strong argument for religion being the driving force behind implementing a basic education for the entire population. So, while being educated and refusing to accept evolution (in face of the supporting evidence) is bad, but it's nevertheless better (for the creationsts) than being completely uneducated.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's apparent the ceo is a good apologist for christianity. So, because of this, I will end my conversation. I can't stand apologists.Well, thanks for participating in the conversation anyway. No one's obliging you to spend your time discussing things you're not prepared to discuss, of course. That said, I'm not really a Christian apologist - but is retreat your standard tactic when you encounter one?
Originally posted by Leif Roar
The universal education, particularly in reading and writing, which we have throughout the western world today, was only introduced for religious reasons. There is no reason to assume that the idea that a basic education should be given to every member of the population would have formed from purely secular sources, and even less that it would have been implemented for only secular reasons.This is an excellent point. I alluded earlier to the rise of the university system within Christianity, but matters of widespread basic education and literacy are even more fundamental.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
Again, I believe that you're missing the point of the question by focusing on science and scientists. The subject of the thread is "Is religion slowing us down?" While scientists are a valuable constituent of "us", they are, unfortunately, not a majority.Do you really think it's unfortunate that the majority of us are not scientists? Perhaps we could use more scientists, but don’t we get a lot of good from people who make contributions in the arts, humanities, skilled trades and other occupations?

At any rate, this discussion has taken the route it has because early on in the thread, the severe harm supposedly done to the scientific enterprise by religion in the past was cited as an example of the way in which religion has "slowed us down". If no one thinks that that's a good example anymore, then I agree we should broaden our inquiry. I’m just not sure we're there yet.

How would you define "slowed us down"? Vis-à-vis which collective endeavors?
Originally posted by abiogenesis
In this respect, a better question …

is

Can we quantify the hindrance to stubborn creationists posed by religion?Possibly we can, in an imprecise way. Care to give it a shot? Afterwards, in order to relate it back to our overall inquiry, we'd need to assess the extent to which that particular hindrance has, in turn, resulted in slowing us all down in the aggregate.


* * * * *

Earlier, Lord Kenneth suggested that religion is fundamentally "irrational". In retrospect, I think that statement requires qualification. It may well depend on the particular religion, for one thing, so let's consider Christianity for lack of a better and more relevant example.

It's worth emphasizing, first of all, that "rational" and "empirical" are not synonyms. Only logic and mathematics are wholly rational (i.e. they rely on pure abstract reason). Science has an element of reason and an element of experimentation. I agree, of course, that neither Christianity, nor any other religion of which I am aware, is empirical. But as I learn more about Christianity from my readings (inspired by our discussion here) about its history in relation to science, I am struck by the fact that the Christian tradition (at least in the Latin West) includes an extremely strong rational dimension. Unlike, perhaps, certain other religions, Christianity evolved a religious tradition that includes both revealed truths (those taken on faith) and reason.

Having finished Edward Grant's excellent The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, I've now moved on to his book God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge UP, 2001) (another work highly recommended by the History of Science Society). In it, Grant demonstrates how the medieval Church developed a durable tradition of applying reason both to questions about nature and to questions about God. By way of summary, I'll quote the review blurb given by David C. Lindberg (author of The Beginnings of Western Science):In this remarkable book, Grant persuasively demolishes the myth that portrays the Middle Ages as ignorant, superstitious and irrational. Tracing the history of rationality from the early Christian church fathers, through the theological faculties of the medieval universities, to the century of Galileo and Newton, Grant reveals the medieval origins of the spirit of inquiry often thought to be a defining feature of the modern world.On to a few observations by Grant himself:I must return to the fundamental claim of my book: that the Age of Reason began in the Middle Ages. … There can be no doubt that reason played a pervasive role in the intellectual life of medieval universities. The masters in the arts faculties, teaching and writing primarily about logic and natural philosophy, and the masters in the theological faculties, teaching and writing primarily about theology, placed a high value on reason, as we saw. … Theology became an analytical subject because it relied heavily on logico-mathematical techniques.

One can scarcely doubt that reason was applied more fruitfully in the Age of Reason than in the Middle Ages. But it would be rash to conclude that natural philosophers in the seventeenth century, and in the Age of Reason generally, were therefore "more rational" than their medieval predecessors. Medieval scholastic theologians and natural philosophers were as dedicated to the use of reason in the disciplines they discussed and analyzed as were the scientists and natural philosophers who developed the new science in the Age of Reason.
…
Historians of medieval philosophy are, of course, unavoidably aware of the contributions of [medieval scholastic theology and philosophy] to the cause of reason and rationality. … It therefore seems fitting to close this final chapter with a quotation from the eminent historian of medieval philosophy, Etienne Gilson, who rightly declared:

"It is necessary … to relegate to the domain of legend the history of a Renaissance of thought succeeding to centuries of sleep, of obscurity, and error. Modern philosophy did not have to undertake the struggle to establish the rights of reason against the Middle Ages; it was, on the contrary, the Middle Ages that established them for it, and the very manner in which the seventeenth century imagined that it was abolishing the work of preceding centuries did nothing more than continue it."
…
If modern science has progressed almost unrecognizably beyond anything known or contemplated … in the Middle Ages, modern scientists are, nonetheless, heirs to the remarkable achievements of their medieval predecessors. The idea, and the habit, of applying reason to resolve the innumerable questions about our world, and of always raising new questions, did not come to modern science from out of the void. Nor did it originate with the great scientific minds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, from the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton. It came out of the Middle Ages from many faceless scholastic logicians, natural philosophers, and theologians, in the manner I have described in this study. It is a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world, a gift that makes our modern society possible, though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past for centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization.Grant notes that the great rational tradition that developed in medieval Christian religion was eventually attacked by Martin Luther and other Protestant religious figures, which perhaps, sadly, led to the completely irrational attitudes displayed by fundamentalist creationists today (and which also may explain why modern Catholicism, which inherited the medieval scholastic tradition, does not generally encourage such attitudes). However, Grant convincingly makes the point that not only is Christianity not intrinsically at odds with rationality, but that in its most important formative years from 500-1500, a religious tradition coalesced in which both faith and reason have important roles to play.

Given that this appears to be the case, the argument that Christianity (at least of a certain kind) is necessarily hostile toward the scientific enterprise (much less toward rational thought) seems weaker and weaker to me.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What I said, precisely, was "Let's consider these 10 cases in order to draw a few salient conclusions (I've relied for the most part on your sources)?. There wasn't enough information in your source on Bruno to draw a conclusion. Is it any surprise that I followed your source's advice (it was his bibliography, after all) and looked up the Yates book?


Hence my problem with your hearsay, my source then says the opposite of your claims using the same reference material, what then am I supposed to think of your statements?


I am careful not to exaggerate or slant claims, DialecticMaterialist, probably because I give you more intellectual credit than you give me.

I have shown examples where you have done just that, simply saying otherwise does not change this fact. Creationists say they do science, but simply saying it does not make it so.



If you think I misrepresent my sources (and again, this particular one is not my source so much as it is your source?s source),

(Nevermind this ignores my other sources given as well) it does show a dicrepency.



then go ahead and challenge me. But do it on the basis of having looked at the work in question. That's why people write bibliographies.

And people abuse them via misinterpretations: this is why I don't take someone's word for it.

Incidentally, why is it objectionable when I base something on the Yates book, and not when one of your sources bases something on the same book?

Because it is a matter os testimony, and the weight of an expert on his area of expertise is a lot more then a non-expert's who has exagerated in the past.




Kindly refrain from mischaracterizing what I've actually said here. I never said that all scholars agree that the Church is the real reason science arose in the West (although I think there is good scholarly support for the position that Christianity was instrumental to such rise).


This is ridiculous: just because you did not say that verbatim means that this is not the position you have endorsed? Are you saying that to summarize or evaluate your argument I have to do so verbatim(even though your argument is vague and ambiguous) instead of simply getting to the meats and potatoes then?


You have implied christianity was the reason science arose in Europe and not elsewhere. Do you now stand by this position or are you changing it?



The closest I came to it (and it's still a far cry from your strawman) was my quotation of the following claim by Stark: "Of course, these millennia of technological and intellectual progress were vital to the eventual development of science, but it is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe."


We have been over this, such a distinction has already been refuted as simplistic and ad hoc.

That claim says nothing about the reasons why science arose in Europe. And so far as I can tell, Jared Diamond agrees with this point of view - after all, wasn't his book an explanation of why science had trouble developing in China?

Take note, this is another area where you misinterpret and exagerate your sources. This is especially bad for you seeing as you have not even read Jared Diamond but are at the same time pretty confident he supports your positions.

Diamond's explanation was a geo-political one, not a religious or philosophical one.




The claim about scholarly agreement there was Stark's, not mine; yet my readings in the history of science have not yet given me reason to doubt that the general consensus to which he refers actually exists.

Or your excerpt/summary of Stark to be more precise. Also if there is such widespread scholarly agreement why are leading thinkers like Jared Diamond, Frank Sulloway and the HSS disagreeing?



Obviously I based my assessment there on a survey of the scholarly literature in the field, plus published judicial opinions. It turned out that those scholars were presenting their arguments not in a scholarly forum, but in an amicus brief (I?m still trying to find a copy of it). The same arguments, curiously, do not turn up in the academic legal literature, so I hope I can be excused for not noticing them.


And on what basis do you then dismiss them? Again your whole objection is ad hoc. "Virtually all scholars say X."

I then retort "Actually I have a source where many voice disagreement."

Response? "Its not in a scholarly journal". This entire ordeal ignored the fact that beforehand it was not stated that a census or survey would be limited to a peer-reviewed journal. And I hope you are not making such a statement, as I doubt you can show me a case where the majority of legal scholars/historians were surveyed and came to your position(the ten commandments are the main force in legal evolution) in a peer reviewed journal?

Also, I seem to recall that you asserted that a friend-of-the-court brief (which any lawyer can submit) was generally as reliable a source as a peer-reviewed professional journal.

Nope.




For example, you've characterized the claim that "most scholars agree that the Church is the real reason science arose in the West" as a hasty generalization. I agree that it would be one. However, it turns out to be a claim that I never made.
I never suggested that the Church was always almost the sole financier and supporter of scientific inquiry. By the middle to late Renaissance, there were certainly other public and private sources of patronage, although the Church certainly remained active in this area.


So are you then saying that Christianity is not the main reason science arose in the west?

Now, I did repeat David Lindberg?s observation that for a significant portion of Western history the Church was "one of the major patrons - perhaps the major patron - of scientific learning". David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992) (emphasis in original). Lindberg, as it happens, was speaking of a period that preceded the Renaissance.


It was a major patron, but so were other church's in other societies and other political institutions in Europe. Hardly a solid case for christianity being a key element for the development of science in Europe as opposed to elsewhere. Also not the argument you made.

In truth this is a part of what you said, but it is not all. You also said the Church was needed to build the philosophical groundwork, which was stagnant due to Aristotle's/Greek influence, and that Christian influence is the reason why science arose in Europe: not in other continents.(This would make Chriatianity then the main force in the development of science.) Simply presenting part of your claim as if it is the whole claim is thus a bit misleading.

I think you'll find that I did, and the relevant passage is the following:It was obvious that the 10 cases I based my figure on excluded Galileo; I said so at the time.
I said that none of the 10 referenced individuals can be shown (based on your sources) to have gotten in trouble for reasons of science. That statement is absolutely true.


*sigh* and yet again you hide behind ambiguity., Postmodernists do the same thing. When they state "everything is relative" and are called out for the absurdity of a position that makes 2 plus 2 equal to 2 plus 5, they then insist they were not meaning "all statements are equally true" by relative but only that people hold different beliefs: at least when faced with critics. Their message for their flock is of course that of extreme cogbitive relativism.


You tend to do the same thing, letting the stronger interpretation stand until it is called out, then ducking behind a weaker interpretation. From "they weren;t in trouble due to science...but theology." (you did later on suggest this making such an interpretation more probable) to now simply "Well the article didn't say they were verbatim in trouble for doing science."


And that may be true, but they were in trouble for expressing opinions contrary to the church which likely included their scientific ones or those concerning science.




Let me clarify: your assumption (that those folks got in trouble for scientific reasons) is wrong if the reasons cited in your sources (which I summarized earlier, and none of which were science-related) are the correct ones. If the reasons in your sources were spurious, then perhaps the true reasons were science-related - in which case your assumption might coincidentally be correct. However, even in that case, your assumption would still not be a warranted assumption, since you have no grounds to suspect that the reasons listed are not the true ones.
Why can't the Church say it directly about science? It?s extremely direct about what it likes and doesn?t like in plenty of other areas.\

Again you attack a mere straw man. I am not saying the Church may just possibly have ulterior motives, but that it discourages questioning of any doctrine, such doctrine included statements concerning the natural world at that time(and even today) and the fact that they persecuted scientists shows they were willing to squash them for questioning it.


I'm not saying the Church really in its heart of hearts wanted to outlaw science altogether, though I imagine many in the Church did. I am saying they came into conflict as a consequence of their policy and method.

It's like when one discusses how genes relate to making some people fatter then others. Nobody is really saying there is just a gene lying around with the program of "make this man fat." What people mean when they say this is perhaps there are genes that strenghten appetite and lower inhibitions. That is how genes could contribute to obesity.

Likewise the church doesn't have to say verbatim "we are going to punish and threaten Bruno for making science go against the Church".

They would likely just label Bruno's or anyone else's examination "heterodox" theology and declare themselves the protectors of true science.


So why wouldn't the Church just outlaw science? I don't know. I imagine some may have tried but 1) It would be very difficult and 2) Kings, Queens and even Catholics need science to compete with kings, queens and other cultures. 3) Invention is the mother of necessity, as new things are invented new standards are made, new enviroments are created and hence new ways of thinking about and doing things are required.

Of course the federal government isn't going to say directly "We want to hand over control of the United States to the UN." They'll do it through ad hoc policies. But those policies will seem far more consequential if I'm interpreting them to fit into an overall scenario the truth of which I've already assumed.

What has this to do with anything? I fail to see the relevance of this bizarre analogy. Are you accusing me of mere conspiracy theory?



I suspect you are engaging in a similar kind of question-begging.
The reasons I set forth above are based directly on statements in your sources.

Or mutations thereof. First off I was more or less objecting to your means of evaluation and presentation. As well as your conclusions from my sources, not the use or substance of the sources themselves. So the above which you keep mentioning(endlessly) is red herring.



It's not a question of supporting evidence. The only assumption I've made is that, where your source offered a reason for the person's investigation or condemnation, it was correct. Can you identify any ones I got wrong?


I did. Look at my previous posts.




All I'm suggesting, DM, is that I?d estimate that if you are the subject of a felony prosecution in most U.S. states, you stand something in the vicinity of a one-in-three chance, on average, of escaping punishment (conviction rates can vary widely according to the specific crime). I am surprised the claim strikes you as an extraordinary one. In some countries (such as Japan, reportedly), you wouldn't stand much better than a one-in-ten chance of escaping punishment under the same circumstances.



I'd really need to see more about this before believing it. For example I'd liek to see the context. Are these for examples investigations of random people or people that police had reasons to convict? If for example only people who already have evidence to be considered so suspect are brought to trial that changes a lot of things.

Why did I mention this? Simply because you suggested that a one-in-three chance of escaping punishment at trial constituted poor odds.

It is poor odds seeing how severe the punishment is and what the "crime" was.

Also we are not simply talking people who actually questioned the Church but those merely accused of doing so. What was your chance of getting off if you as a scientist actually questioned the Church on a scientific matter?

If we are to take what examples we have avilable into account it appears to be 100 percent.



I offer no opinion as to this, but I meant to point out that it's a highly subjective judgment.
1. Yes.
2. No, although when the opinions in question are non-scientific ones, why would it matter whether someone was a scientist or not? It's an irrelevant categorization.
3. Not that I'm aware of, but doesn't that merely suggest a science-neutral approach to combating heresy?


I hardly call locking up scientists for questioning dogma, i.e. doing what scientists are supposed to do "science neutral."

The argument seems to have gone from establishing whether the Church specifically disfavored scientists to establishing whether it failed specifically to favor them.

When?




The claim I was referring to by your source was not that Campanella was not a scientist, but that his harsh sentence was extremely rare:
I apologize; I thought you were offering that as support for a different claim - one I actually made. Now I realize you meant to refute the claim I just quoted above. However, I didn't personally advance that claim, I simply noted that your source made a comment to that effect when discussing Campanella's punishment.


This is ridiculous, now you are quoting people who you say you are using as a source but not advancing the given claim?

In fact, I don't know why he made that remark about Bruno and Campanella. Statistical probability would suggest that the thousands of people who were executed or imprisoned by the Inquisition over time did actually include a few more scientists than the cases we've considered. Of course, until shown otherwise, I have no reason to believe that the same pattern did not hold true: the victims were likely punished for reasons that had nothing to do with a conflict between science and religion.

The premise you have started with at the very beggining and supported with confirmation bias.


Again this is like a game, "show me scientists who were persecuted by the Church."

I show you.


Then it's "Well show me they were punished for doing science: not bad theology."

Again I show you a couple examples.

Now it's "Well you can't show ALL the people busted were explicitly punished for doing science that was at odds with religion so I win."


Which is basically an argument from ignorance. Mere ignorance on a specific matter does not then mean we forget the obvious(the people we speak of are scientists...something there was few of at the time) nor does it mean we then presume that the problem had to do with theology and politics. (You have btw shown zero scientists persecuted for political reasons.)


Nor do we ignore the most obvious fact: this was just a sample fo scientists being persecuted.

You had not asked for scientists being persecuted for explicitly scientific reasons but examples of the Church persecuting scientists. Again this latter standard brought up after the fact is an example of ad hoc reasoning.

The fact is I have shown the church persecutes people for questioning dogma. That scientists were persecuted by the Church, some have been shown to explicitly have been targeted for their science. That is all I needed to show to build my case, if you wish to knock it down now I'd apreciate it if you brought something solid to the table at this point.


Perhaps you can show me a census of scientists at the time, how many are persecuted at the Church vs the amount that existed. Or perhaps you can show me a similar census that shows whether a country is religious or not has no impact on scientific advancement.




Scientists being persecuted for their non-scientific opinions, the same way non-scientists were, does not demonstrate a conflict between science and theology (and even if it did, I assume you agree that it wouldn't reveal an a priori conflict).

This would be true if things were so simple. They are not.

They are first off at times persuted explicitly for scientific opinions. They are secondly being persecuted to questioning dogma, which would likely extend to scientific matters.

Again you only show part of the argument or facts which are relevant and leave out other parts.


It's similiar to a man doing a study of how many men had a homosexual experience, comes up with a suprisingly high number...... and neglects to mention the study was held in a prison.






As I view it, the current version of your argument goes something like this:

- The Church persecutes people.
- Some people are scientists.
- Therefore, the Church persecutes scientists.

And you view it wrongly, leaving many of the finer yet important details out.


I am saying something more like:

-The Church persecutes people for questioning their dogma.

-Science requires that certain dogma be questioned.

-But the Church does not allow this.

-Hence the Church is slowing science down.


And this would only be part of my argument btw, not the whole thing.

More can be brought up such as:

-Science demands we question our beliefs.

-The church discourages people from questioning much of its dogma, even that born in ignorant times.

-Hence the Church is encouraging scientific illiteracy and a method opposed to science slowing science down.

Also:

-The Church has created a stagnant system that discourages questioning and rational inquiry.


-The Church likewise seeks control over thought and to regulate intellectual activity.


-Science demands rational inquiry, free questioning and free thought.

-Hence the Church is interfering with science.

-Hence the Church is slowing science down.





Unless you can show that the censured conduct is distinctively linked to scientific investigation or ideas, then you have no reason to single out scientists as a discrete group for purposes of this analysis.

I have done so by showing scientitists were persecuted and the Church promoted/protected a dogmatic attitude in general.




I think that the Church virtually never made dogmatic claims that conflicted with scientifically demonstrated truths about the natural world.

Patently and obviously false. There is vitalism, idealist taxonomy, geocentrism, the bad air/god's wrath theory of disease, the idea that fire was a product of spirits, and creationism to name but a few.



By "conflict", I mean two claims that cannot rationally both be true, which I take to be the commonly understood sense.


Well could they validly and possibly both be true? Science and religion? Yes. At least most of the time.


But now you are changing the argument. Nobody has focused merely on content but on method and how such a method not only conflicted by its very presence but preserved and protected beliefs obviously wrong for many years after the evidence had shown it to be so.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


You do realise that one doesn't generally "prove" things in historical discussions, right? History is not a hard science. A better question would be to ask what his foundation or sources were for that statement.



Lief the word proof has many meanings. I presume you mean by the above proof in the mathematical sense, however the word proof is also interchangeable with the word evidence. That said, what was the point of the above? To try and make me look stupid or ignorant?




As for your excerpt its somewhat amusing as of course Copernicus would have to re-interpret scritpture in order to make his beliefs compatible with Christianity.

What did you expect him to say? Especially seeing as he was a believer?


"My system is totally against true scripture and christianity" with a long rant against the Church, it's tyranny etc?


With a long in depth look at biblical scholarship and christianity? Copernicus was trying to remain low key and step on as few toes as possible. That's why he would try to make scripture compatible with his theory and that's why he didn't go into religion too much: for doing so could change his beliefs from mere hypothesis to heresy.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


This is well-poisoning if I ever saw it. Academic publications published by universities are, as a rule, not underlaid editorial control from the university's administration. This is necessary to ensure academic integrity. A quick internet search would further reveal that the Baylor Law Review's editorial board consists exclusively of students, and in other words no members of the administration at all.

You are painting with a far too wide brush if you wish to taint every publication at Baylor university with actions and statements from the administration. Unless you have a particular complaint about the Baylor Law Review in particular you have no reason to dismiss an article published in it as "not objective".

(Honestly, the form of "argument" you're conducting here is underhand and intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to take umbrage at ceo_esq's behalf or on the behalf of Baylor Law Review or the original author, but I'll advice you that you might have crossed the line from merely rude to insulting.)

So the Review is controlled by Baptist-fundamentalist students....not teachers or professors. Sorry but that actually brought it from bad to worse.


Likewise I am not well-poisoning. Just pointing to the fact that whole reason for accepting a law journal as a reliable source is based on its prestidge or credibility, and Baylor's is questionable.
As it is a fundamentalist school speaking on a religious issue...what would you expect from them?

"Religion has absolutely no place in government?"

Now perhaps even that itself wouldn't make them dubious, after all just because theya re religious doesn't mean they can't be objective or do research. But Baylor has shown itself as a whole to let their bias interfere with their research on major issues in the past. THAT combined with thier religious sentiment makes them dubious.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Your sources have may have disputed this, but certainly not refuted it. Although the Galileo Project pages contest the theological angle in Galileo's case, asserting that it really was heliocentrism that caused the problem, I do not find there any contradiction of Stark?s general assertion. Please specify. The same goes for your use of the History of Science Society pages.



They have stated the reasons were based on religion: not politics or other scientists.

Interestingly, I note that the History of Science Society highly recommends (http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/resources/mf_resources.html) my principal source regarding the Galileo science/theology question (click on the "Reading the History of Science" link):They also recommend some of my other "questionable" sources, including David Lindberg and Stephen Shapin.[/b][/quote]

http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/resources/mf_resources.html

Yes, they mention dozens of books for reading, most likely so a person can get a feel for the field. This fails to change 3 things: 1) Your summary of the source is mere hearsay and questionable. 2) The society has disagreed with your entire approach overall. 3) You exagerate your sources.


You say the vast majority of science historians agree with you, then just name brooke. You also tend to take things out of context, I am not thus saying that Brooke is questionable based on my knowing him but more on my knowing you. This is why I want links to the specific articles your quote: not just your word.



As for quoting Stark, the work I've been referring to is one of the few recent ones to devote a lot of words to the precise issues we've been discussing; most general histories of science, for example, don?t give it an in-depth treatment. Stark's book seems to me to be well-researched and has an outstanding bibliography, and I think there?s every reason to keep quoting it as long as it?s relevant.


Again, I'm not just taking your word for it. I a link to the source so I can see it in context. Also your whole dismissal of other sources as "not as specific" is ad hoc.

There is as much information about Stark available as you care to look up. Here is Princeton University?s write-up for the book in question:

http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7501.html


Ok Princeton did a review of it....what's your point? On the review only two scholars endorsed it, both with pro-religious sentiments.

Here?s a description of Stark?s standard sociology textbook, "considered to be a living classic among introductory sociology texts":

http://newtexts.com/newtexts/book.cfm?book_id=1171


So Stark also wrote a sociology text book, not that I have a high opinion of sociology but again what's your point? Postmodernists do the same thing, doesn't mean they are credible when it comes to history.

Also those are two different works....

Clearly the guy is a major figure in his field, not some shady fringe element.

So because his book was reviewed and he wrote a text on sociology he's a major player?



I can only say that Copernicus and, initially, Galileo claimed to be more worried about the reception their work would get from their peers than the reception it would get from the Church. Anything more calls for speculation.

Not really. First off your own evaluation of the matter is somewhat speculative, unless they said explicitly "I'm more worried about my peers then the Church."


Secondly, I have shown the Church did threaten Galileo repeatedly. Can you show me any "peers" that did likewise within the scientific community?



I said it was "historically un-Christian", meaning that it is historically atypical of Christianity. I did not intend to suggest that such an act should arbitrarily be exempted from the definition of Christianity.

That is what your statement implies.



Hence, an awkward choice of words on my part, but no "No True Scotsman" fallacy.


So just because you say it isn't a fallacy it isn't?

True enough as to the first part. Again, my statement referred more to historical patterns of practice by the Church than to any particular definition of Christian orthodoxy.

Well then clearly you are wrong as the Church would punish people for questioning or violating its dogma.




I didn't say it was at odds with science, either. In fact, I don't think Christian theological propositions of any sort are generally are at odds with science. It was not science, though; it was theology.

Ok here's your statement I was responding to(notice it does include the word "unscientific")

(just as Galileo's position represented a historically un-scientific encroachment on the religious domain)


Now unscientific usually means at odds with science does it not?




"The conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church is indeed religious and theological in essence". What seems to me to be the most weakly supported part of this article is the charge that heliocentrism itself posed a direct challenge to Catholic doctrine, which are unaccompanied by any solid explanation of why this was so.


The perfectionist fallacy...either they explaining everything completely or they don't have a case at all.


I can explain the above though, the reason is the Catholic Church is absolutist, what's true is truth period. And it advocates that as a matter of faith. Also the idea of an Earth being the center of the universe fit in well with much theology at the time(where each outer planet was closer and closer to Heaven), the newly established christian/astrology integration, the idea that God thought we were special and would not create superfluous/unihnabited worlds(for why would a creator do such a pointless thing?) as well as the method of faith.




In this regard, I find Brooke's analysis of the theological issues to be more persuasive. There, at least, the conflict with Catholic doctrine is readily apparent from Galileo's own statements, and not does rely on naked suppositions about how specific scientific views supposedly contradict theological views attributed to Catholicism.


How do you know its naked supposition? Because they didn't explain every little detail verbatim....well neither did Brooke.

Again you commit the perfectionist fallacy by implying that since everything is not explained...all the research or statements are unreliable.


We are instead to take your word on your expert as more reliable then because he explains a bit more about random fact A.


Now this would work, if the source was already unreliable, however I think the Galileo project is an established reliable source, and I do not have reason to believe them to be lying or mistaken on the issue, so I think it is reasonable to accept.


Not only reasonable but far more testable then your source, as you need but click the links I send out. Whereas with your sources we have to take your word for it. (In which case I could merely invoke Dawkins, Shermer, Sulloway and Diamond: scholars much more weighty then your own on this matter.)


Also this is a bit off the topic of Galileo but I have shown scientists persecuted by the Church. I have likewise asked you to show my scientists perseucted by Greek philosophers orspecific cases where a man refused to do science under the influence of Greek philosophy. Please do so now. Also bring in examples of scientists punished by politicians for scientific reasons.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Earlier, Lord Kenneth suggested that religion is fundamentally "irrational". In retrospect, I think that statement requires qualification. It may well depend on the particular religion, for one thing, so let's consider Christianity for lack of a better and more relevant example.

It's worth emphasizing, first of all, that "rational" and "empirical" are not synonyms. Only logic and mathematics are wholly rational (i.e. they rely on pure abstract reason). Science has an element of reason and an element of experimentation. I agree, of course, that neither Christianity, nor any other religion of which I am aware, is empirical. But as I learn more about Christianity from my readings (inspired by our discussion here) about its history in relation to science, I am struck by the fact that the Christian tradition (at least in the Latin West) includes an extremely strong rational dimension. Unlike, perhaps, certain other religions, Christianity evolved a religious tradition that includes both revealed truths (those taken on faith) and reason.



CEO, I don't want to go there and you don't want me to go there.


First off this issue would be a philosophical one, not historical. So quoting experts would be meaningless at best, fallacious at worst.


Secondly it is quote clear your view of what is or is not "purely" rational is very loaded. Many for example could see observation and sense data as necessary for reasoning.


The fact is religion rests ultimately on faith. That is unless you can somehow definatively prove a specific religion to be the "correct one." And such a leap in faith goes against what reason establishes as probable, it also goes against the rational method at the fundamental level and is hence irrational.

If we go by faith I can simply say 2 plus 3 divided by 5 equal 811. And have faith in it, no questions asked: no room for correction.

Religion operates the same way, they accept a belief and accept it no matter what. Without evidence. (Even if there is no evidence against the claim btw it still would be considered superfluous and hence thrown out by rational mechanisms.)

Religion is hence irrational since it relies on faith and faith ultimately is a method at odds with reason.

And please don't suggest it's "just different" because by that basis I can just saY "Well I just make stuff up, it's not rational but it's not irrational, it's just different: so I believe there's an invisible elf in the room."

The whole purpose of reason is to base beliefs on evidence, once you stop doing that you violate the rules of reason and are therefore being irrational.

I also just wanted to add that many religions did in fact develope traditions that incorperated both "rational" dialogue and revealed truths(like Christianity) including Islam, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism(ever heard of the Upanishads?). In fact Hinduism is based more on this sort of dialogue and reflection then Christianity is. Anyone who took an Introductory class in world religions would know this, I'm surprised you don't.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm not asserting (nor have I ever asserted) that all scholars agree with these three, and I realize that winning a medal doesn't transform an erroneous historical thesis into a correct one. However, the sooner you quit disparaging this point of view as a fringe theory, the better.


I'm sorry, but did the award concern that specific theory? Is that what they were even awarded for?

Sorry but it will take more then your word i.e. hearsay and a medal for overall achievement before I consider the theory a major one.

I know for example Needham is a famous scholar of Eastern culture and its relationship to science. That is in fact what he is known and recognized for, not this theory of christianity promoting science or playing a key role you say he supports.

Also you neglect to mention certain facts or opinions arising from Needham:

What Needham brought to China was his already stated beliefs that Europeans in general, and scientists and Christians in particular, were suffused with spiritual pride, that European religion was objectionably supernatural, and that scientific wisdom was not necessarily superior to religious, ethical, and sociological wisdom. In explaining the disagreeable fact that science had not developed as rapidly in China as it had in Europe from the sixteenth century onward, he was led on to the more congenial question, why it had developed so successfully in China before the sixteenth century.


Oh so he says science was developing in China before the 16th century...your own expert. But didn't you say that "wasn't science but technology?"


Also:

To Taoism Needham has been invariably friendly, even when its social ideal has been said to be based on pre-feudal tribalism and its intellectual connections to be with magic, alchemy, and the search for the elixir of life. The points he has emphasized is that science often arises out of magic, that Taoism is the ?only systematic mysticism? which has not been anti-scientific, and that, by criticizing Confucian rationalism, it has proved that science and rationalism do not always go together.



So Needham said Eastern religions could be scientific...just like Western....


http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/11/feb93/cowling.htm







Also you have asserted that the "vast majority" of scholars agreed with those three, that the idea was "virtually undisputed".


Nice to see you are coming around.

[Gregor]

Let me clarify something on the Law Review article front. This is based on personal experience as being on the board of editors for another Texas law school many years ago. While I do not know if this occurred, I suspect that it was likely. . .

In the spring a hopeful author calls the law school and asks to speak to the academic advisor for the journal. The author states that he has a draft paper he'd like published. The advisor says send a draft.

After skimming the abstract, the advisor says "ok, it meets our criteria" - meaning it won't get the school sued and is marginally of interest to about five people in America. The advisor tells the new editorial board in September to expect a full article. The editorial board receives the article, cursorally checks its cites, and publishes it.

Typically, the University does not fund any research, support the position taken, or care much about the content.

The influence from the University is almost nothing - the board is just happy to have something to publish. However, it is far from peer reviewed, it has simply passed the smell test from a cursory review from an advisor and is hardly read by the students. It is clearly the opinions of the author alone.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
Let me clarify something on the Law Review article front. This is based on personal experience as being on the board of editors for another Texas law school many years ago. While I do not know if this occurred, I suspect that it was likely. . .

In the spring a hopeful author calls the law school and asks to speak to the academic advisor for the journal. The author states that he has a draft paper he'd like published. The advisor says send a draft.

After skimming the abstract, the advisor says "ok, it meets our criteria" - meaning it won't get the school sued and is marginally of interest to about five people in America. The advisor tells the new editorial board in September to expect a full article. The editorial board receives the article, cursorally checks its cites, and publishes it.

Typically, the University does not fund any research, support the position taken, or care much about the content.

The influence from the University is almost nothing - the board is just happy to have something to publish. However, it is far from peer reviewed, it has simply passed the smell test from a cursory review from an advisor and is hardly read by the students. It is clearly the opinions of the author alone. Gregor, thanks for clarifying this. I suspect there is some variation in procedure nationally; the law review I was on had substantially more review (though usually not too much input) from the board of professor-advisors (and I wouldn't describe the cite-checking as cursory but as a painstaking - and pain-in-the-ass - exercise). At any rate, I hope you'd agree that articles in the mainstream law reviews are generally subjected to an academic standard that far exceeds the vetting usually applied to mere court briefs or Internet sources.

[ceo_esq]

DialecticMaterialist,

Welcome back.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Hence my problem with your hearsay, my source then says the opposite of your claims using the same reference material, what then am I supposed to think of your statements?The opposite of my claim would be to say that Bruno was convicted for espousing particular scientific statements. The Galileo Project does not say this; it takes no position on whether he was convicted for his theologizing or for his science (saying we just don’t know). So even the Galileo Project does not place Bruno in a category where he would be clearly helpful to your case. But if you have a problem with it, why don't you show some good faith and go read the outside sources identified and recommended by the Galileo Project (like the Yates book)? Then we can discuss those sources like serious debaters instead of Internet-surfing poseurs.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I have shown examples where you have done just that, simply saying otherwise does not change this fact. Creationists say they do science, but simply saying it does not make it so. And your purporting to show examples where I've exaggerated doesn't make it a fact.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And people abuse them via misinterpretations: this is why I don't take someone's word for it. Sure you do. Have you picked up an actual book to investigate any of the sources cited online, the way I do?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is ridiculous: just because you did not say that verbatim [that all scholars agree that the Church was instrumental to the rise of science in the West] means that this is not the position you have endorsed? Are you saying that to summarize or evaluate your argument I have to do so verbatim(even though your argument is vague and ambiguous) instead of simply getting to the meats and potatoes then?

You have implied christianity was the reason science arose in Europe and not elsewhere. Do you now stand by this position or are you changing it? Let's distinguish between two separate claims:

Claim #1: Christianity was instrumental to the rise of science, and this is partly why science arose in Europe and not elsewhere.

Claim #2: All scholars agree with Claim #1.

I have made Claim #1. I have not made Claim #2. Do you see the difference? You have disputed both Claim #1 and Claim #2, but the second one is a strawman.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Take note, this is another area where you misinterpret and exagerate your sources. This is especially bad for you seeing as you have not even read Jared Diamond but are at the same time pretty confident he supports your positions.

Diamond's explanation was a geo-political one, not a religious or philosophical one. Okay, another lesson. Here are two more distinct claims:

Claim #3: China and other non-European societies were far less successful than Europe at independently developing a scientific culture.

Claim #4. An important part of why Claim #3 is true is the relative absence in non-European cultures of certain things/ideas that Christianity contributed to European culture.

I've made both Claim #3 and Claim #4. You have disputed Claim #4 and, at a few points in our discussion, also Claim #3.

I've asserted that Jared Diamond seems to agree with Claim #3 because, by all reports, he uses it in his argument as a reason why Europe came to dominate other parts of the world.

I've never asserted that Jared Diamond agrees with Claim #4, however.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Or your excerpt/summary of Stark to be more precise. Also if there is such widespread scholarly agreement why are leading thinkers like Jared Diamond, Frank Sulloway and the HSS disagreeing? As far as I can tell, there is widespread scholarly agreement as to Claim #3 above, which is all that Stark was saying when he referred to "consensus". Even thinkers we've raised in this discussion who do not endorse Claim #4 above (for example, Jared Diamond, Bertrand Russell and Amos Funkenstein) appear to have no problem with Claim #3.

If it's not too much trouble, could you name again the thinkers who dispute Claim #3? If there seem to be quite a few of them in the past century, I'll concede that Stark's assertion that there is consensus as to Claim #3 is incorrect (though not necessarily Claim #3 itself, of course).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This entire ordeal ignored the fact that beforehand it was not stated that a census or survey would be limited to a peer-reviewed journal. And I hope you are not making such a statement, as I doubt you can show me a case where the majority of legal scholars/historians were surveyed and came to your position(the ten commandments are the main force in legal evolution) in a peer reviewed journal? In my experience, the existence or nonexistence of scholarly consensus on a particular point is usually determined by reviewing the published literature for evidence of opinions pro and contra, rather than by actual polls. Certainly in my field that's true, anyway.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

[posted by ceo_esq: Also, I seem to recall that you asserted that a friend-of-the-court brief (which any lawyer can submit) was generally as reliable a source as a peer-reviewed professional journal.]

Nope. Begging your pardon, but your precise words (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870013288) were:Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
They are friend of the Court briefings, to me that is just as good as a peer reviewed lawyer journal.You appear to have a very selective memory.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So are you then saying that Christianity is not the main reason science arose in the west? How do you go from (1) my acknowledgment that in the mid-to-late Renaissance material support for scientific endeavors was available from both non-ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical sources to (2) a retraction of my arguments that Christianity was indispensable to the rise of science?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[The Church] was a major patron [of scientific learning], but so were other church's in other societies and other political institutions in Europe. Hardly a solid case for christianity being a key element for the development of science in Europe as opposed to elsewhere. Also not the argument you made.

In truth this is a part of what you said, but it is not all. You also said the Church was needed to build the philosophical groundwork, which was stagnant due to Aristotle's/Greek influence, and that Christian influence is the reason why science arose in Europe: not in other continents.(This would make Chriatianity then the main force in the development of science.) Simply presenting part of your claim as if it is the whole claim is thus a bit misleading. I reiterated that part of my claim in order to refute your suggestion that I ever argued that the Church was always the sole patron of scientific learning. That's why I repeated my Lindberg quotation. I did not present it as though it encapsulated my entire argument on the subject, obviously, and what on earth could make you infer that I had?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
*sigh* and yet again you hide behind ambiguity., Postmodernists do the same thing. When they state "everything is relative" and are called out for the absurdity of a position that makes 2 plus 2 equal to 2 plus 5, they then insist they were not meaning "all statements are equally true" by relative but only that people hold different beliefs: at least when faced with critics. Their message for their flock is of course that of extreme cogbitive relativism.

You tend to do the same thing, letting the stronger interpretation stand until it is called out, then ducking behind a weaker interpretation. From "they weren;t in trouble due to science...but theology." (you did later on suggest this making such an interpretation more probable) to now simply "Well the article didn't say they were verbatim in trouble for doing science." What was so ambiguous about my statement? I said none of those 10 individuals could be shown to have gotten in trouble for scientific reasons. Period. I did not backpedal afterwards. The only thing that would undermine my claim in that particular respect is if any of the 10 could be shown to have gotten in trouble for science, which is presumably what we were looking for examples of.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And that may be true, but they were in trouble for expressing opinions contrary to the church which likely included their scientific ones or those concerning science. Basis for deducing this supposed likelihood?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So why wouldn't the Church just outlaw science? I don't know. I imagine some may have tried but 1) It would be very difficult and 2) Kings, Queens and even Catholics need science to compete with kings, queens and other cultures. 3) Invention is the mother of necessity, as new things are invented new standards are made, new enviroments are created and hence new ways of thinking about and doing things are required. Or maybe the Church never outlawed science because, as Edward Grant concluded in a passage I cited earlier, "the Church looked with favor on science"?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What has this to do with anything? I fail to see the relevance of this bizarre analogy. Are you accusing me of mere conspiracy theory? I am accusing you of begging the question, just as in that analogy. Your suggestion that the Church would naturally try to conceal an objectionable motive such as "We don't like science" assumes that the Church really doesn't like science, an assumption that is not only unproven but, in light of all other evidence, extremely unlikely ever to have been true. When you say "of course the Church isn't going to go on record as saying 'We don't like this science'", I understand you to mean that the Church's behavior is consistent with an attempt to dissimulate its true motive, while trying by ad hoc means to further such motive. My point here is that the Church's typical failure to go on record as condemning specific scientific propositions is also consistent with a general attitude that doesn't find scientific propositions theologically objectionable. The fact that you assume the former rather than the latter does, in fact, carry a whiff of conspiracy theorizing.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

[posted by ceo_esq: The only assumption I've made is that, where your source offered a reason for the person's investigation or condemnation, it was correct. Can you identify any ones I got wrong?]

I did . Look at my previous posts. No, you didn't. I’ll agree for the sake of argument here to put Bruno in the category of "not sure why he was convicted". That leaves us with: - Aldrovandi's charge is not clear, but there's no suggestion it was science-related.
- Barocius got in trouble for occult magical practices.
- Borro's charge is not clear; it seems to be linked to his unorthodox philosophical views and there's no suggestion it was science-related.
- Campanella, it is strongly suggested, got in trouble for his writings about the Church and the Spanish monarchy; what finally landed him in jail is described as a "political conspiracy".
- Cardano got in trouble for trying to apply astrology to Catholic theological matters.
- Magni got in trouble as a result of a political feud with other clergymen; his few scientific activities are not mentioned in this connection.
- Della Porta appears to have gotten in trouble for his philosophical writings (his specialty, remember, being occult philosophy) and the esoteric circle he founded to pursue such ideas.
- Sarpi got in trouble in his capacity as the religious advisor to Venice, for siding with the city in a power struggle against the papacy and counseling Venice to defy papal orders.This is summarized directly from your sources! Show me, specifically, and based on what your sources actually said, where any of my interpretations of these cases are unreasonable.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[One-in-three] is poor odds seeing how severe the punishment is and what the "crime" was. Whether the odds are "poor" arguably does, I agree, depend on the possible outcome (i.e. the likely severity of any punishment) but, strictly speaking, not on what the crime was - that's irrelevant to an evaluation of the odds. And as for the punishments being severe, we've seen from our examples that they generally were lenient where they were given at all (in most cases, either a slap on the wrist, an injunction or a very short detention), at least relative to the standard penal practices of the day.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also we are not simply talking people who actually questioned the Church but those merely accused of doing so. What was your chance of getting off if you as a scientist actually questioned the Church on a scientific matter? One of my points here, DM, has been that Church dogma does not ordinarily involve matters of science. Revealed truths do not include truths about empirically observable phenomena in the natural world (see my earlier references to Saint Augustine on this). The sacred doctrines of the Church do not include teachings that could be scientifically falsified by an empirical proposition. So if nothing sacred is scientific, and nothing scientific is sacred, a better question is "What was your chance of ever coming into conflict with the Church on a scientific matter in the first place?" The answer: a very small chance indeed.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I hardly call locking up scientists for questioning dogma, i.e. doing what scientists are supposed to do "science neutral." Dogma is limited to theological propositions, not scientific ones. I think scientists should be allowed to theologize as freely as anybody else, which the Renaissance Church obviously disagreed with. But I don't think locking someone up for violating theology (a non-scientific activity) is any less "science-neutral" than locking him up for violating income tax laws. The fact that the violator in either instance happens to also be a scientist is purely incidental.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Again this is like a game, "show me scientists who were persecuted by the Church."

I show you. No, I never asked to be shown scientists who were persecuted by the Church unless they were persecuted for doing science rather than theology. Why would I have? I think it's irrelevant.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Then it's "Well show me they were punished for doing science: not bad theology."

Again I show you a couple examples. No clear examples of this have been adduced. Galileo is the only case that comes remotely close, and I think we've demonstrated that reasonable people (our respective authorities) disagree over whether he was truly a valid example of this.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You had not asked for scientists being persecuted for explicitly scientific reasons but examples of the Church persecuting scientists. Again this latter standard brought up after the fact is an example of ad hoc reasoning. Could you remind me where I suggested that it would be remotely interesting or useful to see examples of the Church persecuting scientists except where such persecution was based on scientific propositions rather than something else?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Or perhaps you can show me a similar census that shows whether a country is religious or not has no impact on scientific advancement. It's not a question of religion generally, but of a particular kind of religion. Brooke, Grant, Stark, Duhem, Needham and Jaki and others have compared scientific development in Christian cultures versus Islamic, Hindu, Confucianist and other cultures and located a correlation. The basic correlation itself is apparent even in the work of Russell, Diamond and Funkenstein - they simply deny (or in Funkenstein's case, do not opine on) causation.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
They are first off at times persuted explicitly for scientific opinions. They are secondly being persecuted to questioning dogma, which would likely extend to scientific matters. By "at times", I assume you mean Galileo, the best and so far only (though still highly disputable) candidate for an example of someone demonstrably persecuted specifically for his scientific opinions. As for your second statement, I've shown why it is a priori highly unlikely that questioning dogma would extend to scientific matters, because the substantive overlap between science and Catholic dogma is virtually nil.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I am saying something more like:

-The Church persecutes people for questioning their dogma.

-Science requires that certain dogma be questioned.

-But the Church does not allow this.

-Hence the Church is slowing science down. There's a problem with your second premise, and by extension your third. The scientific method requires that beliefs about observable physical phenomena be questioned. But as far as I can see, the Church asserts no revealed (i.e. faith-based) truths about such matters.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And this would only be part of my argument btw, not the whole thing.

More can be brought up such as:

-Science demands we question our beliefs. Again, science demands that we question beliefs about a certain category of things about which the Church has certainly encouraged a natural curiosity, but refrained from elevating to the level of theology.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also:

-The Church has created a stagnant system that discourages questioning and rational inquiry. See Grant (above) for a refutation of this.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Patently and obviously false. There is vitalism, idealist taxonomy, geocentrism, the bad air/god's wrath theory of disease, the idea that fire was a product of spirits, and creationism to name but a few. DM, what makes you think that these ideas were dogmatic claims? They were merely widely held theories in their day, both within and without ecclesiastical circles. They never attained the status of theological doctrine or revealed religious truth. There's never been anything in the Catechism to the effect that the sun revolves around the earth, for example. As Mersenne's famous statement suggests, the usual Catholic attitude seems to have been that God could have put the sun anywhere he wanted and it was up to scientists to figure out where he did put it.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Not really. First off your own evaluation of the matter is somewhat speculative, unless they said explicitly "I'm more worried about my peers then the Church." Hmm. Copernicus explicitly says that he is worried about the reception that his book will receive from other mathematical astronomers. Then he explicitly says (as Leif Roar quoted) that he is not worried about attacks based on theology. One doesn't have to engage in too much speculation to deduce that he was more worried about his peers than about the Church.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Now unscientific usually means at odds with science does it not? No. It often means "not having to do with scientific matters." Red is my favorite color is an unscientific statement, but not one at odds with science. In the case of Galileo's theological position, it was unscientific because it did not have to do with scientific matters as such. It was also historically uncharacteristic of science because scientists, in their capacity as such, are not in the business of making theological statements.

[bignickel]

DialecticMaterialist!! Answer your dang PMs!!! You're the one who wanted to start that Alpha Centauri game! Me, SST, & Thrombus29 are starting a game up! Respond to your thread in A&L.

Oh, and uh... on the subject of the thread... hmmm... religion perhaps helps those humans who can't handle the concept of permanent death, stay sane. But religion in general brings it in conflict with science, and interferes with man's progress.
religion -> assists a man
science -> assists man

Just like Sister Miriam of the Believers, with her -1 to Research! (but +2 to Moral)

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Hey?! SST? IS that some sort of dig at me? ;)

Religion is definatly slowing us down in reguards to science at least. The Judeo-xtian morals are kinda whacky in some aspects, and prevent some very legitimate fields of study from getting as much publicity as they should be getting.


SSR

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
DialecticMaterialist,

Welcome back.
The opposite of my claim would be to say that Bruno was convicted for espousing particular scientific statements. The Galileo Project does not say this; it takes no position on whether he was convicted for his theologizing or for his science (saying we just don?t know). So even the Galileo Project does not place Bruno in a category where he would be clearly helpful to your case. But if you have a problem with it, why don't you show some good faith and go read the outside sources identified and recommended by the Galileo Project (like the Yates book)? Then we can discuss those sources like serious debaters instead of Internet-surfing poseurs

Again the book is proof surrogate. I will do this if and only if you hold your tongue on the issue until you finish Born to Rebel, Guns, Germs and Steel and the Borderlands of Science.


Also the above is written in respect to the wrong claim(I did not say it is proven Bruno was convicted of science, only that he was a scientist and the reason for his conviction remains controversial.


And your purporting to show examples where I've exaggerated doesn't make it a fact.

Fine then I'll waste my time looking for another example just for you.

Medieval thinkers did not hesitate to throw Aristotle?s ideas out the window if they were inconsistent with Christianity or with empirical observations.

Middleievil scholars really did not hesitate to throw out Aristotle when Aristotelianism conflicted with observation...Galileo may say different.



Sure you do. Have you picked up an actual book to investigate any of the sources cited online, the way I do?
Let's distinguish between two separate claims:

Are you telling me you read every single one these books on the sources cited online?

Also have you read Guns, Germs and Steel or Born to Rebel?

Claim #1: Christianity was instrumental to the rise of science, and this is partly why science arose in Europe and not elsewhere.

Claim #2: All scholars agree with Claim #1.

You have said most scholars agree with claim 2, I have shown that to be questionable.



Claim #3: China and other non-European societies were far less successful than Europe at independently developing a scientific culture.

Claim #4. An important part of why Claim #3 is true is the relative absence in non-European cultures of certain things/ideas that Christianity contributed to European culture.

I've made both Claim #3 and Claim #4. You have disputed Claim #4 and, at a few points in our discussion, also Claim #3.

I've asserted that Jared Diamond seems to agree with Claim #3 because, by all reports, he uses it in his argument as a reason why Europe came to dominate other parts of the world.

I've never asserted that Jared Diamond agrees with Claim #4, however.
As far as I can tell, there is widespread scholarly agreement as to Claim #3 above, which is all that Stark was saying when he referred to "consensus". Even thinkers we've raised in this discussion who do not endorse Claim #4 above (for example, Jared Diamond, Bertrand Russell and Amos Funkenstein) appear to have no problem with Claim #3.

This is what I was responding to:

That claim says nothing about the reasons why science arose in Europe. And so far as I can tell, Jared Diamond agrees with this point of view - after all, wasn't his book an explanation of why science had trouble developing in China?

Now I'm going to have to point out something you should know, i.e. the fallacy of Amphiboly.


Here it is:

Definition:

An amphiboly occurs when the construction of a sentence allows it to have two different meanings.



http://www.savagemind.com/encyclopedia/logicalfallacies/Amphiboly


I am getting very irrtated of you making a blank statement and then explaining what you "really meant" under the heat of criticism as if I for some odd reason was supposed to know prescientifically.


Your claim concerning Diamond above was in reference to our debate over the cause of science failing to materialize in china, not whether science materialized there or not. (I wasn't even aware that the latter was under debate which makes the matter of why you would bring it up a bit confusing.)







If it's not too much trouble, could you name again the thinkers who dispute Claim #3? If there seem to be quite a few of them in the past century, I'll concede that Stark's assertion that there is consensus as to Claim #3 is incorrect (though not necessarily Claim #3 itself, of course).

I was not merely criticizing claim 3 but claim 4. There is a big difference.

But I can name one if you really want me to: Needham.


In my experience, the existence or nonexistence of scholarly consensus on a particular point is usually determined by reviewing the published literature for evidence of opinions pro and contra, rather than by actual polls.

And that is all fine in good if everyone has an idea of what a good amount is in that given field. You have yet to satisfy these conditions. Please provide something besides an example or two then that you think is key or I will consider your statement a hasty generalization.




How do you go from (1) my acknowledgment that in the mid-to-late Renaissance material support for scientific endeavors was available from both non-ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical sources to (2) a retraction of my arguments that Christianity was indispensable to the rise of science?


Are you interested in serious debate or testing my patience?


You did not make the "1" modest claim at the beggining of this debate but said:

(2) it was probably due to religion that people in Western Europe became preoccupied with understanding their physical environment in a scientific sense, unlike the ancient Greeks whose theoretical work was largely unempirical and whose empirical work was largely atheoretical.

Historically speaking, Christian theology was probably essential to the rise of science (and partly explains why science arose in Western Europe and not elsewhere, despite the accomplishments of other cultures in mathematics and engineering).








I reiterated that part of my claim in order to refute your suggestion that I ever argued that the Church was always the sole patron of scientific learning.

And I said this when? Or did I say you claimed it was essential and also that if it was only a partial patron...well then how essential could it have been?

By essential you imply that without the Church science would never have risen, I have shown that to be improbable.



I said none of those 10 individuals could be shown to have gotten in trouble for scientific reasons. Period.

Yes excluding Galileo, the individual I had presented as getting in trouble specifically for his science. Kind of a weasely move on your part.

Also the statement "could not be shown to have gotten in trouble for scientific reasons" could mean well: they did not get in trouble for doing science.

Or they were not on trial for the accusation of doing science.

Or it is simply not said explicitly that they were in trouble for doing science.

The latter two claims would have been straw men so I of course presume you meant the first (something you did not object to right away). Backpeddling is hardly a salient response to the matter.



The only thing that would undermine my claim in that particular respect is if any of the 10 could be shown to have gotten in trouble for science, which is presumably what we were looking for examples of.

That is an absurd request which shows the desperation of your case. Can you show me any Soviet citizens that were in trouble "for doing science"?

I doubt you can, hardly proof that Stalinism failed to impede scientific research.

Such a request or standard represents a straw man, one you yourself don't adhere to when you make claims concerning how Greek and Aristitelian influence impeded science.




Basis for deducing this supposed likelihood?


Induction.

Or maybe the Church never outlawed science because, as Edward Grant concluded in a passage I cited earlier, "the Church looked with favor on science"?

I believe some did so and this was part of it, but could the Church have? That's a different questions. They did try to outlaw some branches of science and failed.

They tried also to outlaw the use of garlic to ward off vampires as witchcraft(the true way to do it was to use crosses...said the Church). The Church tried the same with Protestanism.






I am accusing you of begging the question, just as in that analogy. Your suggestion that the Church would naturally try to conceal an objectionable motive such as "We don't like science" assumes that the Church really doesn't like science, an assumption that is not only unproven but, in light of all other evidence, extremely unlikely ever to have been true.

Ok I see what you are saying. But I am not just presuming that the Church had such a motive out of the blue.


I am saying that the Church punished people for questioning dogma i.e. asking "too many questions" and the Church likewise had a method in many ways opposed to science as well as beliefs established by the said method that would impede science.

This means its likely that when the Church punished a scientist who naturally questions previous assumptions the Church would likely punish the guy and not say "for doing science."

Communists did the same thing, especially Stalin with Darwinists but it was never for "doing science" but for being "counter-revolutionary."

Of course such thinly vieled disguises are easy to see through.



When you say "of course the Church isn't going to go on record as saying 'We don't like this science'", I understand you to mean that the Church's behavior is consistent with an attempt to dissimulate its true motive, while trying by ad hoc means to further such motive. My point here is that the Church's typical failure to go on record as condemning specific scientific propositions is also consistent with a general attitude that doesn't find scientific propositions theologically objectionable.

If a scientist agrees with Church beliefs and theology of course the Church is going to like him. Just as Nazis liked "race science".


The fact is though the Church did condem science when it questioned the Church. I have shown at least two cases of this out of 12. (And by that I mean those admitedly for the science.)

You have yet to show me a case where a scientist questioned the Church and was welcomed with open arms.





The fact that you assume the former rather than the latter does, in fact, carry a whiff of conspiracy theorizing.

And your claim that all knoweldge concerning the well known Church's persecution of scientists is "made up" isn't?


Whether the odds are "poor" arguably does, I agree, depend on the possible outcome (i.e. the likely severity of any punishment) but, strictly speaking, not on what the crime was - that's irrelevant to an evaluation of the odds.

The odds of 1 out of 3 of being locked up after serious investigation for a violent or dangerous offense is very different from a 1 out of 3 chance of being tortured for speaking your mind.




And as for the punishments being severe, we've seen from our examples that they generally were lenient

So if the US started imprisoning priests for preaching Christianity the fact that theyw ere put under house arrest instead of being locked in a dungeon would have been lenient? (This along with the fact that a third faced torture and execution).





One of my points here, DM, has been that Church dogma does not ordinarily involve matters of science. Revealed truths do not include truths about empirically observable phenomena in the natural world (see my earlier references to Saint Augustine on this).

Not true and I have given examples for this like Heliocentrism, something based on a literal reading of the Bible. Let me ask you, do you think the Israelites who wrote Joshua thought the sun moved around the Earth?




The sacred doctrines of the Church do not include teachings that could be scientifically falsified by an empirical proposition.

Creationism, God's wrath theory of disease, the idea that crosses ward of vampires, vitalism.....




So if nothing sacred is scientific, and nothing scientific is sacred, a better question is "What was your chance of ever coming into conflict with the Church on a scientific matter in the first place?" The answer: a very small chance indeed.

What about astrology? The idea of a virgin birth? Biblical history?


Did not St. Augustine say certain horses could get pregant by air?


Such is merely the surface of the Church making empirical claims which then became matters of faith.





Dogma is limited to theological propositions, not scientific ones. I think scientists should be allowed to theologize as freely as anybody else, which the Renaissance Church obviously disagreed with. But I don't think locking someone up for violating theology (a non-scientific activity) is any less "science-neutral" than locking him up for violating income tax laws.

Your argument is flawed from the start. True dogma is for theology not science....but the seperation of one from the other (science and theology) was not ideal back then.

Hence theological beliefs could still fall into the areas where scientists could research, leading to conflict. Such a thing would not be science neutral but detrimental.

Your whole argument presumes the Church had effectively limited its claims to only the most untestable aspects of its belief system back then: it hadn't.





The fact that the violator in either instance happens to also be a scientist is purely incidental.


False analogy.


Punishing a person for questioning beliefs is not the same as punishing someone for tax fraud, one violates the principle of free inquiry(something important for science) the other does not. One makes people watch what they say or criticize the other does not. There is a big difference here.

Also your entire case presupposes that every case of a scientist being persecuted from the onset was theological reasons, or purely theological. Yet you have brought nothing whatsoever to back this up. Only that may 2 or 3 of my example consisted of people accused of witchcraft or practicing heterodox theology.




No, I never asked to be shown scientists who were persecuted by the Church unless they were persecuted for doing science rather than theology.

Ok then show me scientists of the Soviet Union perseucted for doing science not for political crimes. Or scientist in Nazi regimes persecuted for scientific not ideological reasons...


Or show me an actual case instead of the straw man you have brought forth.

(Also we have admitted many of the cases above were just not shown to have been explicitly stated a matter of science...this does not by itself prove the opposite: the person was in trouble for a matter of theology.)


Also are you saying that the persecution of a person for his opinions or questioning authority is not detrimental to science? Or reason/skeoticism?





Galileo is the only case that comes remotely close, and I think we've demonstrated that reasonable people (our respective authorities) disagree over whether he was truly a valid example of this.

They have at most said Galileo was more afraid of his peers then the Church...hardly evidence that Galileo did not get in trouble with the Church for his science even if that was true.





Brooke, Grant, Stark, Duhem, Needham and Jaki and others have compared scientific development in Christian cultures versus Islamic, Hindu, Confucianist and other cultures and located a correlation. The basic correlation itself is apparent even in the work of Russell, Diamond and Funkenstein - they simply deny (or in Funkenstein's case, do not opine on) causation.

That's a rather bold blanket statement. I hope you can back that up with something verifiable.






As for your second statement, I've shown why it is a priori highly unlikely that questioning dogma would extend to scientific matters, because the substantive overlap between science and Catholic dogma is virtually nil.

And I have given examples as to how you are wrong.




There's a problem with your second premise, and by extension your third. The scientific method requires that beliefs about observable physical phenomena be questioned. But as far as I can see, the Church asserts no revealed (i.e. faith-based) truths about such matters.

Those based or derived off of biblical literalism, ancient dogmas and prevelant superstitious would count as such.



Again, science demands that we question beliefs about a certain category of things about which the Church has certainly encouraged a natural curiosity, but refrained from elevating to the level of theology.
See Grant (above) for a refutation of this.

Again with the proof surrogate. All I get from you is "I have a book somewhere that says X".

Nevermind we cannot check that right now....we are just supposed to take your word for it.


Well I have also read books that say different...what's your point? Shermer in the Borderlands of science gives an in depth look at how geocentrism united the science, theology and astrology of the Catholic Church. And how Galileo's challenge thus had serious theological ramifications...but you don't see me quoting that endlessly.

Because I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Also your arbitrary division of categories might sound good now at days on paper, but we are not talking about the modern Church. Also the Church still today doesn't know where to draw the line, what makes you think it did back then?





DM, what makes you think that these ideas were dogmatic claims? They were merely widely held theories in their day, both within and without ecclesiastical circles.

They were derived from the Bible. What makes you think they were just widely held claims? And please give me something I can verify, not more of your proof surrogate and semi-anonymous authority.



There's never been anything in the Catechism to the effect that the sun revolves around the earth, for example.

So why did Galileo get in trouble for saying otherwise? Why was there such strong religious reaction?



As Mersenne's famous statement suggests, the usual Catholic attitude seems to have been that God could have put the sun anywhere he wanted and it was up to scientists to figure out where he did put it.

That may be the modern Catholic attitude but it wasn't the attitude back then.



Copernicus explicitly says that he is worried about the reception that his book will receive from other mathematical astronomers.
Then he explicitly says (as Leif Roar quoted) that he is not worried about attacks based on theology.

The passage:


Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded.

He mentions them in passing saying he disregards them. He never says they do not worry him. Remember he was only allowed to publish with the Church's persmission that he label his case a mere hypothesis.




Red is my favorite color is an unscientific statement, but not one at odds with science.

It's not a scientific statement, that does not mean it is unscientific. Again there is some ambiguity going on here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unscientific

Please look at definition two and three. One could possibly support your assertion but it is ambiguous(it can mean either a lacking or violation.)



In the case of Galileo's theological position, it was unscientific because it did not have to do with scientific matters as such. It was also historically uncharacteristic of science because scientists, in their capacity as such, are not in the business of making theological statements.

Yet they can, and Galileo got in trouble for his theology precisely because his statement was backed with scientific reasoning. It was only "theological" in so far as Galileo had to make room in his science for theology, not vice versa. So Galileo could only get in trouble for theology to the extent that his scientific beliefs contradicted catholic theology of the time.


Presenting that then as a theological issue is thus very misleading.

That's like if someone in the old USSR got in trouble for criticizing Lysenkoism and I said he got in trouble merely for "counter-revolutionary activities."

Slanting and misleading doesn't merely involving telling out and out lies/falsehoods but in skewing and giving only partial information.

[Gregor]

It seems that D-M and Ceo are wrapped up in certain issues and a summary is in order.

The (sub)question is "Did religion (specifically Xianity) impede or encourage scientific development in the West."

1. I don't know that anyone is really arguing that across the board, the Church actively attempted to stop all scientific research, investigation, development, and etc. It appears that a few examples (albeit disputed) of active interference/punishment may exist (ref: Gallileo).

2. I think the question is whether if the Church were not as predominant from 500 CE to 1500 CE would the West have been more developed, scientifically, today.

3. CEO's arguments that the Church actually helped development, not hindered it are two: (i) the East (China) did not have a "Xian Church-State" but it did not develop as much science, so how could Xianity impede science and (ii) the Church rejected Aristotlean views and encouraged observation and testing, which helped science.

DM's rebuttals are: (i) the East/West analysis is a false one - the east's scientific 'delays' being ascribed to issues other than religion and (ii) from 500 to 1200 C.E. the West did not have Aristotle slowing us down and science didn't develop, and (iii) the first rediscoverers of Aristotle were orthodox Churchmen who adopted, not rejected, Aristotle's logic.

I suppose one could argue endlessly whether the Church helped science (create Univesities, encourage writing and libraries, encourage some intellectual pursuits, etc) or hurt science (persecuted some scientists, encouraged illiteracy, dominated the populace, etc.).

I can't help falling back to the fact that the dramatic progress in science and technology from 1400 to 1800 C.E. is inversely proportional to the decline in influence of the Xian Church over the same period. While this may be a case of correlation without causation, I doubt it. The Church dominated the west for 1,000 years. I think that when the Church's dominance of employment, philosophy, and university studies started to wane, smart folks went into science (without the Church). If this waning and re-deployment had occurred 1000 years earlier, the smart folks would have been doing their secular smart stuff 1000 years earlier.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
It seems that D-M and Ceo are wrapped up in certain issues and a summary is in order.

The (sub)question is "Did religion (specifically Xianity) impede or encourage scientific development in the West."

1. I don't know that anyone is really arguing that across the board, the Church actively attempted to stop all scientific research, investigation, development, and etc. It appears that a few examples (albeit disputed) of active interference/punishment may exist (ref: Gallileo).

2. I think the question is whether if the Church were not as predominant from 500 CE to 1500 CE would the West have been more developed, scientifically, today.

3. CEO's arguments that the Church actually helped development, not hindered it are two: (i) the East (China) did not have a "Xian Church-State" but it did not develop as much science, so how could Xianity impede science and (ii) the Church rejected Aristotlean views and encouraged observation and testing, which helped science.Thank you, Gregor, for your sensible intervention. I do think that we were beginning to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I would summarize my own argument as follows:

1. First, Christian theology (especially as elaborated in the Middle Ages) introduced, or else promoted over competing (and usually scientifically counterproductive) notions often coming from pre-existing Greek or other thought, certain ideas that were metaphysically suited to encouraging scientific inquiry. These ideas, which were not entirely reunited in non-Christian cultures, included without limitation the following:- The universe was created by a single, rational divine mind, such that it can be expected to operate in a fundamentally orderly fashion and that the laws governing it (laid down at the time of creation) ought theoretically to be intelligible to other rational minds via rational examination. Furthermore, such inquiry is an objectively good thing as it leads to a deeper appreciation of the creator’s handiwork.

- As all things in the natural universe, from the loftiest stars to the deepest oceans, are part of the same created order, they can be expected to obey the same laws. Moreover, inanimate objects are just that - they are not inhabited by gods; they are not organisms; we cannot explain their behavior by reference to autonomous will, desire or "final causes".

- The universe, as such, had an actual beginning and unfolds through time in a linear manner; is also results from the contingent, free act of an omnipotent creator. Accordingly, a priori explanations of natural phenomena are unsatisfactory, and linear cause-and-effect relationships obtain throughout the universe.

- Like the history of time in the natural universe, the history of human culture and knowledge is unfolding in a linear fashion, and the potential for progress is (for all practical human purposes) unlimited.2. Second, Christianity provided much necessary material and moral support for rational and scientific inquiry in general, often in unique ways such as developing and fostering the university system, as well as in a more basic fashion through encouraging a general high regard for learning and intellectualism.

3. Third, while we can establish that religious institutions and theology at least occasionally posed a hindrance to scientific endeavors, it appears that insofar as the historical record reveals, such obstacles were more infrequent, less serious and less effective than even I suspected when I began my research for this thread. At any rate, they do not outweigh the metaphysical, material and moral support rendered to the scientific enterprise by Christianity.


Accordingly, I deduce that the net contribution made to science by Christianity was not only positive but probably necessary (though certainly not sufficient) to allow the rise of modern scientific culture.

That's my basic argument; everything else is pretty much just corollaries and examples.

Note that I fully agree that many, though not all, parts of classical learning were extremely beneficial to the rise of science, which helps explain why Western Europe was somewhat handicapped until more of such scholarship was translated into Latin and circulated widely in the latter part of the Middle Ages. However, such learning was also not a sufficient factor to the rise of science, or we would expect to see more progress in the Islamic world during the centuries they possessed and studied Greek thought. (By the way, I consider Aristotle's logic - which you mentioned above - to have been a helpful influence, and one that was assimilated into Western medieval natural philosophy.)

Another way of looking at it is as follows: classical Greek learning, if fruitfully employed, will take you a good bit of the way toward developing a truly scientific worldview. However, it doesn't get you across the finish line, and indeed, tends to hinder you from taking the last few steps. This is where, in the West, Christianity came into play.
Originally posted by Gregor
I can't help falling back to the fact that the dramatic progress in science and technology from 1400 to 1800 C.E. is inversely proportional to the decline in influence of the Xian Church over the same period. While this may be a case of correlation without causation, I doubt it. The Church dominated the west for 1,000 years.I have a few observations on this.

By the very end of the medieval period (say 1500), Europe had already made such dramatic progress in science and technology vis-à-vis the rest of the world that its lead and dominance were all but untouchable, essentially due to advances and revolutions that occurred in the 12th through the 15th centuries. In other words, the era when Europe definitively eclipsed the rest of the scientific and technological pack was an era when the Church was at or near the height of its power and influence.

All of the study I've devoted to this issue leads me to believe, with Grant and other scientific historians, that science really came together in the late Middle Ages, and everything that happened in the 16th and 17th centuries was just the inevitable development of what went before (although it became extremely unfashionable for thinkers in the 17th century and afterwards to acknowledge this debt). One of the things that tends to obscure this is the fact that once science got going, it would forever be in a period of "revolution", because it is the nature of true science (in a modern sense) that the pace of its advance accelerates exponentially.

I agree that the social influence of the Church declined from 1400-1800 while science advanced dramatically (although I daresay religion remained just about as influential to many individual scientists during that period as it was during the Middle Ages). Yet the pace of scientific progress during the 1990s was significantly greater than during the 1980s, without a corresponding significant decline in the social influence of the Church during the same period. Isn't it reasonable to expect that, science being what it is - and barring a catastrophe or other truly major negative intervention from some external source - scientific progress from, say, 1700-1900 would naturally be more dramatic than from 1500-1700, which in turn would be more dramatic than from 1300-1500? Since we can plausibly account for this trend without needing to factor Church influence into the scenario, I submit that it is more parsimonious to disregard the decline in Church influence as a very significant element (particularly in the absence of specific evidence that the Church was consistently and efficaciously working at cross-purposes with science to the extent it was able).

[DialecticMaterialist]

This is backtracking a bit but both Ceo and Lief Roar have stated the Catholic Church has no problem accepting evolutionary theory: this is not entirely true.

I know of Catholic Church's in my local area that teach creationism. And the Catholic Encyclopedia itself states:

VIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:?

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.



(Bold added)


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm


and:

The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

This is despite much evidence to the contrary.

First human evolution is well established:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Second it is well known that mutations produce new features:(from scientific america from the article "15 answers to creationist nonsense")

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.


On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2

and:


Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation


Mutation

The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation.

Most mutations are thought to be neutral with regards to fitness. (Kimura defines neutral as |s| < 1/2Ne, where s is the selective coefficient and Ne is the effective population size.) Only a small portion of the genome of eukaryotes contains coding segments. And, although some non-coding DNA is involved in gene regulation or other cellular functions, it is probable that most base changes would have no fitness consequence.

Most mutations that have any phenotypic effect are deleterious. Mutations that result in amino acid substitutions can change the shape of a protein, potentially changing or eliminating its function. This can lead to inadequacies in biochemical pathways or interfere with the process of development. Organisms are sufficiently integrated that most random changes will not produce a fitness benefit. Only a very small percentage of mutations are beneficial. The ratio of neutral to deleterious to beneficial mutations is unknown and probably varies with respect to details of the locus in question and environment.

Mutation limits the rate of evolution. The rate of evolution can be expressed in terms of nucleotide substitutions in a lineage per generation. Substitution is the replacement of an allele by another in a population. This is a two step process: First a mutation occurs in an individual, creating a new allele. This allele subsequently increases in frequency to fixation in the population. The rate of evolution is k = 2Nvu (in diploids) where k is nucleotide substitutions, N is the effective population size, v is the rate of mutation and u is the proportion of mutants that eventually fix in the population.

Mutation need not be limiting over short time spans. The rate of evolution expressed above is given as a steady state equation; it assumes the system is at equilibrium. Given the time frames for a single mutant to fix, it is unclear if populations are ever at equilibrium. A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate. Other mechanisms can also contribute selectable variation. Recombination creates new combinations of alleles (or new alleles) by joining sequences with separate microevolutionary histories within a population. Gene flow can also supply the gene pool with variants. Of course, the ultimate source of these variants is mutation.


Lastly Natural Selection is known to lead to more complexity:

(From that same scientific america article)

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

The mechanisms of evolution while debated are fairly well known (the above talk origins article).

Also what's with the talk of Lamarckism and the "moudling influence of enviroment" is the Catholic Church really suggesting that Lamarckism may contain answers?

It seems then that while the Catholic Church does accept evolution it does so with many reservations and will even make claims similiar to those of creationists. (Especially when it comes to human evolution). Clearly then the Church has not even today fully separated theology from science, which begs the question of what makes you think they were able to do so over 400 years ago?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is backtracking a bit but both Ceo and Lief Roar have stated the Catholic Church has no problem accepting evolutionary theory: this is not entirely true.

Just a quick note on this. It is true in as much as that the Catholic church doesn't hold that the evolutinoary theory is directly opposed to church doctrine. Here's a link to a speach pope John Paul II held in 1996: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm

(On another note, about your replies to me earlier in the thread, I haven't yet had the time to reply to them, and won't this weekend. They're not ignored, however, and I'll get back to them on Monday.)

[Gregor]

D-M - while by no means defending the Catholic Church, I believe (seriously) that New Advent has not been updated in many decades. Its presence 'on-line' makes it look current, but when last I checked, it was quite old. Thus, it is behind the times vis-a-vis current scientific research.

CEO. I'm not certain that I accept your broad generalizations (while I admit that you and DM have it 'all over me' on the research you have done). Specifically, I have a problem with this paragraph:

-------------------------
"By the very end of the medieval period (say 1500), Europe had already made such dramatic progress in science and technology vis-à-vis the rest of the world that its lead and dominance were all but untouchable, essentially due to advances and revolutions that occurred in the 12th through the 15th centuries. In other words, the era when Europe definitively eclipsed the rest of the scientific and technological pack was an era when the Church was at or near the height of its power and influence."
_________________

I have three problems with your post. First, I am not aware of such early (1300 C.E.) scientific advances. Second, I disagree with the assumption that the Church was less controlling before (1300 C.E.). Third, your assumption that current science advances (20th century) are probative of anything.

1. Scientific Revolution:

Let me cut and paste from information on the Scientific Revolution (the provenance for which I cannot certify):

____

" in European history the term 'Scientific Revolution' refers to the period between Copernicus and Newton. But the chronological period has varied dramatically over the last 50 years. The broadest period acknowledged usually runs from Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) and his De Revolutionibus to Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Some historians have cut this back, claiming that it properly extends only to the publication of Newton's Principia (1687) or to his Opticks (1704) or to Newton's death (1727). "
____

So, I question your assumption that "dramatic advances" occurred in 1300 C.E.

The author of this treatise implied that it was the SR that impacted religion, not visa versa:

________
"From these concerns came the 'Clockwork Universe' debates about God's relationship to Nature and whether God was rational or willful. One historian suggested that God, in effect, had been excommunicated from the world of humans -- not to the edge of Space (as with Aristotle and Aquinas) but left there at the beginning of Time. From such debates (according to this narrative) came new distinctions that walked the line from Theism to Deism to Agnosticism and Atheism. Koyré, among others, was concerned about alienation."
_________

Authored by someone I know nothing about, Robert Hatch, U of Fla.: www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/


2. Height of the Church

While I haven't the time to research it, why should I assume that the Church was not as controlling in 800 C.E. as it was in 1300 C.E. If it were as controlling in 800 C.E., why didn't this 'dramatic progress' occur in 800 C.E.? My limited research indicates that Church control was more or less uniformly prevalent during the dark ages. And science stagnated.


3. Modernity

Your implications about modern advances misses the point. Once the impact of religion declines to a critical degree, scientific advances can continue with little regulation. While I don't necessarily agree that the rate of advance is huge in 1990 versus 1900 (in raw numbers of discoveries, yes - in big concepts, I don't necessarily agree), once we have secular universities, monetary reward, no threat of punishment, secular democracies, and etc. first starting in 1500, the shackles are off, and religion's role declines until it reaches this critical mass (or lack of a 'mass' - pardon the pun) in 1800, and further impact is almost nil.


An oft-used phrase is "we saw farther because we were standing on the shoulders of giants." If the giants arose in 1500, why didn't they arise in 900 C.E.? Was it due to Church control of or role in society at that time?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is backtracking a bit but both Ceo and Lief Roar have stated the Catholic Church has no problem accepting evolutionary theory: this is not entirely true.

I know of Catholic Church's in my local area that teach creationism. And the Catholic Encyclopedia itself states:

[SNIP]

It seems then that while the Catholic Church does accept evolution it does so with many reservations and will even make claims similiar to those of creationists. (Especially when it comes to human evolution). Clearly then the Church has not even today fully separated theology from science, which begs the question of what makes you think they were able to do so over 400 years ago? DM,

First, that Catholic encyclopedia article is extremely old; our great-grandfathers were young men when it was written (that's why it's available online; the copyright has long since expired). It reflects views about evolutionary biology a century ago.

Here's some excerpts from what a more current Catholic encyclopedia article has to say about evolution (it's a single-volume encyclopedia, so the article is not too in-depth):evolution, the descent of all forms of life, with modification, from earlier forms. According to standard Darwinian theory, the natural selection and reproduction of favorably adapted organisms accounts for the origin and diversity of all living species. Some drastic revisions of Darwin's theory are being proposed today, but most scientists still accept the "modern synthesis" of molecular biology, genetics, and Darwinian principles. ...

In spite of some initial misgivings, Catholic teaching and theology have been comparatively hospitable to the theory. ... Catholic theology strives for a formulation consistent with contemporary evolutionary science. Much of this effort is influenced by the synthesis of Christianity and evolution undertaken by the Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). ...

Catholic theology is comfortable with the view that God "creates" through evolution. It has distanced itself, therefore, from "creationism," which, on the basis of a literalist reading of Genesis, insists that evolution is completely incompatible with the doctrine of divine creation. Likewise, it dismisses the version of creationism known as "creation science" or "scientific creationism", which considers the Bible a more reliable source of scientific information concerning the origins of life than modern evolutionary biology. Scientific creationism not only fails to give science its own legitimate authority, but it also trivializes biblical teachings by implicitly placing them in the same genre as scientific discourse.

Biblical revelation is debased whenever it is considered another source of information that science is capable of discovering on its own. ...

While fundamentalists find Darwin's theory incompatible with faith, many prominent scientific thinkers consider Christianity to be hostile to the notion of evolution. This supposition is not alleviated when some Christian groups insist that the creation stories of the Bible should ecome mandatory reading in science classes in the public schools. Media coverage of court cases surrounding this issue also inflames the controversy at times, leaving the impression that Christianity and the idea of evolution are irreconcilable. ...

[Catholic] theologies of evolution, on the other hand, interpret the data of evolutionary science as consistent with a God of compassionate love and persuasive power. They underscore the compatibility of nature's randomness (and other manifestations of indeterminacy) with a God who loves freedom and who "lets the world be." ...

[Source: The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995) (emphasis added)]I find particularly relevant to this discussion the Catholic insistence that the Bible should not be understood as a source of information that science is capable of discovering on its own.

Second, it is important to bear in mind that the Catholic encyclopedia you cited is not a doctrinal document. Like any encyclopedia, it contains information from a wide variety of fields (history, politics, science, etc.) that reflect the understanding of its authors but are not necessarily articles of faith. If you want to look for Church doctrines that the Church won't accept challenges to, you need to look in the Catechism or papal/conciliar documents addressing doctrines of the faith. Everything else is understood to be subject, in principle, to valid challenge based on reason and new information.

Third, based on what we've learned about Catholicism, I would be very surprised indeed if any Catholic schools or parishes in your area taught creationism as science. Please provide some evidence to this effect.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
CEO. I'm not certain that I accept your broad generalizations (while I admit that you and DM have it 'all over me' on the research you have done). Specifically, I have a problem with this paragraph:

-------------------------
"By the very end of the medieval period (say 1500), Europe had already made such dramatic progress in science and technology vis-à-vis the rest of the world that its lead and dominance were all but untouchable, essentially due to advances and revolutions that occurred in the 12th through the 15th centuries. In other words, the era when Europe definitively eclipsed the rest of the scientific and technological pack was an era when the Church was at or near the height of its power and influence."
_________________

I have three problems with your post. First, I am not aware of such early (1300 C.E.) scientific advances. Second, I disagree with the assumption that the Church was less controlling before (1300 C.E.). Third, your assumption that current science advances (20th century) are probative of anything.

1. Scientific Revolution:

Let me cut and paste from information on the Scientific Revolution (the provenance for which I cannot certify):

____

" in European history the term 'Scientific Revolution' refers to the period between Copernicus and Newton. But the chronological period has varied dramatically over the last 50 years. The broadest period acknowledged usually runs from Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) and his De Revolutionibus to Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Some historians have cut this back, claiming that it properly extends only to the publication of Newton's Principia (1687) or to his Opticks (1704) or to Newton's death (1727). "
____

So, I question your assumption that "dramatic advances" occurred in 1300 C.E.Gregor,

Excellent points. I would respond thusly:

First of all, evaluating Europe's scientific progress compared to the rest of the world in 1300 is too complicated for a non-expert like me to accomplish. However, Rodney Stark disputes the notion of the "Dark Ages" in the following terms: "Christianity did not plunge Europe into an era of ignorance and backwardness. Rather, so much technical progress took place during this era that by no later than the thirteenth century European technology surpassed anything to be found elsewhere in the world" (he cites military and navigational science as just two examples). Historian Lynn White asserts (in "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis", a 1967 Science (vol. 155) magazine article) that by "the late 13th century Europe had seized global scientific leadership." Edward Grant, in The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, identifies the period from 1175-1500 as the era "that transformed Western Europe from an intellectual embarrassment to an intellectual powerhouse."

My research suggests that there are two basic models (plus a lot of in-between hybrids) for evaluating the history of science in the West: the "continuity" model and the "revolution" model. Stephen Shapiro begins his well-known work The Scientific Revolution with the startling remark "There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it." Edward Grant and other scholars have argued that the idea of a radical "Scientific Revolution" was invented and promoted from the 17th century onward, but despite the amazing achievements of the scientific revolution, that assessment just reflected a bias against the preceding era (and often against Christianity specifically) and an unwillingness to acknowledge a debt toward it (despite paying occasional lip service like the "shoulders of giants" phrase).

This is when the whole idea of a "Dark Ages" became popularized, and it still has great currency. Grant notes that "Despite a heroic effort in the twentieth century to revise this negative judgment about medieval science and natural philosophy, it has had little impact. The opinion of educated people today probably differs little from Galileo's assessment, which was adopted wholeheartedly by the science establishment and is now deeply embedded in our culture."

David C. Lindberg, in The Beginnings of Western Science, says:[T]he question remains: did the Middle Ages make significant contributions to the science of the seventeenth century? The answer is unquestionably affirmative. In critical ways, medieval natural philosophers [most of whom were theologians] prepared the ground and paved the way for seventeenth-century scientific achievement; and when a new structure for science was built in the seventeenth century, it contained a great many medieval materials.Lindberg goes on to suggest that there were basically two ways in which the Middle Ages witnessed scientifically relevant accomplishments upon which later centuries simply built. The first relates to general advancements not related to any particular scientific discipline:First, scholars of the Middle Ages created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress would have been inconceivable. ...

Second, having gained possession of Greek and Islamic philosophy, medieval European philosophers plunged with relish into the task of grappling with its contents. ...

Third, this synthesis [of classical and Christian thought] gained an institutional home in the medieval schools and universities. ...

Fourth, medieval natural philosophers were not content to merge Aristotelian philosophy with other intellectual traditions and oversee its absorption into medieval thought; they also submitted it to minute scrutiny and searching appraisal.The second way relates to specific discoveries:If we shift our attention to developments within specific disciplines, I believe that a persuasive case can be made for a significant measure of linguistic, conceptual and theoretical continuity between the Middle Ages and the early modern period. ...

Examples are not difficult to find. Galileo's analysis of the kinematics of falling bodies was, to a very considerable extent, an elaboration and application of kinematic principles developed at Oxford and Paris in the fourteenth century. The fact that Galileo saw the difference between kinematics and dynamics already reveals the influence of the tradition descending from Bradwardine and Oresme. As we probe Galileo's kinematics, it becomes apparent that the conceptual framework within which he was working - including conceptions of space, time, velocity, and acceleration - was that of medieval kinematics. His mathematical approach borrowed a great deal from the fourteenth century. And prominent in the finished Galilean theory were specific theorems of medieval origin, including the "mean-speed theorem" or "Merton rule". Indeed the mathematical relationships now considered the embodiment of Galileo's kinematic achievement ... are both simple elaborations of definitions or theorems articulated in the fourteenth century.

Optics, especially in its more geometrical aspects, is another science that displays a high degree of continuity between the Middle Ages and the early modern period. For example, Kepler's theory of the retinal image ... was a brilliant achievement and an important innovation in visual theory. But it does not follow that the theory of the retinal image was revolutionary. It was the answer to an old question, worked out entirely within the medieval conceptual framework, obtained not by the repudiation of any of the fundamental principles of the discipline but by the determination to take those principles seriously. Likewise, Kepler's solution of the classic problem of radiation through small apertures ... entailed no new geometrical principles, but merely the more rigorous application of the traditional axioms of the discipline.

Additional examples could easily be produced. Copernican astronomy preserved the basic aims and principles of astronomy as it had been practiced by Ptolemy. Continuities were equally present in astrology, alchemy, physiology, medicine, and natural history. As early modern science emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it ... incorporated innumerable pieces of the medieval scientific achievement, sometimes unchanged, sometimes remolded to fit a new context. In order to demand respect for the medieval scientific achievement, we need not denigrate or diminish that of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. We need merely understand that the former shaped the latter and is therefore part of the ancestry of modern science.As Edward Grant adds:Scholastic natural philosophers [during the period 1200-1400] had made noteworthy contributions to physical thought .... Their contributions on various aspects of motion, both kinematic and dynamic, were striking; Galileo himself could not actually enhance them. Sophisticated discussions about the earth's possible axial rotation were also impressive, and Copernicus could not improve upon them. Medieval ideas about other worlds, and especially about infinite void space, played an unacknowledged role in shaping the cosmos that was being constructed by the new science.So there seem in fact to have been many scientifically dramatic advances - ranging widely from mechanical theory to the navigational compass - made during the Middle Ages, which not only pushed Europe ahead of the rest of the world by the fourteenth century or so but also provided a fertile ground of scientific achievement for later thinkers to build upon. Yet for a number of largely political and philosophical reasons, later generations scapegoated the Middle Ages, while the self-proclaimed "Scientific Revolution" got the glory.
Originally posted by Gregor
2. Height of the Church

While I haven't the time to research it, why should I assume that the Church was not as controlling in 800 C.E. as it was in 1300 C.E. If it were as controlling in 800 C.E., why didn't this 'dramatic progress' occur in 800 C.E.? My limited research indicates that Church control was more or less uniformly prevalent during the dark ages.I didn't mean to suggest that the Church was not as controlling in the year 800 as it was in 1300. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that the Church maintained a relatively uniform level of influence throughout the entire medieval period from 500-1500. However, that simply reinforces my premise that from the 12th through the 15th centuries, the level of Church influence was at or near its height, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Gregor
3. Modernity

Your implications about modern advances misses the point. Once the impact of religion declines to a critical degree, scientific advances can continue with little regulation. While I don't necessarily agree that the rate of advance is huge in 1990 versus 1900 (in raw numbers of discoveries, yes - in big concepts, I don't necessarily agree), once we have secular universities, monetary reward, no threat of punishment, secular democracies, and etc. first starting in 1500, the shackles are off, and religion's role declines until it reaches this critical mass (or lack of a 'mass' - pardon the pun) in 1800, and further impact is almost nil.I understand your argument. Political and economic developments obviously play a big role. But are you sure you're not begging the question here by saying "once the impact of religion declines to a critical degree"? Isn't the direct and indirect impact of religion on science precisely what we are trying to ascertain in this thread? Your explanation only makes sense to me if one presupposes that the religious influence was negative in the first place.

Why are secular universities a critical innovation and not universities themselves (born out of medieval Christianity)? Secular universities have a lot more in common with Christian universities than Christian universities have in common with the learning institutions that existed before universities were invented.

And why do you associate "no threat of punishment" specifically with a decline in religion? We haven't seen (in this thread, anyway) much evidence that engaging in science ever carried much of a threat of punishment. You're a litigator - an expert in evidentiary proof and argumentation - so I suspect you don't find DialecticMaterialist's weak arguments on this point any more persuasive or relevant than I do.
Originally posted by Gregor
An oft-used phrase is "we saw farther because we were standing on the shoulders of giants." If the giants arose in 1500, why didn't they arise in 900 C.E.? Was it due to Church control of or role in society at that time? As an aside, I don't know that the "giants" Newton was referring to were necessarily ones who arose in 1500.

But for an answer to your question, I'll refer back to Grant's idea (already cited in an earlier post) that there were at least three crucial, indispensable pre-conditions that enabled a scientific "revolution" to develop in the seventeenth century: (1) the enthusiastic and widespread translation of Greco-Arabic natural philosophy into Latin in the 12th and 13th centuries, (2) the formation of the medieval university and (3) the emergence of an intellectual class of medieval theologian-natural philosophers.

These pre-conditions are obviously somewhat interrelated; they all emerged within a very short time of one another; and they would obviously not have occurred when they did (if at all) without the influence of the Church. The fact that these factors were obviously not yet present in the year 900 provides one possible response to your query.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well despite it age the article is still presented as a mainstream Catholic position on the main source of information concerning Catholicism on the internet. Why present beliefs that nobody in the religion adhered to?

There can be divisions within the Church, I don't doubt many of the more scientifically literate and active Catholics have no problem with evolution. But such is hardly all Catholics, let alone Catholics with clout. Pope John Paul for example seemed to disaprove of the war with Iraq, and supported many enviromental initiatives, but all Catholics hardly complied.


In any event I would say the article of the Catholic Encyldopedia better represented the catholic viewpoint, even if it was written so long ago(as was Summa Theologica) then a speech or two by a Jesuit most Catholics never even heard of.


In any event, at the very least it shows that at as late as the early 20th century Catholics still could not make distinctions between science and religion and would utilize a "God in the Gaps" type of reasoning. I failt to see then why you believe so strongly that they would have failed to do so more dogmatically and carelessly four hundred plus years ago.

[DialecticMaterialist]

First off I would like to thank Gregor for his summary as I myself was wondering whether or not the pure length of these posts between me and Ceo was making them somewhat unreadable and was confusing the issue.


Secondly I would like to summarize many of my own arguments and refutations of my opponents position as follows.


1) Religion and science conflict fundamentally over method and this is ultimately what leads to conflict between the two. Religion goes by faith i.e. just believing pretty much what somebody or a group of people invented as true without evidence or examination.

Science and reason (that which brings progress) go vy evidence. It is thus inevitable, unless those of faith are infallible, that the two will come into conflict.


2) Religion as a faith-based system makes it so that certain old beliefs, customs and standards die out at a slower pace then they otherwise would have. Take the issue of genetic engineering, cloning and slavery. Or even land claims concerning the middle east. Without religion these are just matters of value or rational inquiry, easily solved or for which compromise is allowed.

But add religion and its now a matter of absolute truth and/or Good vs Evil. This very much clouds an issue that would otherwise have less confusion. And in this regard religion tends to take the reactionary or conservative position, doing so usually to an extreme degree, as part of religion's purpose is to provide an underlying rationale for customs and traditions. Also many of the beliefs formed in a religious system are so when the means of inquiry are not as advanced as they are today. Beliefs are thus formed in ages of ignorance and become hard to challenge in an age of more knowledge because religion allows for no system of self-correction but instead makes the beliefs a matter of "absolute faith" not to be questioned or changed.


3) Religion has another major element which conflicts with science today and have more so in the past(with research in general)- dogma and myth. Myths are basically stories made up about the past to help give life meaning or show one's relation to the Sacred. They are essentially made up, become matters of faith and yet again conflict with scientific inquiry.

Modern day examples of this are creationism, biblical literalism, and the belief that only gays get AIDS (still taught in some Catholic Church's today.)


4) Church's in the past have sought to control intellectual activity, stiffling free inquiry and in the case of the Catholic Church, even burning and torturing those accused of heterodoxy. Free Inquiry is needed for civilizations and science to progress by use of reason.


That is basically my argument.

Now let me spell out what I am NOT saying.


1) I am not saying religion makes science or progress impossible. I am only saying that it cionfuses it and slows it down. Religious people can be scientists, religion can even help science in some areas. But overall it has a detrimental effect on progress.
Frank Sulloway for example has shown that more conservative people tend to likewise be more religious, and those compose most of the reactionary forces in out society.


2) I am not saying this is proven by exact measurement(yet). This is a generalization based on an approximation.



3) I am not saying religious people or the Middle ages made no contributions whatsoever to science or progress. That is an obvious straw man, they obviously did do so; I'm saying they likely would have done more and cases of progress being slowed down/ruthlessly put down would have been less then if the socities had not been religious.


4) I am not saying that it is philosophically impossible for a religious person to accept science and most of reason. Again I am going by generalizations.



My claim is thus similiar to a person who for example says "the Soviet Union was bad." The person is not saying Soviets made no advances, or the Soviet government hated its people, or the Soviet government did nothing good at all. The person is simply saying the Soviet government is worse then a democratic government.




Refutations of some of Ceo's claims.


1) The Catholic Church was not at the height of its power in the 1300-1500s. It was having to deal with a new middle class, the rise of Aristotle's reason, and the Plague back then. The printing press was likewise invented in 1455, damaging the Catholic's monpoly of written material.

Judging the height of Catholic power is difficult(though the rise of science and decline of Catholic power does take place at the same time) but I would say it was more the 10th-12th century when the Crusades were launched.

Ceo of course would retort that "the seeds of science grew in the 13th-15th centuries though" and this is true, but science as we know it didn't really take off until the 16th and 17th: coincidentally when the power of the Church was even according to Ceo in decline.



2) Ceo has claimed the Church helped finance science and this is true. But it was hardly essential. Scientists were financed in other manners and lets not forget most scientists back then were aristocrats i.e. people that could have afforded to be scientists anyways.


3) Ceo has stated that the Catholic Church helped create the first universities.

This is true but irrelevant as universities would have likely arisen without the Catholic Church, in fact their precursors arose in the pagan Greek world under philosophers and the first Universities themselves were actually created by Muslims(who were influenced by Aristotle) not the Christian west.


4) Ceo has claimed that the Christian church provided necessary moral and philosophical support for science.

This is by far the most questionable of his claims, as what "arguments" he has used have come from basically his own philosophical bias and can only be called thus non sequiturs. Whether or not a philosophy is compatible with science has more to do with method then content. Marxists for example say they love science but their methods at times hampered scientific development.

Secondly other civilizations for centuries advanced more towards science then the Christian West, and the Byzantine Empire likewise even with knowledge of Aristotle never developed science. (According to Ceo the Byzantines should have as they had both Christianity and Aristotle colliding). The Byzantines it should be noted were likewise ahead of the West for many years and it is thus hard to say why one Christianity would be so far ahead of the other if Christianity itself was such a powerful factors(Let alone why a Christian empire would fall to and be surpassed by the Muslims and Chinese).

Ceo would object that the Arabs and Chinese advanced in technology: not science. And that Science did arise in the west.


The second objection is a red herring as we are not talking about whether or not science arose in the west but who was closer to getting there.

The first is refuted by the fact that the Arabs and Chinese had made advances in thought, were continuing to do so(there is no evidence to suggest progress in either country towards science just stopped) and technological development is closely related to scientific development. The West at its time just developed science faster then China and the Arab world, they were not simply the only ones heading their while the others stopped.

Third many non-Christian countries do science today, Marxist ones, Taoist ones, Muslims ones, Shinto-Buddhist one's, Jewish, and Hindu nations. This has not necessarily meant their philosophies or religions became more Christian so how is this possible? According to Ceo it should not be. Why isn't the Christian west just blowing away these people in terms of philosophy?


Last, what Christian philosophical beliefs that helped science Ceo did give were not fully accepted at their time but controversial. Sure some Xians did believe in a rational God(mainly the post Aristotelian one's) but many believed in a mysterious God that worked in mysterious ways. Sure many did think God wanted us to study the universe but many thought the world was ending soon...so what's the point?

Other statements made are somewhat non sequitur, they can go either way, as with the contigency argument.

Others are exagerations, such as the void belief, sure many Catholics believed in the void but is that really necessary for science? Many physicists in the 19th century believed in an ether for example instead of a void and could do science.


4) Ceo has claimed various experts have stated that science was likewise advanced mainly by the Catholic Church, but I see that as questionable. First of all because many experts likewise say the cause was more geological and political, the most prominent being Jared Diamond who's view of the subject is considered the most well tested and scientific to date. In fact Diamond's books are recomended by the skeptic society and even the History for Science society a who's view Ceo seems to shrug off as superficial states science arose when religion held less power.

Ceo will sometimes restort to dubious sources as well, baylor and the Catholic Family Network, and will even skew some sources. He made it sound like Needham, for example said that Eastern philosophy was incompatible with science when it is clear from articles on Needham that he thought Taoism could be quite scientific.




In regards to other things I would like to point out that scientific advances tended to be regional or continental. Native American, sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, Europeans, Australians and South Americans tended to be behind the same technology level. Did they all just have bad philosophies incompatible with science? Is this regional development of people at about even if their philosophies differed radically just coincidence?

I don't think so. Obviously we must aknowledge the role of geography in this matter then.

Sure the Europeans inherited science and developed certain science friendly philosophies: but why had the Europeans done this and not the Indians, Australians or Africans? Is it just chance?

Why in fact had the Eurasian area consistently been far ahead of Africa, Australia and the Americas?

Believing its a matter of mere philosophical differences is a bit hard to buy.


Also what Ceo seems to be saying is that every religion on earth was incompatible with science except Christianity...how likely is that?

Not at all seeing as there appears to be nothing special about Christianity. Most of what was has been presented as beneficial to science has been Aristotelian influence more then religion and that which has nothing to do with Aristotle seems questionable and in no way any more compatible with science then many other sect beliefs of other religions. (Muslims likewise had a school of thought that advocated God as being a being that created a rational world, but this seemed incapable of creating science in Islam.)

[ceo_esq]

As usual, it's hard to address all the open issues at once. I'd like to respond in particular, though, to the questions raised by DialecticMaterialist regarding the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic world in contrast with Latin Christendom.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Secondly other civilizations for centuries advanced more towards science then the Christian West, and the Byzantine Empire likewise even with knowledge of Aristotle never developed science. (According to Ceo the Byzantines should have as they had both Christianity and Aristotle colliding).

[SNIP]

Most of what was has been presented as beneficial to science has been Aristotelian influence more then religion and that which has nothing to do with Aristotle seems questionable and in no way any more compatible with science then many other sect beliefs of other religions. (Muslims likewise had a school of thought that advocated God as being a being that created a rational world, but this seemed incapable of creating science in Islam.) With respect to Byzantium, Grant considers and refutes this objection convincingly:Why during the last 800 years of the Byzantine Empire did scholars add little of significance to their enormous legacy of ancient Greek science and natural philosophy? ... One might, at first glance, think that war played a significant role in minimizing intellectual activity. Although wars afflict most societies and civilizations, Byzantium was different. It was constantly at war defending an ever-shrinking empire that lasted more than a thousand years only because the empire was prepared to make huge sacrifices to preserve itself. ... Although wars might have disrupted intellectual activities in Byzantium on occasion, such an interpretation, however, would be inaccurate because the Byzantine Empire experienced its greatest intellectual renaissance during the two final, desparate, war-filled centuries of its existence.

Was the Orthodox Church in Byzantium an obstructionist force in science and natural philosophy? It did occasionally interfere (for example, it opposed the emphasis on pagan learning in the eleventh-century renaissance), but was probably not the major factor in Byzantium's miniscule achievements in science and natural philosophy ... [although Orthodox] Church authorities insisted on the handmaiden approach [abandoned in the Latin Church] to philosophy and to secular learning in general, showing hostility toward any attempt to study such subjects for their own sakes or for the sheer love of knowledge. The [Orthodox] Church's theologians were only occasionally natural philosophers.
...
The character of Byzantine scholarship was revealed in the preface to Theodore Metochites's Historical and Philosophical Miscellanies (Miscellanea Philosophica et Historica). Metochites spoke for Byzantine philosophers when he declared, "The great men of the past have said everything so perfectly that they have left nothing for us to say." ... Byzantine scholarship stands in sharp contrast to the "questions" tradition in the West, where authors were forced to confront one issue after another and to devise reasoned responses that might, or might not, agree with the author of the text.

In the Byzantine Empire, scholarship - and therefore scholarship in science and natural philosophy - was done primarily by a tiny minority of laymen, who shared little other than a common educational background. They certainly did not reflect deeply on a wide range of common problems, in contrast to scholars at the universities in the West. It seems that Byzantine scholarship was formalistic and pedantic, rarely innovative.
...
The apparent absence of more penetrating and innovative scholarship is also attributable to the fact that neither church nor state - and they were often one and the same - ever institutionalized the study of natural philosophy and science. In this, Byzantium differed little from Islam. The theologians in both civilizations were either hostile or indifferent to science and natural philosophy.So it seems that there were significant differences in philosophical attitudes toward science specifically, and intellectual learning in general, between the Orthodox Church and the Latin Church. For the avoidance of doubt, when I use the capitalized term "Church" in future posts, I mean to refer primarily to the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church rather than the Orthodox Church (unless otherwise indicated).

I turn now to the question of Islam. At first glance, it would seem that the Islamic notion of God would be as conducive to the rise of science as the Christian notion of God. However, Allah is presented in the Islamic tradition as a much more active God who frequently intervenes in the world as he sees fit without reference to any "rules" on an ongoing basis. Thus, Islam never entirely embraced the idea that the world works according to fundamental laws laid down by Allah at the time of creation. Rather, what it pleases Allah to do can be extremely variable.

Accordingly, Descartes' famous statement about the Christian God has far less applicability to the God of Islam:For we understand it to be a perfection in God not only that He is Himself immutable but also that He acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible, so that, with the sole exception of those instances which the evidence of experience or divine revelation makes certain [i.e. except for the rare occurrence of miracles] ... we must not admit any other alterations in His acts lest any inconsistency be thence inferred in God Himself.Descartes viewed this principle and this conception of God as justifying his own search for universal laws.

This difference between Christian and Islamic notions of how the universe runs explains why a major theological faction arose within Islam that condemned all attempts to formulate universal laws. This faction faught bitterly with another intellectual bloc in the Islamic world that was in favor of formulating such laws, but which was weighted down by certain metaphysical assumptions of its own that prevented it from going about such task in a scientific way. The result was stagnation. As Jaki describes in The Savior of Science:The dispute of Avicenna and Averroes with al-Ashari and al-Ghazzali on the status of scientific laws in particular and the relation of reason and revelation in general is ... well known. ... In sum it was a clash between two irreconcilable positions .... Muslim mystics decried the notion of scientific law (as formulated by Aristotle) as blasphemous and irrational, depriving as it does the Creator of his freedom. The intellectuals (philosophers) glorified the a priori, necessary validity of those laws. Neither position was conducive to that progress which science was to represent. A stunning proof of this is the ideal of civilization described by Ibn Khaldoun in his famous interpretation, written around 1370, of cultural development from nomadic civilizations to civilizations centered in large towns. The ideal as described there suggested that nothing essentially new had been achieved since Muslim crusaders first tried, a generation after Muhammad's "ascension into heaven," to decapitate Christendom with a naval siege laid to Constantinople.
...
Eager curiosity, however plentiful in Muslim realms, was not enough for a breakthrough toward viable science.

[emphasis added]There are also some more practical reasons, though still related to religious tradition, "explaining why medieval Islamic science entered a period of stagnation" (Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages):[N]atural philosophy [in the Islamic world] was always on the defensive; it was viewed as a subject to be taught privately and quietly, rather than in public, and it was taught most safely under royal patronage, as seen in the careers of some of Islam's greatest natural philosophers. Within Western Christianity in the late Middle Ages, almost all professional theologians were also natural philosophers. The structure of medieval university education also made it likely that most theologians had early in their careers actually taught natural philosophy. The positive attitude of theologians and religious authorities toward natural philosophy within Western Christianity meant that the discipline could develop more comfortably and consistently in the West than in Islamic society. In the West natural philosophy could attract talented individuals who believed that they were free to present their opinions publicly on a host of problems that formed the basis of their discipline.I also refer the reader back to earlier comments regarding the implications for science of the absence of a division (which did exist in the Latin Christian tradition) between church and state in medieval Islam.

Thus a plausible explanation is available for why Christian religious tradition, rather than Islamic, was underwriting the rise of science during the Middle Ages, despite the fact that they are both monotheisms presenting certain features in common.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The Catholic Church was not at the height of its power in the 1300-1500s. It was having to deal with a new middle class, the rise of Aristotle's reason, and the Plague back then. The printing press was likewise invented in 1455, damaging the Catholic's monpoly of written material.

Judging the height of Catholic power is difficult(though the rise of science and decline of Catholic power does take place at the same time) but I would say it was more the 10th-12th century when the Crusades were launched.I said that I was willing to accept, for the sake of Gregor's argument, his premise that the Church's power and influence were uniform throughout the medieval period. After further research into this question, I think I can now add a little precision.

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, as I already noted, it was during this period that Western Europe caught up with, and overtook, the rest of the world in scientific learning (and, indeed, in intellectual culture generally). My argument does not rely overmuch on this correlation; I merely offer it as a counterpoint to the assertion ventured by Gregor in this regard.

Incidentally, the Church does not seem to have grown sufficiently powerful to compete with rival secular political interests until the latter part of the 11th century, so its career as a truly dominant institution was considerably briefer than I thought.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ceo has claimed the Church helped finance science and this is true. But it was hardly essential. Scientists were financed in other manners and lets not forget most scientists back then were aristocrats i.e. people that could have afforded to be scientists anyways.How essential it was depends on your perspective, I suppose. If my parents had paid my way through university, I could in some sense say that their support was fundamental to my education even though I might conceivably have found another way to go to university (although a better analogy would be if my parents not only paid my tuition but endowed the university as well).

If you are suggesting that all of the material support directed by the Church toward scientific and science-related learning could and would have been replaced by other sources during the Middle Ages, I concede that this is possible but by no means a foregone conclusion. Even if you could demonstrate the likelihood of that scenario, it doesn't aid you in arguing that the Church actually slowed down scientific scholarship.

I'm not sure which period you're referring to when you say "most scientists back then were aristocrats", but I have the impression that from the 12th century up through and including Copernicus, more scientists and natural philosophers were either ecclesiastics or lay theologians than were aristocrats.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ceo has claimed that the Christian church provided necessary moral and philosophical support for science.

This is by far the most questionable of his claims, as what "arguments" he has used have come from basically his own philosophical bias and can only be called thus non sequiturs. Whether or not a philosophy is compatible with science has more to do with method then content. Marxists for example say they love science but their methods at times hampered scientific development.I disagree here. Whether or not a philosophy - especially a natural philosophy - is compatible with science has plenty to do with content. To cite just a few examples: Does your philosophy include the notion that the universe generally follows intelligible laws? Does it hold that both the heavens and the earth are ontologically similar and thus can be approached from a similar natural-philosophical point of view? Does it lead you to consider the universe from an a posteriori instead of an a priori perspective? Does it allow for the possibility of linear progress with respect to human culture and knowledge? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", your philosophy is either going to get in the way of your science at some point, or else it is not going to give you much incentive to attempt to do science in the first place.

Regarding Greek (and particularly Aristotelian) natural philosophy, one of its problems vis-à-vis the development of science was that it contained several built-in conceptual constraints, yet at the same time purported to be a sort of "Grand Unified Theory". Plus, Aristotle's theories were so carefully rationalized, and contained so many empirically unverifiable ideas (many good, some bad), that for many centuries they dissuaded natural philosophers (for example, in Islam) from adding to or detracting from the substance of Aristotle’s work.

As I have argued before, the interaction of Christianity with Aristotelian natural philosophy was not one of either wholesale rejection or uncritical acceptance. To a large extent, the challenges posed to certain parts (especially the theoretical constraints) of Aristotle's work by Christian philosophy freed up European scholars to think outside the Aristotelian box, while still incorporating many benefits of the Aristotelian corpus. I have already alluded in an earlier post to the theological condemnation in 1277 by the Bishop of Paris of a number of Aristotelian principles. While this was not a papal condemnation, it obviously carried authority over Paris, which was the center of European natural philosophy by that time. Edward Grant says that many arguments which... derive[d] from the impact of God’s absolute power as expressed in the Condemnation of 1277 reveal a method by which natural philosophers transcended the bounds of Aristotle's confining principles and broke free to consider possibilities they might not otherwise have contemplated.

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 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.Grant argues that 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[.]Thus, the fact that certain aspects of Aristotelian natural philosophy conflicted with Christianity, and were accordingly rejected by medieval theologian-philosophers, fortuitously and gradually paved the way for a number of wrong Aristotelian assumptions to be replaced (with theological encouragement) with better models.

It says something about the significance of the modification of the Aristotelian worldview as a result of its exposure to Western Christianity that Pierre Duhem, the French thermodynamicist-turned-historian (and, as an interesting though inconsequential aside, one of the authors of the Gibbs-Duhem equation (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=37472)), located the very birth of modern science in the Condemnation of 1277 (although I personally would not go so far as to agree with that assessment).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Third many non-Christian countries do science today, Marxist ones, Taoist ones, Muslims ones, Shinto-Buddhist one's, Jewish, and Hindu nations. This has not necessarily meant their philosophies or religions became more Christian so how is this possible? According to Ceo it should not be. Why isn't the Christian west just blowing away these people in terms of philosophy?I believe that a culture's philosophical outlook will, in great measure, influence whether it develops science on its own. Non-Western countries that now pursue science have, consciously or unconsciously, assimilated the Western approach to it. Also, I think that the philosophical supports for science are mostly relevant to its beginnings. Once science is up and going, it is largely self-sustaining. At that point, I think it's possible to remove those supports, obscure the underlying assumptions, or transplant the scientific enterprise into other philosophical contexts without killing off science. Indeed, I think that's precisely what the history of science reveals has happened. My theory about the rise of science in the West does not predict the result you suggest regarding contemporary scientific pursuits of non-Western cultures; therefore, it is not falsified by the failure of such result to obtain in the real world.

[Gregor]

Thanks to both CEO and D-M for allowing me to follow your debate.

My final thought on this topic (which I admit is based on a pittance of scholarship) is that science developed through a distancing from (if not rejection of) Xianity, not as a result of Xianity. If science was helped along by the Church, it wasn't based upon Xianity.

Let me define a few terms for my argument (and their difference is the point of my post):

Xianity: The religious doctrines established between 325 C.E. and 400 C.E. based upon the authority of the Bible.

Church: The Western, Catholic Church from 500 C.E. to the present.

My refined question is "Did Xianity quicken the pace of scientific discovery, and if so, what theological tenets of Xianity produced the acceleration?"

If Xianity had the same pro-science tenets in 1300 C.E. that it had in 800 C.E., why the 500 years without similar developments? Was it a lack of power or infrastructure? I don't think so.

I've seen enough discussion here that it was the evolution or maturation of philosophic thought in the 12th century Church that fostered progress, not the mere increase in the Church's power.


I assert that there is nothing in the Bible that encourages scientific progress. I will go further and say that as the Bible went from loosely accepted (even among founding fathers) mythical stories to inerrant dogma, that the Bible stifles scientific investigation. The New Testament has numerous passages that actively discourage philosophic inquiry.


Thus, if the Church's philosophy evolved to permit or encourage naturalistic thought, the Church certainly isn't becoming more Xian. If Church thought evolved in the 12th century, it is either due to the re-discovery of pre-Xian philosophy or the active pursuit of independent philosophy. Intellectual analysis is not a Biblically derived pursuit, and given my strict definition of Xianity, it is not per se, Xian.

I challenge anyone to point to a Biblical passage that encourages free inquiry, natural philosophy, or personal philosophical development of ideas through communion with God (i.e. revelations to individuals). The development of natural philosophy comes from a rejection of Xianity - defined as belief limited to the canon. The Church rejected the idea that the Bible set out the limits of Xianity by necessity - it needed a justification for why it was inventing ideas like penance, purgatory, the church infrastructure, and etc. These are not in the Bible, but we claim to be able to come up with new stuff by our own authority.

Thus, my first conclusion is that if science developed more quickly in the West (which I'll assume simply for argument), it's not due to Xianity (in my limited definition of that term), at best it's due to the Church as an institution that housed thinkers and had huge stores of money that it found an outlet for, including universities.

Second conclusion - Any scientific encouragement was un-Xian. If it was Church philosophy post 12th century that encouraged science, what happened in the 12th Century? Either influence of pre-Xian Greek philosophy or the independent evolution of ideas that were not Biblically based. If deep thinkers were coming up with helpful frameworks, it was not based upon the Bible, but rather simply the thinker's opinions on the nature of the world around them. The existence of Xianity was a coincidental crutch, not a framework.

Third conclusion - if these deep thinkers were not spending so much time on Church stuff, we'd have been further along.

While not conceding that the Church accelerated scientific development, if it did it had little to do with Xianity. Rather, it was the only game in town. Intellectuals had few employment options. Literacy, essential for such pursuits, was limited to religious types.

In summary, I still have concerns with the argument:

1. "It happened in the west"
2. "The West was Xian"
3. "It was because of Xianity."

I still have concerns with the argument:

1. "It happened in the west"
2. "The West had the Church"
3. "It was because of the Church"

And we all must have concerns about the following:

Had the West had a weaker church (or paganism) that science would have developed __________ quickly (fill in the blank with "more" or "less")

[elliotfc]

I challenge anyone to point to a Biblical passage that encourages free inquiry, natural philosophy, or personal philosophical development of ideas through communion with God (i.e. revelations to individuals). The development of natural philosophy comes from a rejection of Xianity - defined as belief limited to the canon. The Church rejected the idea that the Bible set out the limits of Xianity by necessity - it needed a justification for why it was inventing ideas like penance, purgatory, the church infrastructure, and etc. These are not in the Bible, but we claim to be able to come up with new stuff by our own authority.

Why would the Bible have to do any of that?

The Bible is not the end-all/be-all to life. If my car breaks down, I'm not going to use the Bible to fix it.

I take the Bible for what it is, and I don't hold a grudge against the Bible for what it isn't.

As a Catholic, the Bible is not the ultimate authority for my dogma, yet I do believe that by dogma is ultimately grounded in the Bible.

If the Bible was going to speak about science, it'd be a hell of a lot longer, wouldn't it? Science is besides the point. That does not make science unimportant. The Bible does not tell us to wipe ourselves, does that mean wiping ourselves is unimportant?

-Elliot

[Gregor]

Well, first, you're wrong. The Bible tells us to wipe ourselves. It says relieve yourselves 20 yards outside the camp.

Second, this entire thread has been refined to "Did religion stifle or encourage the development of science." Whether the Bible encourages or discourages independent thought, in general, or science, in particular, is very relevant to our discussions.

This thread is not a general critique of the scope of the Bible.

SHow me NT texts that encourage free inquiry of the world and science in particular, and I might accept CEO's argument.

Show me a 13th century priest who encouraged free inquiry, and I'll demand a bible-based reason to accept it's Xianity's influence.

Show me a 13th century priest who encouraged free inquiry based upon his own world-view, and I'll show you a philosopher who is un-Xian (not anti-Xian)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Gregor
[B]Well, first, you're wrong. The Bible tells us to wipe ourselves. It says relieve yourselves 20 yards outside the camp.

???

Maybe I don't understand bodily functions. Wiping yourself and urination are two different things?

???

Second, this entire thread has been refined to "Did religion stifle or encourage the development of science." Whether the Bible encourages or discourages independent thought, in general, or science, in particular, is very relevant to our discussions.

OK. Apologies for that.

I think religion did both.

SHow me NT texts that encourage free inquiry of the world and science in particular, and I might accept CEO's argument.

Show me a 13th century priest who encouraged free inquiry, and I'll demand a bible-based reason to accept it's Xianity's influence.

Show me a 13th century priest who encouraged free inquiry based upon his own world-view, and I'll show you a philosopher who is un-Xian (not anti-Xian)

Yikes.

Free inquiry and science are cool. I'll take my faith in Jesus over either, but that shouldn't diminish the coolness of free inquiry and science.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Gregor,

While I appreciate the distinction you've drawn between Christianity and the Church (and I'm sure that fundamentalist Protestants would, too), and I agree it is justifiable in an abstract sense, I'm not sure that it actually helps us to resolve properly the questions we have been considering.

First of all, albeit that the Church gradually (some would say quite early on) expanded its religious and intellectual horizons beyond the Bible, those modified horizons came to be part of Christianity. I have some misgivings about disputing what the Church considers to be its Christian religious tradition, particularly with respect to the eras before the Reformation. Although I can observe that this or that notion may not be biblically based, I'm content to identify the Western Christian religion with the evolving tradition represented and expounded by the Church (at least up until the Reformation, obviously). In order to be historically objective, and avoid succumbing to a "No True Scotsman" fallacy or to strawmen, I think we have to take Latin Christianity as we find it - elaborated in the traditions and history of the Church. Clearly, there is more to that religious tradition than the Bible. We can say, with the fundies, that the Catholic tradition is largely un-Christian, but that doesn't really advance the discussion at all. Obviously, Catholicism is merely one possible religion that could have developed from the influence of Jesus and the Bible, but it happens to be the religion we're dealing with here, and it is what it is (or was).

As for why science did not develop 500 years earlier in the Christian West, how does that fact establish that the Catholic religion or Catholic institutions were the root cause of the failure? For one thing, it is not at all clear that the Church itself was running the show in Europe in the year 800. For another, doesn't your objection function better as a refutation of the thesis (which no one here has asserted) that Catholic contributions were a sufficient factor for the rise of science, rather than merely a necessary or an important one? Indeed, isn't the real topic here whether the Church simply had a net beneficial influence to scientific learning or not (although I realize my arguments have gone further than that)?

From 400-1100 the Church was busy developing an independent intellectual tradition that would enable it to respond fruitfully to its eventual re-encounter with classical learning. There may have been an entire range of other crucial ingredients (besides theology) for science that were missing during this time - besides the absence of the classical translations and the universities, there were probably other economic, political and social pre-conditions that did not coincide until the latter part of the Middle Ages.

I agree that no mere increase in the raw power of an institution is going to achieve any particular intellectual result - power just confers a bullhorn and a big stick. What is important is how that power is used and the content of the messages it is conveying.

Although I contest your idea that "if it's not in the Bible, it's not Christian" (when that is clearly not the way the religion evolved), I will point out that a number of the specifically science-hospitable ideas (metaphysical assumptions) to which I have alluded in the Christian tradition actually do come from the Bible. For example, the notion that all was created freely, in time, out of nothing and in an orderly fashion by an omnipotent God derives from Scripture. And although the Bible is full of supernaturalism, it removes supernaturalism from nature (rendering nature non-sacred and impersonal) and concentrates it in a transcendent God. Moreover, the Scriptural God is presented as having ordained at creation universal laws according to which the world runs: "If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant" (Jeremiah 33:25-26); God gave the heavenly bodies and the natural world "a decree which shall not pass" (Psalm 148:6); "Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight" (Wisdom 11:20, a special favorite of medieval natural philosophers).

It is evident how such notions could lend moral support in a general way to people trying to work out how the universe works, by suggesting inter alia that such an enterprise is at least theoretically possible. Sometimes the ideas actually had concrete, if occasionally convoluted, influences on specific scientific theories, as well. (Here I'll digress into an anecdote simply because it's an interesting story.) For example, the anti-Aristotelian doctrine that the world had a finite beginning in time (which is obviously suggested by the Bible, although it did not become the subject of much theologizing until the 12th and 13th centuries) guided Jean Buridan (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=18434) to major discoveries in mechanics. He deduced that if the universe had a beginning, there was probably an initial "impetus" given to heavenly bodies by God when they were created:Also, since the Bible does not state that appropriate intelligences move the celestial bodies, it could be said that it does not appear necessary to posit intelligences of this kind [as Aristotle also did], because it would be answered that God, when he created the world, moved each of the celestial orbs as He pleased, in moving them He impressed upon them impetuses which move them without his having to move them any more … And these impetuses which He impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased nor corrupted afterwards because there was no inclination of the celestial bodies for other movements.In formulating this thesis, Buridan was also compelled to posit that the heavenly bodies moved in a vacuum (a possibility in a Christian framework, but not in an Aristotelian one) in order for their momentum to be conserved. Thus did Buridan anticipate Newton's first law of motion.

Now, you've suggested that if Christian natural philosophers like Buridan conceived of helpful frameworks, "it was not based upon the Bible, but rather simply the thinker's opinions on the nature of the world around them." Jaki, the physicist-historian, maintains that this is easy to assert in retrospect:At this point, nothing would be more tempting than to yield to the wisdom of all-knowing hindsight. Armed with it one would emphasize that Buridan started from easily observable facts and then extrapolated them to the cosmos as a whole. Such an empiricist reconstruction of the genesis of Buridan's statements on inertial motion, terrestrial and cosmic, would hardly achieve its presumably de-theologizing aim. De-emphasis of the Christian theological matrix and propellant in Buridan’s breakthrough would only increase the evidence about the ancient Greek mind as being in need of [rescue by some external source]. A "natural" genesis of Buridan’s thinking would imply the ready availability of it for the Greeks of old and their baffling failure to seize on it. How widely they missed it should be clear from Aristotle's explanation of projectile motion in which the projectile experiences a push from the air closing in behind it in disregard of the resistance of the air in front of it. Buridan, however, emphasized the resistance of the air as he began by noting that the impetus theory explains why … "[a person running and jumping] does not feel the air moving him, but rather feels the air in front strongly resisting him."If the frameworks in which Buridan and other medieval proto-scientists developed their theories reflected simply their observations and independent thoughts about the world, the question is not why science failed to develop in the early medieval period, but rather why it failed to develop in 300 B.C.

At the end of your post, you express concerns about deducing causation from correlation ("It happened in the West; the West had Christianity; therefore it was because of Christianity"). That is not really the substance of the argument itself, however; the correlation is merely a starting point for the inquiries of Grant, Brooke, Duhem, Stark, Jaki, Needham and others. None of them begin their arguments, formally speaking, with an attribution of any special significance to Christian influence, and neither have I.

[Gregor]

In the absence of a working knowledge (or any knowledge for that matter) of the authors you cite, so take my thoughts for what they're worth. . .

Let me touch on (A) the pro-science aspects of Xianity and (B) the idea of causation.

(A) You state as a pro-science Xian idea is:
____
"the notion that all was created freely, in time, out of nothing and in an orderly fashion by an omnipotent God derives from Scripture."
------
I believe that this statement is consistent with a majority of religions. Any religion with a creation story has a God or gods creating the world out of nothing, or out of water, or out of the formless heavens.

And I think that asserting those religions with a steady state theme or no creation story are not as pro-science as those with a creation theme is subject to an attack as being post hoc hindsight at its finest.

If the Aztecs had a similar creation story that a god created the world out of nothing, what leg up did it give them?

Still on the Bible, you cite somewhat vague references to OT passages. The Jews had the OT long before the Xian west, so where is Jewish science? There is nothing here saying "blessed are the time measurers, for they shall invent watches," or "god smiled on Aristophanes because he didn't take the Levite's preaching at face value, but measured the diameter of the earth." The cited language seems to provide no traction to the theme.

For each cite you give, I can cite several anti-scientific ideas: (sun stopping, red sea rolling back, belly of a whale, bats as birds, grasshoppers with four legs, walls falling to trumpets, etc.). Now, no one is arguing that the Bible is a science text, but when Paul tells the folks in 2 Corinthians (I believe) that those greeks think too much and that God made certain things unbelieveable to be a stumbling block to those who use logic as opposed to faith, I have a hard time accepting the bible as pro-independent thought.

(B) - On to causation.

I question whether religion preceded advance. When your major thinkers are constrained (?) to work in a monastary and practice religion 18 hours a day, they're going to invent additions to their theology. Some of those thinkers may also practice natural theology. Why not use religion as a seal of approval.

Your other statement that the Church established a framework where thinkers could "respond fruitfully to its eventual re-encounter with classical learning" is also subject to an attack as a post hoc justification.

Had aristotle and other pre-Xian scholars not been revived, where would we be?
Had aristotle and other pre-Xian scholars been revered in 500-1,000 CE where would we be?

Some thoughts.

[DialecticMaterialist]

With respect to Byzantium, Grant considers and refutes this objection convincingly:

Why during the last 800 years of the Byzantine Empire did scholars add little of significance to their enormous legacy of ancient Greek science and natural philosophy? ... One might, at first glance, think that war played a significant role in minimizing intellectual activity. Although wars afflict most societies and civilizations, Byzantium was different. It was constantly at war defending an ever-shrinking empire that lasted more than a thousand years only because the empire was prepared to make huge sacrifices to preserve itself. ... Although wars might have disrupted intellectual activities in Byzantium on occasion, such an interpretation, however, would be inaccurate because the Byzantine Empire experienced its greatest intellectual renaissance during the two final, desparate, war-filled centuries of its existence.

Was the Orthodox Church in Byzantium an obstructionist force in science and natural philosophy? It did occasionally interfere (for example, it opposed the emphasis on pagan learning in the eleventh-century renaissance), but was probably not the major factor in Byzantium's miniscule achievements in science and natural philosophy ... [although Orthodox] Church authorities insisted on the handmaiden approach [abandoned in the Latin Church] to philosophy and to secular learning in general, showing hostility toward any attempt to study such subjects for their own sakes or for the sheer love of knowledge. The [Orthodox] Church's theologians were only occasionally natural philosophers.
...
The character of Byzantine scholarship was revealed in the preface to Theodore Metochites's Historical and Philosophical Miscellanies (Miscellanea Philosophica et Historica). Metochites spoke for Byzantine philosophers when he declared, "The great men of the past have said everything so perfectly that they have left nothing for us to say." ... Byzantine scholarship stands in sharp contrast to the "questions" tradition in the West, where authors were forced to confront one issue after another and to devise reasoned responses that might, or might not, agree with the author of the text.

In the Byzantine Empire, scholarship - and therefore scholarship in science and natural philosophy - was done primarily by a tiny minority of laymen, who shared little other than a common educational background. They certainly did not reflect deeply on a wide range of common problems, in contrast to scholars at the universities in the West. It seems that Byzantine scholarship was formalistic and pedantic, rarely innovative.

The apparent absence of more penetrating and innovative scholarship is also attributable to the fact that neither church nor state - and they were often one and the same - ever institutionalized the study of natural philosophy and science. In this, Byzantium differed little from Islam. The theologians in both civilizations were either hostile or indifferent to science and natural philosophy.


First off the Byzantine empire did have a lot of scholars and was ahead of the west during the times Grant speaks of. (One wonders why this must be since, supposedly the west was so much more adept at discovering knowledge.)

http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/ByzantinEmp_RevivalandHellenization.asp

Like the West the Orthodox Church had monks and theologians, so why didn't they establish the scientific method? They had almost 800 years.

Secondly this fails to answer my point. My point was, why it is if christianity helps spur intellectual life so much, that the Byzantine empire never created science. To this no answer has been given save some appeal about the West being "more questioning" a claim that is itself dubious. Again we have controversial claims supported by what? More controvsersial claims that themselves need ti be proven.

If anything Grant's above statements would help my case if I took them at face value, as they illustrate how little the Byzantiuns would have progressed even with the Christianb religion.

the above points towards a more geo-political explanation and less of a religious one.





So it seems that there were significant differences in philosophical attitudes toward science specifically, and intellectual learning in general, between the Orthodox Church and the Latin Church. For the avoidance of doubt, when I use the capitalized term "Church" in future posts, I mean to refer primarily to the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church rather than the Orthodox Church (unless otherwise indicated).

I turn now to the question of Islam. At first glance, it would seem that the Islamic notion of God would be as conducive to the rise of science as the Christian notion of God. However, Allah is presented in the Islamic tradition as a much more active God who frequently intervenes in the world as he sees fit without reference to any "rules" on an ongoing basis.

Where is the evidence for this? The New Testament is filled with just as many miracles as the Koran.


http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/hip.htm#ch7


As we mentioned earlier, the rise of Scholastic theology in the middle of the eighth century was the outcome of a new spirit of inquiry, which the introduction of Greek philosophy in the Muslim world had sparked. In some cases, however, the interaction of philosophy and dogma resulted in a gradual cleavage between the two. The systematic philosophers, like al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, tried hard to lessen the effect of such cleavage by emphasizing the areas of agreement and the common concerns of philosophy and dogma. Some, such as al-Kindi, went so far as to espouse the cause of dogma almost unconditionally and sought to erect a compact intellectual edifice on the foundation of dogma.



Muslims had a philosophical and rationalist thread in them, just like Christians.

Thus, Islam never entirely embraced the idea that the world works according to fundamental laws laid down by Allah at the time of creation. Rather, what it pleases Allah to do can be extremely variable.






Accordingly, Descartes' famous statement about the Christian God has far less applicability to the God of Islam:

Descartes statement was made in the 16th century and hardly even applied to Christianity at the time.



Descartes viewed this principle and this conception of God as justifying his own search for universal laws.

Again Descartes is hardly a Church father.





[N]atural philosophy [in the Islamic world] was always on the defensive; it was viewed as a subject to be taught privately and quietly, rather than in public, and it was taught most safely under royal patronage, as seen in the careers of some of Islam's greatest natural philosophers. Within Western Christianity in the late Middle Ages, almost all professional theologians were also natural philosophers. The structure of medieval university education also made it likely that most theologians had early in their careers actually taught natural philosophy. The positive attitude of theologians and religious authorities toward natural philosophy within Western Christianity meant that the discipline could develop more comfortably and consistently in the West than in Islamic society. In the West natural philosophy could attract talented individuals who believed that they were free to present their opinions publicly on a host of problems that formed the basis of their discipline.


Natural philosophy was often times on the defense in the Christian world as well.

But now that you have endorsed this viewpoint (one I hope you aren't just quoting for pure spontanaity.)

I have some questions:

1) If Muslims were so hostile towards rationalists perhaps you can give me a list of Muslim natural philosophers who were punished for doing natural philosophy.

2) Since Aristotelianism was in the Muslim world back then, perhaps you can show me how many scientists were impeded by Aristotle.


3) The above is just wrong when it states theologians were allowed to present their opinions without interference. The heretics burned for "heterodoxy" testify to that.

Also Church and State weren't really *that* separate in the Middle Ages, certainly not because th Church wanted it that way in any case. Even today the Catholic Church tries to impose its will on government andmake catholic beliefs into law:

http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-02-people.htm#11

Vatican Tells Catholic Politicians To Uphold Church Teaching
The Vatican has told Roman Catholic politicians that they have “the right and the duty” to uphold church teachings on bioethics, reproductive choice, the family and other issues governed by moral law.

With the approval of Pope John Paul II, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Jan. 16 published a 19-page “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” addressed to Catholic bishops as well as politicians and other laity involved in public life.







I also refer the reader back to earlier comments regarding the implications for science of the absence of a division (which did exist in the Latin Christian tradition) between church and state in medieval Islam.

This may be so, but this also fails to explain why the Muslim world was ahead of the Christian world for centuries.

And China (a country not even monotheist) was even farther ahead then both of those.

[DialecticMaterialist]

First, that Catholic encyclopedia article is extremely old; our great-grandfathers were young men when it was written (that's why it's available online; the copyright has long since expired). It reflects views about evolutionary biology a century ago.

Almost a century ago. Perhaps you can show me some articles in between, such as in the fifties that embraced evolutionary theory totally?

Also you seem to have missed the best aprt:

In spite of some initial misgivings, Catholic teaching and theology have been comparatively hospitable to the theory. ...



What initial misgivings could those be CEO? I thought the Church always had a perfect way of dividing scientific from nonscientific matter....

Likewise all these articles I notice are very, very current. The last decade if I am correct. But Darwinism has been around almost 120 years. Where is the great support 20 years ago? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? Did they just hop to it in the last decade?



I find particularly relevant to this discussion the Catholic insistence that the Bible should not be understood as a source of information that science is capable of discovering on its own.


This contrast would have been considered radical in the Middle Ages.

Second, it is important to bear in mind that the Catholic encyclopedia you cited is not a doctrinal document. Like any encyclopedia, it contains information from a wide variety of fields (history, politics, science, etc.) that reflect the understanding of its authors but are not necessarily articles of faith.


They put it up to explain Catholicism CEO. It is the only catholic encyclopedia online. So tell me, why are they putting an article like that up, which is so old, unless some catholics are sympathetic to it?



Everything else is understood to be subject, in principle, to valid challenge based on reason and new information.


False. You are just saying that because its Catholic philosophy now (at least with the higher ups when confronted), that doesn't mean it was in the past. (One should remember Martin Luther's list of questions/criticisms that he mailed to the Church.)

This can also be obviously disproven by Galileo's trial (one wonders what purely papal statement he challenged there.)



Third, based on what we've learned about Catholicism, I would be very surprised indeed if any Catholic schools or parishes in your area taught creationism as science. Please provide some evidence to this effect.


I fail to see why this is suprising seeing as around 40 percent of catholics are creationists. Many priests likewise allow for abortion, accept divorce and even tolerated racism when the Church spoke against it.

I do not have the web site of anything but given the stats the idea is not extraordinary.


Also if in Catholicism science and the Church are so divided you can answer these question:

Why is the catholic church still conducting excorcisms?


https://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=9464


Why does the Catholic Church still advance the notion of miraclesstuff considered impossible by modern science):


http://www.apparitions.org/


Not just modern miracles but miracles in history (like the resurrection of Christ).

And of course witchcraft:

What Is The Church Teaching Pertaining To The Subject Of Witchcraft?



A form of black magic practiced through the help of the Devil and evil spirits. It includes the casting of spells, sorcery, enchantment, etc. Great care must be taken before labeling anyone a witch because serious abuses have taken place in this regard both in the United States and in England. However witchcraft does exist in primitive cultures, examples in the Western hemisphere being voodoo in Haiti and macumbo in Brazil. Witchcraft is gravely sinful both for the practitioners and the users because of cooperation with evil spirits and because its basic purpose is the harm of ones neighbor.

(Source: The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary.)




Well it looks like after almost ten centuries after being established the Church has still not drawn a perfect line between purely religious beliefs and scientific creating an enviroment where superstition can still abound.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
(A) You state as a pro-science Xian idea is:
____
"the notion that all was created freely, in time, out of nothing and in an orderly fashion by an omnipotent God derives from Scripture."
------
I believe that this statement is consistent with a majority of religions. Any religion with a creation story has a God or gods creating the world out of nothing, or out of water, or out of the formless heavens.

And I think that asserting those religions with a steady state theme or no creation story are not as pro-science as those with a creation theme is subject to an attack as being post hoc hindsight at its finest.First, I don't agree that that statement is consistent with a majority of religions. It is not consistent with ritual Greek pantheism. It is not consistent with the quasi-religious cosmology of Aristotle. It is not consistent with Eastern religions. I'm not an expert in comparative religion, but how many religions do you know of that unite substantially all of the ideas in question? Only monotheisms, I think, and possibly not even all of those.

I wouldn't put it as simply that "religions with a steady state theme or no creation story are not as pro-science as those with a creation theme." It's more that a religion whose metaphysics includes the ideas I listed in my "argument summary" a few posts ago is going to foster a more conducive intellectual environment for early science than a religion that doesn't. Aristotle believed in an eternal universe and it's pretty clear that this posed a mental stumbling block for the development of science (my Jean Buridan anecdote is just one concrete example of how this was true).
Originally posted by Gregor
The Jews had the OT long before the Xian west, so where is Jewish science?But here you seem to be addressing again the strawman that such things were sufficient factors for the rise of science, rather than simply necessary or important ones. The same goes for the Aztec hypothetical.
Originally posted by Gregor
For each cite you give, I can cite several anti-scientific ideas: (sun stopping, red sea rolling back, belly of a whale, bats as birds, grasshoppers with four legs, walls falling to trumpets, etc.). Now, no one is arguing that the Bible is a science text, but when Paul tells the folks in 2 Corinthians (I believe) that those greeks think too much and that God made certain things unbelieveable to be a stumbling block to those who use logic as opposed to faith, I have a hard time accepting the bible as pro-independent thought.What we're talking about is a conception of the world in which science is fundamentally possible. At any rate, the medievals clearly took what they perceived to be scientific encouragement in the Bible and ran with it.

Although science didn't exist in Paul's day, do you think Paul was referring to things that would ultimately fall within the purview of science?
Originally posted by Gregor
(B) - On to causation.

I question whether religion preceded advance. When your major thinkers are constrained (?) to work in a monastary and practice religion 18 hours a day, they're going to invent additions to their theology. Some of those thinkers may also practice natural theology. Why not use religion as a seal of approval.
I think I follow you as far as that goes, but could you rephrase your argument here so that the deductive steps (and the conclusion itself) are a little more explicit?
Originally posted by Gregor
(Your other statement that the Church established a framework where thinkers could "respond fruitfully to its eventual re-encounter with classical learning" is also subject to an attack as a post hoc justification.Well, I think it's pretty clear from the medieval Western commentaries on Aristotle that the intellectual framework and tradition developed in the preceding centuries enabled them to meet classical ideas head-on, analyze them critically, and incorporate them in to the intellectual landscape very rapidly.
Originally posted by Gregor
Had aristotle and other pre-Xian scholars not been revived, where would we be?I think we'd be a lot further behind, no question. Western culture would have had to compensate for the loss of that ingredient in the mix, and it would have taken time. Remember, the translation of classical learning is one of the necessary pre-conditions cited by Grant pertaining to the rise of science. (As an aside, if the West had evolved such that the Church was absent from the scene during the mid-to-late Middle Ages, however, the translation, circulation and widespread study of those texts - once the originals were available - might have been much longer in coming.)
Originally posted by Gregor
Had aristotle and other pre-Xian scholars been revered in 500-1,000 CE where would we be?I'm not certain what you mean by "revered"; although Aristotle was taken very seriously by the scholastics, he was (fortunately for science) not untouchable. However, if those translations had been available starting in the early Middle Ages, we'd probably be further ahead than we are now (although I think it would have been a more gradual process, and the new learning would not have been received as smoothly or with as much sophistication as it was in the 12th century).

Just for the sake of accuracy, there was a certain amount of classical learning (including a few bits of Aristotle's work) that was never lost to the West, and which was studied seriously by Western theologians and philosophers during the first millennium C.E.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Secondly this fails to answer my point. My point was, why it is if christianity helps spur intellectual life so much, that the Byzantine empire never created science.

[SNIP]

If anything Grant's above statements would help my case if I took them at face value, as they illustrate how little the Byzantiuns would have progressed even with the Christianb religion.

the above points towards a more geo-political explanation and less of a religious one. I think what we've learned here is that the Byzantine Christian tradition evolved in a somewhat different direction than the Latin Christian one. They're not the same religious tradition, obviously. They include a lot of different theological ideas and attitudes that turn out to have been relevant to the rise of science.

Odd that you come down in favor of a purely geo-political explanation. Grant seems to conclude that argument for the chief possible geo-political explanation (the fact that Byzantium was constantly at war or preparing for war) is weak. His explanation relates almost entirely to different theological and philosophical attitudes between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity at the times in question.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Muslims had a philosophical and rationalist thread in them, just like Christians.Who said they didn't? But remember what Grant said: these were not theologians, they were philosophers who often were out of sync and at odds with the religion of their culture. The Islamic religion itself was not as comfortable as the Catholic one was with natural philosophy and rationalism.

The problem for the Islamic natural philosophers seems to have been (at least) twofold: (1) their inquiries were not embraced by their religion and (2) they were mostly doctrinaire Aristotelians who never managed to break out of a strict Aristotelian framework.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Descartes statement was made in the 16th century and hardly even applied to Christianity at the time.No, Descartes' remark was entirely consistent with the beliefs of the medieval theologian-natural philosophers.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also Church and State weren't really *that* separate in the Middle Ages, certainly not because th Church wanted it that way in any case. Even today the Catholic Church tries to impose its will on government andmake catholic beliefs into law:If you actually look into the history of church-state relations in Western Europe, I believe you'll find that they were more separate than you probably think, although not by modern Western standards obviously. In addition, where the church and state control overlapped, it has usually been a case of the state controlling the church; it is to this situation that we owe such debacles as the Spanish Inquisition, incidentally.

Groups and individuals trying to impose their will on government, and seeking legislation that reflects their opinions, is the nature of a free society (provided it is done in a lawful and nonviolent manner). This is accomplished through things called "lobbying", "voting", "social activism", and "political advocacy", among others. The Church has a bigger soapbox than many, but I don't begrudge it the right to do essentially what every interest group tries to do.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Almost a century ago. Perhaps you can show me some articles in between, such as in the fifties that embraced evolutionary theory totally?Well, we know that in 1950 the Church issued an authoritative statement (Humani Generis) that evolution was not incompatible with Catholicism (it also indicated that the physical evolution of the human species was a scientific issue, and a theological non-issue). Religioustolerance.org (linked earlier) suggests that Catholic schools commenced widely teaching evolutionary science before any other kind of school, secular or religious. It doesn't say exactly when, but I believe it probably occurred right after Humani Generis was released. Anyway, by what standard are we judging the Church? When did the average educated person (or even the average public school science curriculum) embrace evolutionary theory totally?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What initial misgivings could those be CEO? I thought the Church always had a perfect way of dividing scientific from nonscientific matter....I believe I suggested that the basic science/theology distinction was established early on, but that there was occasionally some confusion over which was which (always resolved, as far as I can see, by the time the scientific evidence became unassailable). Nevertheless, it's not clear that that’s what happened with evolution. Practically everybody had initial misgivings about evolution - including many scientists, before the weight of the supporting evidence grew to be overwhelming. Why single out the Church? It seems to have been relatively progressive on this issue vis-à-vis much of the rest of society.

You were the one who raised the evolution issue. Why don't you come up with some counterevidence covering the periods you've referenced?

I take it that your request over at ChristianForums.com for help in refuting this position did not yield any results, or else you would have introduced the evidence by now.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This contrast would have been considered radical in the Middle Ages.Not at all. This contrast was expressed quite neatly by Saint Augustine - generally regarded as the preeminent Church Father - as early as the 5th century (long before there was even a clear notion of what science was and what it was capable of achieving). By the era of the medieval scholastics, some seven centuries later, it had been firmly ensconced in Catholic thought for a very long time indeed. A contrary view would have been radical.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
They put it up to explain Catholicism CEO. It is the only catholic encyclopedia online. So tell me, why are they putting an article like that up, which is so old, unless some catholics are sympathetic to it?First, there's plenty of good information in that old encyclopedia, not all of which is likely to become outdated as rapidly as the article on evolution. Second, it's there because it's free - the copyright has expired and the work has entered the public domain, so there's no need to obtain a license from the original publisher (or other copyright holder) in order to republish it online. Haven't you ever wondered why you can find Moby Dick online but not the Harry Potter novels?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I fail to see why this is suprising seeing as around 40 percent of catholics are creationists. Many priests likewise allow for abortion, accept divorce and even tolerated racism when the Church spoke against it.

I do not have the web site of anything but given the stats the idea is not extraordinary.Where did you get the idea that 40% of Catholics are creationists? I said I'd read that as many as 40% of Catholics did not fully accept Darwinian evolution, but there's a lot of middle ground between Darwinian evolution and creationism.

Next, I already pointed out that those Catholics who do not fully accept Darwinian evolution do not reject it because the Church teaches them to reject it, so it would indeed be strange if any Catholic parishes and schools (which, after all, pioneered the evolutionary science curriculum - see religioustolerance.org) were still teaching creationism as you've alleged.

What I find most extraordinary in all this is not the idea that a Catholic parish or school would teach creationism as fact (though I find that extremely improbable), but the fact that you said you knew of such parishes in your area, when your follow-up post now suggests that you were merely making a speculative extrapolation based on your (mis)understanding of some statistical data.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think what we've learned here is that the Byzantine Christian tradition evolved in a somewhat different direction than the Latin Christian one. They're not the same religious tradition, obviously. They include a lot of different theological ideas and attitudes that turn out to have been relevant to the rise of science.


If they include so many attitudes, the Christians that is, why didn't they develope science?

Odd that you come down in favor of a purely geo-political explanation. Grant seems to conclude that argument for the chief possible geo-political explanation (the fact that Byzantium was constantly at war or preparing for war) is weak. His explanation relates almost entirely to different theological and philosophical attitudes between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity at the times in question.


That's if the above argument was the only geo-political explanation. There are others, including the fact that their enviroment became very arid.




Who said they didn't? But remember what Grant said: these were not theologians, they were philosophers who often were out of sync and at odds with the religion of their culture.

The article said they had theologians.



The Islamic religion itself was not as comfortable as the Catholic one was with natural philosophy and rationalism.

I will grant you that, but even while being more uncomfortable, the Islamic world managed walk ahead of the Christian world for centuries.

The problem for the Islamic natural philosophers seems to have been (at least) twofold: (1) their inquiries were not embraced by their religion and (2) they were mostly doctrinaire Aristotelians who never managed to break out of a strict Aristotelian framework.


1) Is not necessarily true, many Muslims felt Allah sanctioned science. Perhaps not as many as Christians but there was potential rationale.


2) Is something you have no evidence for at all. You keep saying adherence to Aristotle impedes science but you have shown nothing to prove that (though I have shown information to disprove it.)

Again you also state that being Christian was what allowed the Catholics to filter through Aristotle, why couldn't the Muslims have done so?




No, Descartes' remark was entirely consistent with the beliefs of the medieval theologian-natural philosophers.

They were made in the 16th century, well into the scientific revolution, and were novel at the time. Show me a major philosopher before Descartes who hold up such a strict division.




If you actually look into the history of church-state relations in Western Europe, I believe you'll find that they were more separate than you probably think, although not by modern Western standards obviously.

So if we eschew any standards of church state separation they were pretty separate?



In addition, where the church and state control overlapped, it has usually been a case of the state controlling the church;

Not always, as evidence by Galileo, astronomy, the Crusades, etc.

When england broke off from mother Church is didn't exactly go peacefully and there are histories of excommunications.



it is to this situation that we owe such debacles as the Spanish Inquisition, incidentally.


Are you saying the Church played no role in the Spainish Inquisition or only a minor role? That it is "the state's fault."

Groups and individuals trying to impose their will on government, and seeking legislation that reflects their opinions, is the nature of a free society (provided it is done in a lawful and nonviolent manner).

Not if such violates freedom of conscience or fails the lemon test. Remember law must have a secular purpose, not just a religious one.




The Church has a bigger soapbox than many, but I don't begrudge it the right to do essentially what every interest group tries to do.

I do again, when it violates freedom of conscience or seeks too.

In any event the above is irrelevant, I am showing how the Church even today tries to impose its will upon the State.

In any event, if a big racist group wanted to make blacks second class citizens would you not begrudge them if they follow due process?


In other words, just because a group has a right to try something, does that mean we should respect their decision to do so?




Well, we know that in 1950 the Church issued an authoritative statement (Humani Generis ) that evolution was not incompatible with Catholicism (it also indicated that the physical evolution of the human species was a scientific issue, and a theological non-issue).

Please show me the statement.



Religioustolerance.org (linked earlier) suggests that Catholic schools commenced widely teaching evolutionary science before any other kind of school, secular or religious.

I doubt it.



It doesn't say exactly when, but I believe it probably occurred right after Humani Generis was released. Anyway, by what standard are we judging the Church? When did the average educated person (or even the average public school science curriculum) embrace evolutionary theory totally?

Many embrace the Church, so I would think if the Church advocated and embraced the theory so well they would follow. I mean a 40 percent failure rate (and that's counting just the creationists) is pretty bad.
A "D" grade at most.




I believe I suggested that the basic science/theology distinction was established early on, but that there was occasionally some confusion over which was which (always resolved, as far as I can see, by the time the scientific evidence became unassailable).


Not really Galileo's and Darwin's evidence was pretty damn strong, but the Church still had to wait a few years, a few decades at times before. The Church still seems to suffer from much confusion even today, as do many of its members. I wonder why when such a division was so strongly established?


BTW did the Pope of the time(middle ages) officially divide matters of science from theology? Or was it just a few theologians, scientists and philosophers?

If it is merely the latter, could that not just reflect their personal viewpoint, not the Church's?



Nevertheless, it's not clear that that?s what happened with evolution. Practically everybody had initial misgivings about evolution - including many scientists,

Many religious scientists.....



before the weight of the supporting evidence grew to be overwhelming. Why single out the Church?

I'm not singling out the Church, just showing that it did have trouble for religious reasons.




It seems to have been relatively progressive on this issue vis-à-vis much of the rest of society.

Many religious people in society?

You were the one who raised the evolution issue. Why don't you come up with some counterevidence covering the periods you've referenced?


Well it seems there's a big gap in between the New Advent article and the 1990's Pope message. I want evidence that the Catholic Church strongly supported evolution before that. It appears as if it didn't.

I take it that your request over at ChristianForums.com for help in refuting this position did not yield any results, or else you would have introduced the evidence by now.

LOL. CEO that is very low, and a big disapointment coming from you.

Here is the exact thread:

http://christianforums.com/t52776&page=1


Here is what I said:

Basically the Christians had accused atheists or spreading the propoganda that "evolution was true."

By Ben_Johnson:

We are equally offended by those who NATURALLY assume there IS no God. Take evolution for instance --- atheists have successfully promulgated the idea that "mere CONSIDERATION of an extra-dimensional-engineer is LUDICROUS SUPERSTITION"; when many scientists find the evidence far more convincing for "ID"...



My response:


And evolution is not merely an atheist position. In fact most of the time I debate with christians any attempt to link christianity with creationism is viewed as a straw man. Here are a couple examples of where this happened on another forum the first with CEO_ESQ:

I have read that a fairly large minority of Catholics (perhaps as much as around 40%) do not fully believe in evolution. However, there is no institutional religious reason for this, because their faith does not require this view. As far as I am aware, the Church has never taught that evolutionary theory was incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Indeed, Catholic schools were not behind secular state schools in adopting the widespread teaching of evolutionary theory.



As you can see the man has said that the Church never had a major problem with evolutionary theory, I would love for someone here to give me more evidence to the contrary.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...15&pagenumber=2


The second examples are from a Christian on the board known as "Lief Roar" who attempts to scold me when I try to link Christianity to creationism by saying:

Creationists are, in the main, a phenomena located only in the US. As far as I know, most large Christian churches have no problem with the theory of evolution.

and:

The only sizeable Christian Church I know about which denies evolution in its doctrine is Jehove Witnesses - a Church which I hope you will accept is not considered to be mainstream. I know that the Catholic church officially accepts evolution as not being contrary to its teachings, and as far as I know, most of the European protestant churches do the same (but I'm not really in a position to know that for a fact.)


So Jehovah Witnesses are the main creationist Church, I don't believe it. But this Christian seems to think so.


Even the Catholic Church now seems to support evolution, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

and

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

Though in a mixed manner, much to Lief Roar's and Ceo's disapointment I suppose.


In any event I wish Christians would make up their minds on whether by linking christianity to evolution I am attacking a straw man, or whether by ignoring creationism as a Christian position I am begging the question/spreading atheist propoganda.


If anything I was showing how your own statements refute the notion that teaching and advancing evolutionary theory is "atheist propoganda." Not asking for help. (And even if I was I wonder why you would bring it up.)

You have totally misrespresented my statements on the manner.

It seems you go to Christian forums then. Tell me, what is your screen name? I'd love to know.

Also why don't you, if you don't, go to the evolution/creation section and correct some of the nice progressive Christians on evolutionary theory and the Christian division between both science and theology, as well as matters of Church and State.

I would love to see the unwavering support you recieve.







Not at all. This contrast was expressed quite neatly by Saint Augustine - generally regarded as the preeminent Church Father - as early as the 5th century (long before there was even a clear notion of what science was and what it was capable of achieving). By the era of the medieval scholastics, some seven centuries later, it had been firmly ensconced in Catholic thought for a very long time indeed. A contrary view would have been radical.

Not really, Augustine may have decided on a division between some philosophy and theology but the radical divide of Galileo? No way.




First, there's plenty of good information in that old encyclopedia, not all of which is likely to become outdated as rapidly as the article on evolution.


So why did they put up the article on evolution?


Second, it's there because it's free - the copyright has expired and the work has entered the public domain, so there's no need to obtain a license from the original publisher (or other copyright holder) in order to republish it online.

So you put up misinformation because its free?

And what of the 40 percent of Catholics who are creationists and read about this "lack of evidence"?





I do not have the web site of anything but given the stats the idea is not extraordinary.Where did you get the idea that 40% of Catholics are creationists ? I said I'd read that as many as 40% of Catholics did not fully accept Darwinian evolution, but there's a lot of middle ground between Darwinian evolution and creationism.


From scientific american:

In 1996 Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's commitment to evolution, first stated in 1950, saying that his inspiration for doing so came from the Bible. Despite this, 40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000 years.

Found here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006D234-4BE9-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF





Next, I already pointed out that those Catholics who do not fully accept Darwinian evolution do not reject it because the Church teaches them to reject it , so it would indeed be strange if any Catholic parishes and schools (which, after all, pioneered the evolutionary science curriculum - see religioustolerance.org) were still teaching creationism as you've alleged.


But they do because of religious sentiment. And likely because of how long it did take the Church to embrace evolutionary theory, such creates a sort of ideological inertia which takes a long time to die, especially when it comes to matter of religion i.e. faith.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

No, it's not enough. This is just intellectual laziness and/or sloppiness, as I tried to point out before to thaiboxerken. If your thesis about the ostensible antipathy between religion and science is necessarily true, it should be susceptible to logical proof (and it won't be a one-step proof, either). If it's contingently true, on the other hand, then there should be empirical consequences for the historical record that need to be examined, accounted for, and weighed. Either way, what you've said is not enough to make your case.

Yes, it is enough. It's based on on an irrational type of thinking, and irrationality slows us down. Just because ignorance is organized and given a name doesn't change the fact that it's make-believe.

Creationists are not the minority you try to make them out to be, either.

Irrationality (and thus religion) is an impediment to critical thinking. That's enough to slow us down.

When a person with a religious belief accepts science ahead of faith because there is directly conflicting evidence (i.e. young earth creationism) it is a lack of faith and religiousity in many cases-- those who believe the Bible is symbolism are just trying to dodge that blow. We are becoming less religious and more promisicuous and free from the shackles of religious belief.

Religious beliefs are not based on scientific hypotheses or theories. They are irrational and unfactual in the sense that it's untrue that a dragon lives in my garage.

[abiogenesis]

However, Lord Kenneth, if it's a theological dragon, then you don't need evidence. Apparently, if you declare, when criticized, that your irrational beliefs are beyond the scope of science, then there isn't anything further to discuss on the matter. Your dragon is a theological issue and, therefore, rationality does not apply.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
However, Lord Kenneth, if it's a theological dragon, then you don't need evidence. Apparently, if you declare, when criticized, that your irrational beliefs are beyond the scope of science, then there isn't anything further to discuss on the matter. Your dragon is a theological issue and, therefore, rationality does not apply.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

Sort of true. A person's worldview, even if it contains beliefs beyond the scope of science, ought to be internally coherent.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
If they include so many attitudes, the Christians that is, why didn't they develope science?My point was that Byzantine Christianity seems to have cultivated certain theological attitudes (that had more in common with Islam than with Latin, as Grant says explicitly), and which were not helpful to science. [/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The article said they had theologians.Of course they did. Grant was pointing out that the theologians and the natural philosophers in Islam were generally two opposed groups, whereas in the West they were often the same group, and just about every Western theologian in the 12th-14th centuries was a trained natural philosopher.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I will grant you that, but even while being more uncomfortable, the Islamic world managed walk ahead of the Christian world for centuries.Yet the Islamic world reached a plateau in natural philosophy - stopping short of science - that it was unable independently to progress past. This is partly why Europe was able to overtake the Arabs fairly rapidly once Greco-Arabic learning was available in Latin.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
2) Is something you have no evidence for at all. You keep saying adherence to Aristotle impedes science but you have shown nothing to prove that (though I have shown information to disprove it.)Since my other posts haven't convinced you, I will try to prepare a longer post on this and will get back to you.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
They were made in the 16th century, well into the scientific revolution, and were novel at the time. Show me a major philosopher before Descartes who hold up such a strict division.Descartes wasn't talking about a division, where did you get that? He was talking about the world running according to relatively constant laws. I'll try to dig up some good quotes from medieval natural philosophers and theologians on the same topic.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So if we eschew any standards of church state separation they were pretty separate?If we eschew modern Western standards, not any standards (such as Islamic standards, among others).
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In any event, if a big racist group wanted to make blacks second class citizens would you not begrudge them if they follow due process?

In other words, just because a group has a right to try something, does that mean we should respect their decision to do so?We should respect their right to promote their message, even while we simultaneously work in favor of contrary messages. This is a pretty basic feature of a free society; as Voltaire famously said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is why you have groups like the ACLU defending the political rights of neo-Nazis.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Please show me the statement.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

See especially paragraph 36.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I doubt it [that Catholic schools commenced widely teaching evolutionary science before any other kind of school, secular or religious].On what basis do you doubt it? That certainly seems to be what religioustolerance.org suggests. If your point is that that's not enough for you, just say so.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Many embrace the Church, so I would think if the Church advocated and embraced the theory so well they would follow. I mean a 40 percent failure rate (and that's counting just the creationists) is pretty bad.
A "D" grade at most. While basically science-friendly, the Church is not itself a scientific institution. It's not in the business of advocating scientific theories or imposing them on the faithful the way it does with theological doctrines.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
LOL. CEO that is very low, and a big disapointment coming from you.
...
You have totally misrespresented my statements on the manner.
...
It seems you go to Christian forums then. Tell me, what is your screen name? I'd love to know. Sorry, but what's so low about that? You're perfectly entitled to discuss such matters anywhere you want, and I would be the last person to criticize you for doing it. On the other hand, you did say "I would love for someone here to give me more evidence to the contrary" on this very sub-topic. Maybe you didn't mean that as a request for someone to help you out by giving you more evidence to the contrary, but it could certainly be seen that way. And it's perfectly all right by me either way. If you run across data useful to our discussion from some other source, whether you specifically asked for it or not, it's a good thing.

I do not visit ChristianForums. During the time the JREF board was having technical difficulties a day or two ago, I happened to Google my JREF screen name, and only a couple of things came up. The first one was your post at ChristianForums that quoted me, so out of curiosity I read it. I'd never heard of ChristianForums until yesterday, and I can't really say that I'm in much of a hurry to become a repeat visitor, barring a specific reason to do so. That said, I have zero problems with your doing it, so please don't take anything I've said as a personal critique.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Not really, Augustine may have decided on a division between some philosophy and theology but the radical divide of Galileo? No way.The specific subject was, would that statement in the 1995 Catholic encyclopedia article (that the Bible should not be viewed as a source of information on things that science can tell us about) have been viewed as radical in the Middle Ages? I think the answer is "no"; here are a few of Augustine's observations on the matter (and remember this is in about the year 400):

http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/dwr/augustine.html
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So why did they put up the article on evolution?

So you put up misinformation because its free?It's obviously an educational resource; you just have to take into account that it's really old. Bartleby.com has old medical reference books online from roughly the same time period. Do they represent a current understanding of the human body? Obviously not. Is it more educational than not having it available online at all? Yes.

[elliotfc]

Last semester I took a course in the history and development of technology and science. The teacher was not a Christian.

The text, and the supplementary materials, were never pro-Christian and never anti-Christian. They just gave out the facts.

Based on that course and the text, there is clearly a mixed bag when it comes to this subject. And Ceo-esq is doing a top-notch job pointing out the facts.

The only institutions of the pre-1500 or so Europe where science was taking place were church institutions. That doesn't mean much to day, but it means a hell of a lot when arguing about the past.

If the issue is about the year 2003, then it's a completely different scenario. I am not aware of any religion that compels by force or by laws science to be restricted. When arguments spring up between the two institutions it is more amusing than anything else. When it comes to progress, technological progress is only one facet. Growth in scientific knowledge is just another facet. If you base your conception of human progress on those two facets, than yes, religion is definitely not helping and in one way of looking at it, it does get in the way. Yet since it seems to motivate scientists (religion that is), maybe it does some good after all. If you're trying to slay a dragon or a bogeyman, and it gives you enthusiasm and drive, that's a sort of fuel.

-Elliot

[Gregor]

If the western world has continued with more and materially different advances over other societies since 1800, can we draw a conclusion about whether the same success rate now - with the minimum role of religion and Xian philosophy in science - explains the success rate in 1500 C.E.?

If Xian philosophy has no discernable impact on modern westerners, who make the vast majority of new scientific discoveries, why should we assume it had an impact in 1200 - 1500 C.E. at a time when the vast majority of new scientific discoveries were also occurring in the west?

I also think there is something very persuasive to Lord Kenneth's last post about the subliminal impact on religious beliefs, in general (as my new sig reflects).

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Gregor
If the western world has continued with more and materially different advances over other societies since 1800, can we draw a conclusion about whether the same success rate now - with the minimum role of religion and Xian philosophy in science - explains the success rate in 1500 C.E.?

Sure you could. Just tip the hat to the kids before 1500 even if they were not nearly as open-minded as we would have them be.

-Elliot

[DialecticMaterialist]

My point was that Byzantine Christianity seems to have cultivated certain theological attitudes (that had more in common with Islam than with Latin, as Grant says explicitly), and which were not helpful to science. [/B]



Yes Grant can say so, but merely saying so doesn't make it true. What exactly did the Orthodox Church have more in common with Islam?








Of course they did. Grant was pointing out that the theologians and the natural philosophers in Islam were generally two opposed groups, whereas in the West they were often the same group, and just about every Western theologian in the 12th-14th centuries was a trained natural philosopher.

And what is Grant's actual evidence for this?


I'm sorry but this looks like it was circumstantial: less Muslim philosophers were theologians then Catholics, so that means Islam is incapable of producing science.

Nevermind that the Muslim world was ahead of the Christian west, as were the Byzantines, for almost a thousand years.


To me it seems like Grant at this point is putting forth largely untestable hypothesis to get out of all disconfirming evidence. If we do that, allow for an infinite amount of ad hocexcuses, we can prove literally anything.








Yet the Islamic world reached a plateau in natural philosophy - stopping short of science - that it was unable independently to progress past. This is partly why Europe was able to overtake the Arabs fairly rapidly once Greco-Arabic learning was available in Latin.

Yet the Arab world was able to, need I mention again, run ahead of the West. And China during this same period run ahead of the Arab world. (Without the benefit of monotheism or Aristotle).

Neither of which is explained by the above.

Also how do you know the Arab world would have not been able to progress past that point if in a more lush environment, or if given a few more centuries? You don't.

Your evidence on this matter is purely circumstantial i.e. they didn't do it=they couldn't do it.

Also Aristotle was introduced afterwhich science did progress in the wert. But it's not like Aristitle's influence was an immediate thing, it likely took decades, perhaps centuries for Aritotle to become well known, let alone for his writings to become established, let alone for people to advance Aristotle's system through mere thought, reflection and discourse.


All the above statement posits that people are at some level just blank slates, just drifting along with what thought they have at face value unless some other cultural force fill this black box. But people can reflect by themselves, and are especially encouraged to do so in a competive feudal system, where economic and technological superiority can spell the difference between a kingdom's superiority and utter invasion. They also had lush enviroments that would support such ventures, with food and large numbers. (Ventures like exploration, war, and science as there are more laborers to support scientists).

This is something neither the Chinese or Muslims never really had, (both their regions were controlled by powerful central governments, and the Muslim land had become arid), and this likely explains why the West, when given the tools of science advanced while the East began to decline. (In reality the West it seems more took a leap forward as there is no evidence China's technological/intellectual progression had really stopped/declined.)

That not only explains why Europe was ahead of China and the Middle East, but why Europe was ahead of Africa, Noth America, South America, and Australia.

This makes religion and ideology though influential, more of a proximate secondary factor. (The Muslim set-back can easily be viewed as a temporary thing in that light.)


During this period as Aristotle's and sciences influence grew, began to crystalize so to speak, the power of the Church declined. The two came almost at the exact same time. I like Gregor do not see this as coincidence.













Descartes wasn't talking about a division, where did you get that? He was talking about the world running according to relatively constant laws. I'll try to dig up some good quotes from medieval natural philosophers and theologians on the same topic.

Descartes was proposing a dualism. Anyone who takes an intodructory course in philosophy would know that.

Also isn't this division the sort of thing you said the Catholic Church was defending?




If we eschew modern Western standards, not any standards (such as Islamic standards, among others).

That's kind of like saying that modern day China is relatively free, with we use Stalinist standards to judge them.

Do you really believe the Muslim standard is an objective way to measure church state separation?




We should respect their right to promote their message, even while we simultaneously work in favor of contrary messages.

Are you perhaps using the word "respect" in two different senses at this point?





This is a pretty basic feature of a free society; as Voltaire famously said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

.....I have already admitted to the fact that they have the right to do whatever they want. I want to know though whether or not I should respect (as in admire or think it a good thing) that they made that decision.






http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

See especially paragraph 36.


Yes paragraph 31 is interesting:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.


But I'm a bit more interested in paragraph 6 and 38.


6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.



and:

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.









On what basis do you doubt it? That certainly seems to be what religioustolerance.org suggests. If your point is that that's not enough for you, just say so.

I doubt it because 40 percent of Catholics in the US refuse to accept evolution and I'm willing to bet far more secularists do.

Seriously you really brought little, in fact no evidence for the above claim besides a vague reference and you ask me why I doubt it?





Many embrace the Church, so I would think if the Church advocated and embraced the theory so well they would follow.

That's a naive way of looking at the situation, they may generally accept the Church while rejecting certain statements made by the Church, especially when it contradicts past myth and dogma.


While basically science-friendly, the Church is not itself a scientific institution. It's not in the business of advocating scientific theories or imposing them on the faithful the way it does with theological doctrines.


So the Church gets all of the credit and none of the blame then right?

Either you are going to credit it with its followers who accept evolution, saying its a "progressive force" that helps advocate it or you don't by making the claim untestable and creating cop-outs.





Sorry, but what's so low about that?

Taking a statement from another forum out of context? You honestly don't see what is wrong with that?






You're perfectly entitled to discuss such matters anywhere you want, and I would be the last person to criticize you for doing it. On the other hand, you did say "I would love for someone here to give me more evidence to the contrary"

CEO you are acting childish at this point, the above statement is obviously not meant to be serious. Look at the context..

It shouldn't be hard, I posted it just above. Scroll up.

Do you seriously suggest I was really asking for help? Or was I making a rhetorical point?


Nice weasel tactics CEO.

It's stuff like the above that makes me not trust your "quoted" sources at face value.







Maybe you didn't mean that as a request for someone to help you out by giving you more evidence to the contrary, but it could certainly be seen that way.

Not really..



I do not visit ChristianForums. During the time the JREF board was having technical difficulties a day or two ago, I happened to Google my JREF screen name, and only a couple of things came up. The first one was your post at ChristianForums that quoted me, so out of curiosity I read it.

Obviously not that closely. At this point I'm either thinking you made a careless error or you were purposely distorting what I said. The former is far more charitable then the latter.



I'd never heard of ChristianForums until yesterday, and I can't really say that I'm in much of a hurry to become a repeat visitor, barring a specific reason to do so.


Why not? You can explain to the nice progressive Christians how evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity, how matters of fact and faith should be strictly divided and how Church and state are separate(and were separate in the Middle Ages.)

I'm trying to, and it seems quite a few have a problem accepting this well established Christian position. They must all be heretics.

The specific subject was, would that statement in the 1995 Catholic encyclopedia article (that the Bible should not be viewed as a source of information on things that science can tell us about) have been viewed as radical in the Middle Ages? I think the answer is "no"; here are a few of Augustine's observations on the matter (and remember this is in about the year 400):

http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/dwr/augustine.html


Here is the statement:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the 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 holds as to 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 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 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[1 Tim. 1:7].?



Sorry but I see nothing about a divide of science and reason. i.e. something akin to "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go."

It merely states that would should not presume knowledge, and spout statements out of ignorance. i.e. misinterpret the Bible.



It's obviously an educational resource; you just have to take into account that it's really old.

And I'm sure the 40 plus percent of Catholics that already have problems with Darwinism will do so.....




Bartleby.com has old medical reference books online from roughly the same time period. Do they represent a current understanding of the human body? Obviously not.

Bartleby online is not presenting itself as an established encyclopedia.
Nor is it dealing with a group of followers who are already very confused on the issue (If they did, they'd likely put up disclaimers).

Nor do they suffer from a large group who share the sentiment that such old medical books are still correct, or more correct then modern books.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes Grant can say so, but merely saying so doesn't make it true. What exactly did the Orthodox Church have more in common with Islam?
...
And what is Grant's actual evidence for this?You read the same passage I did. Grant said "The apparent absence of more penetrating and innovative scholarship is also attributable to the fact that neither church nor state - and they were often one and the same - ever institutionalized the study of natural philosophy and science. In this, Byzantium differed little from Islam. The theologians in both civilizations were either hostile or indifferent to science and natural philosophy" (emphasis added).

I am at a bit of a loss that you seem inclined to challenge the evidentiary basis of every statement Grant makes about medieval history. It kind of defeats the usefulness and purpose of expert testimony. Grant is one of the country's foremost authorities (http://www.indiana.edu/~alldrp/members/grant.html) on the interrelationship of science and religion in the medieval period. His peers elected him President of the History of Science Society, for crying out loud. Grant saying it's true doesn't make it true, but it means that there is very good reason to believe it's true. You need to pick your battles a little better, and save your objections for when you have some valid grounds for raising them in the first place.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I'm sorry but this looks like it was circumstantial: less Muslim philosophers were theologians then Catholics, so that means Islam is incapable of producing science.That's not the argument. Can't you see it's relevant to the relationship between medieval Islamic culture and science that the rationalist element in Islam was essentially confined to a class of secular philosophers who spent a good deal of their time struggling with their religion's theologians. By the same token, do you not think it is germane to our discussion the fact that scientific and theological circles worked in close proximity in the medieval West, and that the medieval Church thought natural philosophy was sufficiently important that it required university students (including, most notably, theologians) to study it?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also how do you know the Arab world would have not been able to progress past that point if in a more lush environment, or if given a few more centuries? You don't.Additional time and a favorable climate are great, but by themselves how do you expect those things to make up for the fact that your culture's most powerful politico-religious institutions are hostile or indifferent to scientific learning?
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Your evidence on this matter is purely circumstantial i.e. they didn't do it=they couldn't do it.If you think that's what my side of this argument is, I suspect you tuned out somewhere near the first or second step of it. We've been examining reasons why they might not have done it, and there are a number of very plausible candidates. They're not all geo-political.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Descartes was proposing a dualism. Anyone who takes an intodructory course in philosophy would know that.
He was not talking about dualism in the passage I quoted. Descartes occasionally talked about one or two other things as well, as anyone who takes graduate courses in philosophy knows. In that particular statement, Descartes is describing a Christian conception of the universe running according to rationally intelligible, divinely decreed laws. This was a notion that was well elaborated in medieval theology.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Do you really believe the Muslim standard is an objective way to measure church state separation?Do you really believe there exists an objective way to measure church-state separation? You're missing the point again here. It's a relative standard, which is entirely appropriate to use when trying to make an assessment of two cultures relative to one another.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Taking a statement from another forum out of context? [i] You honestly don't see what is wrong with that?

CEO you are acting childish at this point, the above statement is obviously not meant to be serious. Look at the context..

It shouldn't be hard, I posted it just above. Scroll up.

Do you seriously suggest I was really asking for help? Or was I making a rhetorical point?

Nice weasel tactics CEO.

It's stuff like the above that makes me not trust your "quoted" sources at face value.Fine. I just skimmed the discussion. I believe what you say. Of course, your argument could certainly use some help at this point, so perhaps you should reconsider.

I apologize for my offhand remark, but that's all it was. It wasn't a criticism, it wasn't an objection, it wasn't a source or evidence, it did not form part of my argumentation in any way, or detract from yours. Thus, it was not a tactic at all, much less a "weasel tactic".

Just so the difference between a non-tactic and a tactic is clear, an example of a "tactic" is your build-up of this completely irrelevant non-issue into a restatement of your allegation that I misquote my sources, or make them up - something that I've never given anyone in this forum a reasonable basis to believe.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Sorry but I see nothing about a divide of science and reason. i.e. something akin to "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go."

It merely states that would should not presume knowledge, and spout statements out of ignorance. i.e. misinterpret the Bible.I'll make the exegesis of this short passage easier. What Augustine is saying is this:

1. There are things we can know about with certainty from reason and experience (nature of the stars, seasons, animals, vegetables, minerals etc. - in other words, scientific topics). As the information about such things comes from reason and experience rather than Christianity, you do not need to be a Christian to have knowledge of these topics.

2. It disgraces the faith when a Christian speaks nonsense about scientific topics - things that well-informed non-Christians know are scientifically untrue - based on a supposed interpretation of the Bible.

3. This is because if non-Christians get the idea that Christians rely on the Bible for bogus scientific information, they are likely to conclude that the Bible is also an unreliable source of spiritual information. Accordingly, do not justify your opinions on scientific topics (again, ones we can discover through reason and experience) by reference to the Bible.

[DialecticMaterialist]

You read the same passage I did. Grant said "The apparent absence of more penetrating and innovative scholarship [in the Byzantine world] is also attributable to the fact that neither church nor state - and they were often one and the same - ever institutionalized the study of natural philosophy and science. In this, Byzantium differed little from Islam. The theologians in both civilizations were either hostile or indifferent to science and natural philosophy" (emphasis added).

And where is the proof for that?

I am at a bit of a loss that you seem inclined to challenge the evidentiary basis of every statement Grant makes about medieval history. It kind of defeats the usefulness and purpose of expert testimony.


Not really as I believe I have a more credible expert that asserts the contrary, two in fact.

The first is Jared Diamond, the second is the HSS.


Grant is one of the country's foremost authorities on the interrelationship of science and religion in the medieval period. His peers elected him President of the History of Science Society, for crying out loud.

So we are to take his words as faith?

Lets not forget that history has not been a science for many years, and many historical claims have been both untested, and full of ad hoc hypothesis. There are just starting to become pioneers who are changing this, like Jared Diamond and Frank Sulloway who now test their historical claims in a more scientific and parsimonious manner.

Diamond for example shows how his theory explains not only small regions but shifts in continents. Something mere religion could never explain. Diamond also makes a lot of historical beliefs that place too much emphasis on culture, as well as racist ones, unecessary.

If you said "Well the west just had the right philosophy" Diamond would ask why the West got it and otehrs didn't. Were other cultures mentally incapable of making that leap? Of formulating those great philosophical or religious tenets? Was there actual supernatural interference? Was it just chance? Or a matter of racial superiority?

Or was it mainly due to geopolitical climate?



Grant saying it's true doesn't make it true, but it means that there is very good reason to believe it's true. You need to pick your battles a little better, and save your objections for when you have some valid grounds for raising them in the first place.

You need to stop trying to tell me how to challenge your viewpoints. The fact is Grant, as prestigious as he may be, is advancing a what appears to be a superfluous theory, for which there is much counter-evidence and on which many controversial claims concerning other's beliefs are made.

Thomas S. Kuhn was elected president at one point, does that mean we accept everything Khun says? And when was Grant elected anyways?

Grant was also elected almost two decades ago, a lot has changed in history since then.

Basically you cannot just act as if a controversial issued is settled just because one expert agrees with you, especially when the general consensus of the society he is part of says differently, as do many other just as respectable experts.



That's not the argument. Can't you see it's relevant to the relationship between medieval Islamic culture and science that the rationalist element in Islam was essentially confined to a class of secular philosophers who spent a good deal of their time struggling with their religion's theologians.


No, the philosophers were religious and secondly you have hardly proved that the only rationalist philosophers in Islam were nontheologians, let alone that the religious authorities in Islam were universally opposed to rational inquiry.

In fact your statement fails to explain why the Muslim world was ahead of the west for centuries. If the rationalist element was so squelched at every turn, how can this be?

Perhaps the rationalist element went through degrees of influence? That would seem more likely.


By the same token, do you not think it is germane to our discussion the fact that scientific and theological circles worked in close proximity in the medieval West, and that the medieval Church thought natural philosophy was sufficiently important that it required university students (including, most notably, theologians) to study it?

I think many in the Church did, but that opinion was hardly uniform. And even for those who supported the above notion, it was likely only to certain degrees on certain issues. Questioning the validity of the Bible's history for example was likely not something encouraged.



Additional time and a favorable climate are great, but by themselves how do you expect those things to make up for the fact that your culture's most powerful politico-religious institutions are hostile or indifferent to scientific learning?

Because those institutions can be overthrown by other societies and because learning comes naturally to humans. One cannot squelch knowledge forever.

Also I have no doubt religion and ideology can influence progress, but on a continent wide scale to the degree you speak of? I highly doubt it, especially when one can easily find geopolitical reasons.

Even the Soviet Union, as totalitarian as they were, could get a man into outer space.

And rarely is a society ever uniformly opposed to science and learning. The Mayans certainly were not, so why didn't they develope science, build guns and compasses then go off to conquer Europe?

Populations naturally get larger, politicans naturally want more wealth and power and technology is key to this, for this reason science and its precursors (being something closely tied to technology) are never ignored.





If you think that's what my side of this argument is, I suspect you tuned out somewhere near the first or second step of it. We've been examining reasons why they might not have done it, and there are a number of very plausible candidates. They're not all geo-political.

A number yes, and I admit religious fundamentalism did likely play a role. Whether or not the most important role or THE role is another question.

I think many Catholics were likewise hostile towards science, but did their attitude prevail in Europe? No. So why had it prevaled in the Muslim world?

The answer cannot clearly be found in ideology, Islam may seem more hostile and strict, but not to any radical degree. Merely being strict and more militant does not create hostility to science. For almost five centuries quite the opposite had been true, as Muslims enjoyed the benefits of medicine, mathematics and gunpowder. As Muslims enjoy many of the benefits of science today.

I think the religious attitudes that developed and were harmful were more a synptom at first then the effect of a decline in prosperity. A set back. Not the most important or ultimate causal factor, that seems to be the geopolitical climate.

Using a geopolitical explanation can explain why the Muslims were ahead of Europe for a while and why they fell behind.

Mainly because civilizations rose in the Muslim world before Europe; they had a head start. The Muslim world likewise was close to China, an easy to place to get technological and intellectual innovations. The Muslim world was settled and civilized sooner.

But the head start only goes so far, after a while the arid enviroment caught up with them and they fell behind. I imagine they were still advancing, and after a while would have been more rationalistic (like they were before) but again they did not enjoy Europes prosperity or its feudal system.

I think that Europes lush enviroment and feudal/competitive system is the main thing that allowed science, research and technological innovation to survive the opression and onslaughts of the Church, as well as bring many Church leaders around. The product was in such high demand, why refuse?

It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the Church where good business and the need for change took precedence over past tradition. Also there would always be more liberal people in the Church normally receptive to new ideas, and this climate would help them advance their case, even in the face of a backwards yet established ideology.


He was not talking about dualism in the passage I quoted. Descartes occasionally talked about one or two other things as well, as anyone who takes graduate courses in philosophy knows.

Well I've talked to several philosophers with Ph.d's on the issue and they affirm my position. So either they failed to take a graduate course, you got a special one, or Descartes was talking about a science/theology dualism. A dualism that was consistent with his view of human nature.



In that particular statement, Descartes is describing a Christian conception of the universe running according to rationally intelligible, divinely decreed laws. This was a notion that was well elaborated in medieval theology.

That was more Descartes conception of the universe not the traditional Catholic. Also Descartes is very much suspected of being a Deist.

Do you really believe there exists an objective way to measure church-state separation?

Perhaps no perfectly objective ways, but some ways are more objective then others. There is no need to punt just yet.



You're missing the point again here. It's a relative standard, which is entirely appropriate to use when trying to make an assessment of two cultures relative to one another.

Relative as in anything goes? Well then I can just say "Is not" and you say "is". We can do that: but that's not a serious debate.


I apologize for my offhand remark, but that's all it was. It wasn't a criticism, it wasn't an objection, it wasn't a source or evidence, it did not form part of my argumentation in any way, or detract from yours. Thus, it was not a tactic at all, much less a "weasel tactic".


Thank you CEO. :) And I apologize then for my unkind words on the subject. It appeared as if I had misinterpreted your own statements as a sort of criticism and personal attack.

I'm just glad we got this little distraction out of the way.



I'll make the exegesis of this short passage easier. What Augustine is saying is this:

1. There are things we can know about with certainty from reason and experience (nature of the stars, seasons, animals, vegetables, minerals etc. - in other words, scientific topics). As the information about such things comes from reason and experience rather than Christianity, you do not need to be a Christian to have knowledge of these topics.

2. It disgraces the faith when a Christian speaks nonsense about scientific topics - things that well-informed non-Christians know are scientifically untrue - based on a supposed interpretation of the Bible.

3. This is because if non-Christians get the idea that Christians rely on the Bible for bogus scientific information, they are likely to conclude that the Bible is also an unreliable source of spiritual information. Accordingly, do not justify your opinions on scientific topics (again, ones we can discover through reason and experience) by reference to the Bible.


Yes I see all that but it is not cutting off the Bible or theology from science, just cautioning against making false statements about reality based on misinterpretations of the Bible. Or what Augustine felt was a misinterpretation at least.

Now he is not saying the complementary though, that the Bible cannot be relied on to give us good information concerning reality. Nor is Augustine clearly drawing a line between matters of reason and faith, the origin of species for example or movement of the heaven's is not mentioned.

All in all I think the passage is somewhat vague, and can be interpreted in many different ways according to different readers at different times. Many modern day Catholics may read it as an affirmation of a divide between science and theology now, many may not, and still in the past, in the middle ages, catholic theologians likely read it as differently still.

Mainly perhaps as "Don't make assertions concerning the Bible contrary to reason or the obvious." Many religious thinkers say that though.

However like I have said the lines are rarely drawn perfectly, and if something is not obviously testable, if its denial will not immediately disgrace the faith or the believer does not see how it will, then in all likelyhood the believer will err on the side of faith and tradition, not reason.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


Yes, it is enough. It's based on on an irrational type of thinking, and irrationality slows us down. Just because ignorance is organized and given a name doesn't change the fact that it's make-believe.

Creationists are not the minority you try to make them out to be, either.

Irrationality (and thus religion) is an impediment to critical thinking. That's enough to slow us down.

When a person with a religious belief accepts science ahead of faith because there is directly conflicting evidence (i.e. young earth creationism) it is a lack of faith and religiousity in many cases-- those who believe the Bible is symbolism are just trying to dodge that blow. We are becoming less religious and more promisicuous and free from the shackles of religious belief.

Religious beliefs are not based on scientific hypotheses or theories. They are irrational and unfactual in the sense that it's untrue that a dragon lives in my garage.

Lord Kenneth,

I have been trying to get you to organize your argument on this question into a somewhat more rigorous deductive proof. Consider it a good exercise in critical thinking for both of us; it will also make your real premises and assertions clearer. Here's a first draft based directly or indirectly on statements you’ve already made:

1. Religion and religious institutions encourage only non-rational thinking.
2. Any sort of non-rational thinking will necessarily slow down science.
3. Religion and religious institutions thus have at least some tendency to slow down science. (1, 2)
4. Religion and religious institutions are unable to contribute to science in any manner that could fully offset (3).
5. Therefore, the net effect of religion and religious institutions on science is necessarily to slow science down. (3, 4)

Is that more or less it? Or, if not, just substitute/add steps as you please - we want no strawmen here. Give us a second draft.

ceo_esq

[abiogenesis]

ceo_esq,

I can't speak for Lord Kenneth but, from what I've seen of him so far, it looks like we're pretty close to the same page on this issue.

It isn't necessary for religion to promote only irrational thinking. The fact that it endorses it at all is enough to slow us down. Your argument that the Church has no difficulty distinguishing between matters of faith and matters of science is nice but, looking at the faithful masses, the distinction is not so obvious. The average believer does not draw the line as clearly as you or the Church might claim.

The mere idea that there is a line is detrimental. Religion's promotion of the supernatural is inherently harmful to natural science. Religion raises superstition at least to the same level as rational thought. This slows us down.

Now, the institution of organised religion may or may not have had a beneficial effect on scientific progress in the middle ages. That, however, is not vital to answer the question. Is Religion (institutionalised superstition) slowing us (not just scientists, but all of humanity) down?

So, here's my argument, at least:

1. Superstition and faith are much less effective (entirely ineffective) than science at helping us understand the universe.
2. Religion and religious institutions promote superstition and faith as equal, or greater, than scientific reasoning.
3. People's actions and interactions are most progressive when based on a good understanding of the universe.
4. Believers often use faith in the supernatural to justify their actions and interactions, regardless of the position of the Church.
5. Therefore, religion, by its promotion of faith, is slowing us down.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

DM,

Just a short point regarding reliance on authorities. It's one thing to challenge sweeping interpretations of historical data. It's another thing to challenge specific data.

For example, this came up when I mentioned Grant's observation that (1) theologians and natural philosophers in medieval Islam were often in conflict and the theologians were generally a separate class of individuals than the natural philosophers whereas (2) in the medieval West, theologians and natural philosophers had a lot of interdisciplary training (i.e. theologians were required to study natural philosophy in medieval European universities) and were often the very same individuals. You challenged Grant's evidence for this.

Now we can obviously debate what conclusions should be drawn from this situation, but what is your basis for challenging an expert medieval historian's statement of a particular basic event or condition obtaining in the Middle Ages? For example, are there other medieval historians saying the opposite of either (1) or (2) above, that prompted you to dispute Grant's simple statement of those facts? If not, is the truth of (1) and (2) really something we have reason to doubt?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
ceo_esq,

I can't speak for Lord Kenneth but, from what I've seen of him so far, it looks like we're pretty close to the same page on this issue.

It isn't necessary for religion to promote only irrational thinking. The fact that it endorses it at all is enough to slow us down. Your argument that the Church has no difficulty distinguishing between matters of faith and matters of science is nice but, looking at the faithful masses, the distinction is not so obvious. The average believer does not draw the line as clearly as you or the Church might claim.

The mere idea that there is a line is detrimental. Religion's promotion of the supernatural is inherently harmful to natural science. Religion raises superstition at least to the same level as rational thought. This slows us down.

Now, the institution of organised religion may or may not have had a beneficial effect on scientific progress in the middle ages. That, however, is not vital to answer the question. Is Religion (institutionalised superstition) slowing us (not just scientists, but all of humanity) down?

So, here's my argument, at least:

1. Superstition and faith are much less effective (entirely ineffective) than science at helping us understand the universe.
2. Religion and religious institutions promote superstition and faith as equal, or greater, than scientific reasoning.
3. People's actions and interactions are most progressive when based on a good understanding of the universe.
4. Believers often use faith in the supernatural to justify their actions and interactions, regardless of the position of the Church.
5. Therefore, religion, by its promotion of faith, is slowing us down.

- a b i o g e n e s i s - abiogenesis,

I hesitate to get into a full-blown proof analysis before Lord Kenneth's had a chance to respond. I don't know if he favors your argumentation or some different version (it would be terrific to be able to come up with a synthetic proof that everybody in the "religion slows us down" camp could sign on to). However, I'll venture a few highly preliminary comments in the meantime.

Regarding your idea that any sort of "line" is detrimental, do you think that science (like most disciplines) has a bounded scope of application? Is there any limit to the proper subject of science? Put another way, are there any questions or subjects that science does not address not for lack of sufficient data or analysis, but simply because they do not fall within the scientific domain?

Sorry to delve into meanings and definitions, but that's always one of the first steps in assessing a proof. So, on a closely related note to my prior coment, I see that you have used the term "understanding the universe". Could this not be made more precise by saying "understanding the physical universe and how it works"? Or, if you don't mean that, what exactly do you mean by "understanding the universe"?

With respect to what ideals do you define "progressive" in step 3? Similarly, when you say "slowing us down", do you mean with respect to humanity's scientific understanding and achievements, or do you mean with respect to all of humankind's manifold endeavors (scientific, artistic, philosophical, political, moral, etc.)?

Also, as reflected in my "first draft" proof for LK, I think that any proof is going to have to deal with the implausibility of the direct or indirect influence of a complex phenomenon such as organized religion tending 100% in one direction (whether progressive or retrograde) over time, and therefore some sort of netting-out calculation (however imprecise it might be) needs to take place. What is your view on this?

[abiogenesis]

Originally posted by ceo_esq:
Regarding your idea that any sort of "line" is detrimental, do you think that science (like most disciplines) has a bounded scope of application? Is there any limit to the proper subject of science? Put another way, are there any questions or subjects that science does not address not for lack of sufficient data or analysis, but simply because they do not fall within the scientific domain?Anything that is, even in theory, observable or has an observable effect is within the scope of the natural universe and science. Anything that does not is, therefore, supernatural. If the entity in question falls under the umbrella of the supernatural, that is, it doesn't have any observable influence on the natural world, then it can safely be said that it is non-existent to science.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
So, on a closely related note to my prior coment, I see that you have used the term "understanding the universe". Could this not be made more precise by saying "understanding the physical universe and how it works"? Or, if you don't mean that, what exactly do you mean by "understanding the universe"?There is no reliable evidence that suggests anything other than the physical universe actually exists.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
With respect to what ideals do you define "progressive" in step 3?I suppose progressive is not the right word. "Rational" perhaps? "Well founded," maybe. Justified?

My point is that the merits of any action lie solely in its effect on the physical, real universe. Doing harm to yourself or others, who are real, in order to please god, who is unreal, is not "progressive."

I don't think that clears it up adequately. I'll try to come up with a better explanation.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
Similarly, when you say "slowing us down", do you mean with respect to humanity's scientific understanding and achievements, or do you mean with respect to all of humankind's manifold endeavors (scientific, artistic, philosophical, political, moral, etc.)?The more general sense. All evidence suggests that the real world is all there is. As such, the ultimate value of our actions is based on real effects. Any decisions based on belief in the unreal have great potential to "slow us down."

Now, I'm not deriding the value of artistic fantasy, I'm just saying that it should be viewed as fantasy. It is irrational to make decisions that have real effects based on belief in the unreal.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
Also, as reflected in my "first draft" proof for LK, I think that any proof is going to have to deal with the implausibility of the direct or indirect influence of a complex phenomenon such as organized religion tending 100% in one direction (whether progressive or retrograde) over time, and therefore some sort of netting-out calculation (however imprecise it might be) needs to take place. What is your view on this?I believe that superstition and faith in the supernatural are the biggest stumbling blocks to mankind. Any institution that promotes these flaws as virtues is detrimental. Regardless of the good it may do.

We must come to grips with our place in the (real) universe and work for the benefit of the entire species. This is difficult when divisions based entirely on superstition limit our ability to cooperate.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
Anything that is, even in theory, observable or has an observable effect is within the scope of the natural universe and science. Anything that does not is, therefore, supernatural. If the entity in question falls under the umbrella of the supernatural, that is, it doesn't have any observable influence on the natural world, then it can safely be said that it is non-existent to science.
...
There is no reliable evidence that suggests anything other than the physical universe actually exists.Not everything that lacks an empirical dimension is necessarily supernatural (or, for that matter, purely non-existent). Certain things exist in the understanding without having a physical mode of existence: values, ideals, logical and mathematical relationships, and so forth, just to name a few examples. Indeed, I'm inclined to say that some of these non-physical things things do not exist merely in the understanding, but independent of it: the Pythagorean theorem is true regardless of whether triangles exist in nature and regardless of whether there is anyone to apprehend the relationship.

Of course, just because such things cannot be approached empirically obviously does not mean that they cannot be approached rationally, which merely highlights the fact that the two terms are not synonymous and that not all rational knowledge is scientific.

I take it from all the foregoing, however, that you think the same way I do: science does not trouble itself to form opinions about the non-empirical, much less the supernatural. So for the sake of clarification, would you object if we replaced "understanding the universe" with to "understanding the composition and workings of the physical universe", or words to that effect, in the relevant steps of your argument?
Originally posted by abiogenesis
I suppose progressive is not the right word. "Rational" perhaps? "Well founded," maybe. Justified?

My point is that the merits of any action lie solely in its effect on the physical, real universe. Doing harm to yourself or others, who are real, in order to please god, who is unreal, is not "progressive."

I don't think that clears it up adequately. I'll try to come up with a better explanation.
I follow you so far. We'll come back to this.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
The more general sense. All evidence suggests that the real world is all there is. As such, the ultimate value of our actions is based on real effects. Any decisions based on belief in the unreal have great potential to "slow us down."While I understand your basis for trying to extend the subject of the argument to all human progress - which, of course, is arguably consistent with the Frostbite's opening question - the argument quickly becomes unmanageable if we do this. Consider how much difficulty we're already having assessing the effect of religion on science. If we simultaneously try assess its effect on philosophy, art, politics, economics and a dozen other areas, I don't think we'll be able to move the discussion ahead. So without dismissing your notion that religion may have slowed humankind down generally, may I propose that we adhere to a "baby-steps" approach and limit ourselves to considering the impact of religion on human scientific understanding and accomplishments?

The other problem is that if we consider that any religiously-influenced decisions have a great potential to "slow us down", we'll need at some point to consider the extent to which that potential has been actualized. The decision to paint the Sistine Chapel may have been based on belief in the unreal, but I for one am daunted by the prospect of trying to quantify whether it was a net benefit to human culture. So I'd prefer to narrow the scope of our inquiry.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
I believe that superstition and faith in the supernatural are the biggest stumbling blocks to mankind. Any institution that promotes these flaws as virtues is detrimental. Regardless of the good it may do.But this should be reflected in the formal argument - something along the lines of step #4 in the proof I drafted for Lord Kenneth's inspection.

Hey, I actually feel like we're getting somewhere today.
:)

[abiogenesis]

Originally posted by ceo_esq:
Not everything that lacks an empirical dimension is necessarily supernatural (or, for that matter, purely non-existent). Certain things exist in the understanding without having a physical mode of existence: values, ideals, logical and mathematical relationships, and so forth, just to name a few examples. Indeed, I'm inclined to say that some of these non-physical things things do not exist merely in the understanding, but independent of it: the Pythagorean theorem is true regardless of whether triangles exist in nature and regardless of whether there is anyone to apprehend the relationship.The Pythagorean theorem can be observed and tested. Likewise with logical and mathematical relationships. I contend that values and ideals should be based on their observable effects rather than on superstition.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
I take it from all the foregoing, however, that you think the same way I do: science does not trouble itself to form opinions about the non-empirical, much less the supernatural. It's more than just "not troubling," though. If something is not observable, it is irrelevant. Science doesn't acquiesce to the supernatural, it denies its existence.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
So for the sake of clarification, would you object if we replaced "understanding the universe" with to "understanding the composition and workings of the physical universe", or words to that effect, in the relevant steps of your argument?I don't believe that there is any difference in meaning. The universe is physical. It is composed of physical elements and its workings are based on physical laws. To suggest that there is some other form of "understanding" would be to presuppose the existence of the supernatural.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
While I understand your basis for trying to extend the subject of the argument to all human progress - which, of course, is arguably consistent with the Frostbite's opening question - the argument quickly becomes unmanageable if we do this. Consider how much difficulty we're already having assessing the effect of religion on science. If we simultaneously try assess its effect on philosophy, art, politics, economics and a dozen other areas, I don't think we'll be able to move the discussion ahead. So without dismissing your notion that religion may have slowed humankind down generally, may I propose that we adhere to a "baby-steps" approach and limit ourselves to considering the impact of religion on human scientific understanding and accomplishments?I agree that we are having difficulty assessing the effect of religion on science. But, rather than taking "baby steps," I think we should avoid getting bogged down in the details.

Religion's fundamental tennets are based on faith in the supernatural. Let's start with that.Originally posted by ceo_esq:
The decision to paint the Sistine Chapel may have been based on belief in the unreal, but I for one am daunted by the prospect of trying to quantify whether it was a net benefit to human culture. So I'd prefer to narrow the scope of our inquiry.I do not claim that Michelangelo's contributions to the world of art slowed us down. Who can say, though, what great things he may have done had his works been intended for humanity instead of divinity?

We are capable of both great and terrible things. It cheapens human experience if we don't take credit for our accomplishments or responsibility for our shortcomings.Originally posted by ceo_esq:Originally posted by abiogenesis
I believe that superstition and faith in the supernatural are the biggest stumbling blocks to mankind. Any institution that promotes these flaws as virtues is detrimental. Regardless of the good it may do.[/i]But this should be reflected in the formal argument - something along the lines of step #4 in the proof I drafted for Lord Kenneth's inspection.Any accomplishment of organized religion would be improved if you remove faith in the supernatural. Any promotion of faith in the supernatural is not an accomplishment. All of the good done by the Church is tainted with superstition. That doesn't mean that it can't do good. It just means that it could do better.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

Edited to fix puncuation and spelling.

[abiogenesis]

Originally posted by ceo_esq:
But this should be reflected in the formal argument - something along the lines of step #4 in the proof I drafted for Lord Kenneth's inspectionAh! How's this? Replace step three with:

3. Promotion of an ineffective means of understanding the universe will impede humanity's understanding of the universe.

Then I don't have to worry about defining "progressive." :)

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
DM,

Just a short point regarding reliance on authorities. It's one thing to challenge sweeping interpretations of historical data. It's another thing to challenge specific data.


I don't think so. Especially when other experts disagree or there is disconfirming data or its open to interpretation.

For example, this came up when I mentioned Grant's observation that (1) theologians and natural philosophers in medieval Islam were often in conflict and the theologians were generally a separate class of individuals than the natural philosophers whereas (2) in the medieval West, theologians and natural philosophers had a lot of interdisciplary training (i.e. theologians were required to study natural philosophy in medieval European universities) and were often the very same individuals. You challenged Grant's evidence for this.

Now we can obviously debate what conclusions should be drawn from this situation, but what is your basis for challenging an expert medieval historian's statement of a particular basic event or condition obtaining in the Middle Ages?

Well if Grant an expert is Islam? In catholicism? I really just want more then Grant's mere statement on the subject. Grant is making a sweeping historical claim and it sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis. Especially as I don't see how Grant could measure something like the above with anything but the roughest means and also because there are also plausible reasons for why science fell in Islam. I have also suggested it is possible post hoc/reverse causation on Grant's part.

I am allowed to challenge Grant, even if he is an expert. As long as I have something to back me up. Especially if Grant's reasons are not given.

[kuroyume0161]

Has anybody once considered this simple fact (sorry if I haven't had time to read the encyclopedia of discourse completely to this point):

The Catholic Church was founded by the Roman Empire, Christianity first being made the state religion by Constantine, during a time when Rome's domains were shrinking and its 'morality' under heavy scrutiny by its denizens. Greece, replete with all of its science, technology, philosophy, and mathematics, was still a strong influence in Rome. When Rome fell, or more correctly, transformed into the Papal States and Byzantine Empire, followed by consolidation into the Holy Roman Empire, all of this accumulated knowledge had been stored away (or destroyed as in the case of the Library of Alexandria) - in the monasteries! The reason that "scientific thought" was arising within the Catholic Church or being fostered by it was because there was only one caste able to read and understand this vast storehouse of accumulated knowledge written in Greek and Latin: the Catholic priests! Peasants could not read these languages, if they could read at all. Since the 'aristocracy' was so tightly entwined with the Church, the progression of knowledge and scientific understanding over time from priests to royalty to wealthy businessmen to the general populace makes sense.

All that the Catholic Church did was cause a hiatus in the progression of knowledge that perhaps allowed those seeing it as new and unadulterated to see it in a new light. I hate to speak in "what ifs", but had Greece continued progressing, unstifled by Persia and Rome, actual science as we know it today may have actually been born there centuries earlier. It is highly probable that Archimedes, had he not been killed by Roman centurians, or someone following in his footsteps could have been the father of scientific thought as we know it had circumstances varied.

The Catholic Church's only contribution to science was their misfortune of not having destroyed ALL of the ancient documents embodying the knowledge of Rome and Greece...

[DialecticMaterialist]

And I'd like to point out that while the Catholic Church may accept evolution, they do not accept it in full nor do they accept all of science. The Church also still adheres to what are scientifically absurd notions.

However, the Roman Catholic church has by no means accepted the concept of Naturalistic Evolution in its entirety:


Naturalistic evolution includes the belief that all aspects of humanity evolved from earlier species. This conflicts with the church teaching that each individual's "spiritual soul is directly created by God." Naturalistic evolution concludes that what the church calls human spirit emerged "from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter." The pope regards this as "incompatible with the truth about man...[and] incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person."


The church teaches that God created the world and the rest of the universe from nothing. "Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must 'confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing' (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5)." 14


Although the church accepts evolution as more than a hypothesis, it does not teach that evolution was driven by purely natural forces. Rather, it teaches that evolution was and is under God's control and guidance.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
The Pythagorean theorem can be observed and tested. Likewise with logical and mathematical relationships. I contend that values and ideals should be based on their observable effects rather than on superstition.Abstractions cannot be observed and tested empirically - i.e. scientifically. Even logical and mathematical relationships we know to be true not from observation and testing, but from abstract reasoning. As for values and ideals, I understand what you are getting at (that we should relate human actions to values and ideals based on their observable consequences). However, that does not mean that we deduce the nature of abstractions such as "justice" or "honor" themselves via the scientific method.
Originally posted by abiogenesis
It's more than just "not troubling," though. If something is not observable, it is irrelevant. Science doesn't acquiesce to the supernatural, it denies its existence.
…
I don't believe that there is any difference in meaning. The universe is physical. It is composed of physical elements and its workings are based on physical laws. To suggest that there is some other form of "understanding" would be to presuppose the existence of the supernatural.I disagree with parts of the foregoing. It is one thing to say that science does not take into account those things which are scientifically irrelevant. It is another to suggest that science makes formal denials of such things. For example, we alluded earlier to the fact that statements such as "the Patriot Act is an unjust law" or "Picasso was a great artist" are non-scientific (in the sense that they are scientifically meaningless). Science can neither confirm nor deny such considerations and hence ignores them, but science does not formally posit that such statements are meaningless in any context, or that there is no such thing as justice or artistic greatness.

At any rate, however, if you do believe that there is no difference in meaning, then although it's wordier let’s use the expanded formulation referring to the composition/workings of the physical universe in the second draft of the proof (which I will attempt to set forth at the end of this post).
Originally posted by abiogenesis
I do not claim that Michelangelo's contributions to the world of art slowed us down. Who can say, though, what great things he may have done had his works been intended for humanity instead of divinity?
…
Any accomplishment of organized religion would be improved if you remove faith in the supernatural. Any promotion of faith in the supernatural is not an accomplishment. All of the good done by the Church is tainted with superstition. That doesn't mean that it can't do good. It just means that it could do better.Where does this premise fit in the proof? Also, this shifts the parameters of the discussion considerably. We know that there have been artists, writers, scientists, philosophers and so forth whose achievements were largely motivated by religious beliefs (or other beliefs in "unscientific" ideals). We don't know what they would have contributed to human culture if that particular motivation were removed; perhaps much more, perhaps much less.

Does "not accelerating us as much as it might do" count as "slowing us down"? I guess it might in some sense, but framing the argument in those terms invites even more speculation than the original argument.


* * * * *


Anyhow, I will take the liberty of restating the proof you offered, based on some of the elaborations you've offered or assented to (some of the changes result directly from this, others I think are needed to keep the whole thing consistent). One advantage (in my view) of your rewording of #3 is that it narrows #5 back to a more scientific (rather than a general cultural) context. However, it drops the "actions and interactions" language, which makes the original #4 fit less well, so I’ve rewritten #4 to be consistent.

1. Superstition and faith are much less effective than science at helping us understand the composition and workings of the physical universe.
2. Religion and religious institutions promote superstition and faith as equal to, or greater than, scientific reasoning at helping us understand the composition and workings of the physical universe.
3. Promotion of an ineffective means of understanding the composition and workings of the physical universe will impede humanity's understanding of the composition and workings of the physical universe.
4. Believers often use faith in the supernatural to justify their understanding of the composition and workings of the physical universe, regardless of the position of the Church.
5. Therefore, religion, by its promotion of faith, is slowing us down with respect to our understanding of the composition and workings of the physical universe.

Do you still agree with this version, before we subject it to further analysis? If not, let's refine it further.

A couple of further points. First, upon further reflection I am not sure what role #4 plays in the deductive argument - particularly with the change you made to #3, the proof seems to work formally (assuming the premises are correct) without #4. Second, I note that your use of the word "Church" suggests that we are talking about a specific religion. So if #4 stays, shall we change the term "religion", or do you prefer to reword the "Church" reference?

[abiogenesis]

ceo_esq,

It appears, from your insistence on explicitly specifiying the physical aspect of my argument, that you are planning to reintroduce the separation of science and theology as a counter. I think that the official support of the division is misleading, however, and part 4 of my argument was meant to address that. With the your rephrasing and the new step 3, it does appear that step 4 is unnecessary. I do feel, though, that the issue needs to be addressed.

Here's my thought on the separation of science and theology: The claim is that theology only concerns itself with things that are irrelevant to science, and vice versa. This looks good on paper and goes a long way toward apologizing for religion, but this separation is an illusion. The faithful use their belief in the supernatural to justify their actions. It slows us down to rely on superstition when making decisions that will affect (in fact, only affect) the real world. So the claim that religion and science, faith and reason can peacefully coexist is flawed.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I don't think so. Especially when other experts disagree or there is disconfirming data or its open to interpretation.Yes, DM, but what I was referring to was a pattern of contesting not just Grant's interpretations but even his basic factual assertions. I ask again: consider just the example I gave above of statements you explicitly challenged Grant on:

1. Theologians and natural philosophers in medieval Islam often disputed with one another and the theologians were generally a separate class of individuals than the natural philosophers.

2. In the medieval West, theologians and natural philosophers had a lot of interdisciplary training (i.e. theologians were required to study natural philosophy in medieval European universities) and were often the very same individuals.

There's nothing about causation in those statements. In fact, let's set aside, for a moment, how these facts should best be interpreted or whether they have any effect at all on how science developed in the West or in Islam. What I found puzzling was that you challenged them as facts. Where are the other experts who dispute the truth of either (1) or (2) above? What "disconfirming data" about (1) and (2) caused you to challenge those particular statements? If the answer is that there are aren't any, then what is so unreasonable about accepting them as facts (for the purpose of this discussion) and keeping the argument on the level of interpreting those facts? Grant is an expert in medieval natural philosophy/science - who did it, how it was taught, what it theorized, how it was received in the societies of that era, and so forth. I'm open to the possibility that he got basic historical facts like (1) and (2) above wrong (again, leaving interpretation wholly aside for the moment), but without specific reasons to suspect that, it seems unlikely.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
ceo_esq,

It appears, from your insistence on explicitly specifiying the physical aspect of my argument, that you are planning to reintroduce the separation of science and theology as a counter. I think that the official support of the division is misleading, however, and part 4 of my argument was meant to address that. With the your rephrasing and the new step 3, it does appear that step 4 is unnecessary. I do feel, though, that the issue needs to be addressed.

Here's my thought on the separation of science and theology: The claim is that theology only concerns itself with things that are irrelevant to science, and vice versa. This looks good on paper and goes a long way toward apologizing for religion, but this separation is an illusion. The faithful use their belief in the supernatural to justify their actions. It slows us down to rely on superstition when making decisions that will affect (in fact, only affect) the real world. So the claim that religion and science, faith and reason can peacefully coexist is flawed.abiogenesis,

I don't mean to insist on anything; it's your proof and I'm just trying to help refine it to the point where we can discuss it without having to go back and change the steps later. If, on second thought, you now think there is a meaningful difference between a true understanding of the "universe" and a true understanding of "how the physical universe works", we can certainly put the original language back in.

I understand your point about the distinction between theology on paper and actual belief in practice. It occurs to me that possibly the reason it does not seem to mesh well with the other steps of the argument is that the rest of the argument is really intended as a proof that religion necessarily cannot even in theory coexist with science without slowing it down, whereas your other point may belong in an argument that religion does in practice slow us down (you see the difference).

I embarked on this sub-discussion because Lord Kenneth (and you, too, I think) seemed to be saying that religion and science could not logically exist together, by definition, without religion having a net slowing effect on science, and I was somewhat interested to see whether any proof constructed to that effect holds water. Perhaps we can drop your #4, since you agree that it does seem out of place in the proof. We can preserve it, of course, for a subsequent a posteriori argument to the effect that even if science and religion can peacefully coexist in theory, in practice they do not.

Not to jump the gun, but it seems to me that making decisions based on an unreal system need not necessarily (that is, a priori) slow one down, even if in actual practice it frequently does. The following analogy occurred to me as I was pondering this:

Ptolemaic astronomy was highly contrived and fanciful. It did not convey any valid information about how the heavenly bodies actually moved. On the other hand, it offered a fairly reliable guide for predicting the positions of the planets. In fact, the Ptolemaic model was generally better at this task than the Copernican model was, although most people would say that the latter reflects a far more valid understanding of the solar system. Indeed, the only way Copernicus got his model to become roughly as reliable a guide as Ptolemy's was by making it slightly more like Ptolemy's (adding epicycles, which was partly what made Ptolemy's system so unreal and contrived in the first place!).

(I realize that Copernicus based his system more on philosophical ideas than sound scientific ones, but you get the gist.)

I can imagine a religious system (not all of them, but a hypothetical set) functioning as a guide to, say, moral decision-making in the same way that Ptolemaic astronomy functioned as a guide to planetary positions for so many centuries. Based on a completely fanciful understanding of reality, but actually yielding pretty good results in practice - as good as, or better than, some systems that are arguably much less fanciful.

[ceo_esq]

Taking advantage of an opportunity to address a few outstanding points here …

I’ve been a little frustrated by the lack of information regarding the introduction of evolution into the U.S Catholic school science curriculum; I have, however, come up with a couple of additional clues. First, I went back to the 1996 article in TIME magazine about Pope John Paul II’s statement on evolution. The article says "The statement is unlikely to influence the curriculum of Catholic schools, where evolution has been taught since the 1950s" (James Collins, "Vatican Thinking Evolves: The Pope Gives His Blessing to Natural Selection - Though Man's Soul Remains Beyond Science's Reach", TIME (Nov. 4, 1996).

I also found on LEXIS the transcript to the August 15, 1999 broadcast of ABC This Week in which Cokie Roberts, George Will, Bill Kristol and George Stephanopoulos discuss the Kansas Board of Education decision to remove evolution from the required science curriculum, and Cokie Roberts says "I was taught evolution in Catholic schools in the 1950s, for heaven’s sakes."

Religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm) says, "In the 1960s, evolution began to be widely taught" in U.S. public schools, and that evolution is still not taught in most Protestant religious schools.

From this, one would conclude that an evolutionary science curriculum was pioneered on a wide scale in Catholic schools before it caught on in public schools or elsewhere, whatever significance one wishes to attribute to that fact.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Are you saying the Church played no role in the Spainish Inquisition or only a minor role? That it is "the state's fault."Yes, the Church played a very minor role in the Spanish Inquisition, and that role consisted primarily in trying to neutralize it. The Spanish Inquisition was pretty much entirely a weapon of the secular state, and one that Ferdinand and Isabella (and their successors) shoved down the Church’s throat over papal objections. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia (http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/Inquisit.html), "It was entirely controlled by the Spanish kings".
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well I've talked to several philosophers with Ph.d's on the issue and they affirm my position. So either they failed to take a graduate course, you got a special one, or Descartes was talking about a science/theology dualism. A dualism that was consistent with his view of human nature.I think we're simply talking past one another here. I am familiar with Cartesian dualism and I haven't made any assertions concerning it. I don't think I disagree with any assertions you’ve made concerning it; dualism is just not what I am focusing on in quoting that one particular Descartes passage about the immutable character of divine laws.

[Gregor]

CEO

Unless you are using another source, your linked article did not support your argument about papal neutralization of the Spanish Inquisition. Without back-up, the article simply stated it began with the 'reluctant approval' of the pope. The remainder of the article really provided no support for your conclusion - why would it have gone on 300 years if the popes were trying to neutralizing it?

I also sincerely doubt the Catholic Church was ahead of secular education in teaching evolution, based upon Cokie Robert's recollection. I suspect that protestant, anti-evolution thinking in the south stymied the teaching of evolution in public schools in the south (hence religion slowing us down). If you want to argue that the Catholic Church was ahead of the curve, please compare a survey of northeastern public schools with Catholic public schools from 1920 to 1970. Please also compare Catholic Universities with secular Universities from 1920 to 1970.

I note in a number of threads that in defending religious institutions (perhaps solely for argument's sake) your arguments frequently exceed the support your authorities provide. It may be pushing persuasive writing a little too much and hurt your credibility.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
CEO

Unless you are using another source, your linked article did not support your argument about papal neutralization of the Spanish Inquisition. Without back-up, the article simply stated it began with the 'reluctant approval' of the pope. The remainder of the article really provided no support for your conclusion - why would it have gone on 300 years if the popes were trying to neutralizing it?

I also sincerely doubt the Catholic Church was ahead of secular education in teaching evolution, based upon Cokie Robert's recollection. I suspect that protestant, anti-evolution thinking in the south stymied the teaching of evolution in public schools in the south (hence religion slowing us down). If you want to argue that the Catholic Church was ahead of the curve, please compare a survey of northeastern public schools with Catholic public schools from 1920 to 1970. Please also compare Catholic Universities with secular Universities from 1920 to 1970.

I note in a number of threads that in defending religious institutions (perhaps solely for argument's sake) your arguments frequently exceed the support your authorities provide. It may be pushing persuasive writing a little too much and hurt your credibility. With respect to the evolution issue, I should have made clearer that if one assumes the truth of the TIME quote and the info at religioustolerance.org, one could conclude that. I did not mean to state it as a fact. I already said there seems to be a dearth of material, so in the absence of detailed regional surveys we'll have to make do. The Cokie Roberts bit was just an anecdotal extra (but it shows how deep one has to scrape to come up with hard info on this). The TIME quote, however, is arguably better information even though (as usual) the sources are not provided.

With respect to the Spanish Inquisition, I realize that my statement went beyond the encyclopedia article, but I was not basing it on one encyclopedia article. The encyclopedia link was just a footnote for the secular vs. papal control point. I guess I'll have to provide cites for the rest as well.

Thank you for pointing this out, at any rate, and keep pointing it out where necessary. I do like to pay attention to my reputation for credibility here, although in the eyes of some it's beyond repair anyway for presuming to defend religion in the first place.

[Gregor]

CEO
I always welcome your arguments and find them generally trustworthy. Having said that, we all come to the table with some biases that influence our writings.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think we're simply talking past one another here. I am familiar with Cartesian dualism and I haven't made any assertions concerning it. I don't think I disagree with any assertions you?ve made concerning it; dualism is just not what I am focusing on in quoting that one particular Descartes passage about the immutable character of divine laws.

Yeah and I fail to see the significance of this. Descartes made those statements, which are things he is arguing for, in the 16th century. Church policy has been around for almost 1,000 years before that. Quoting Descartes in that manner is like quoting a modern day advocate of theistic evolution as a representative of the Church's belief concerning creation throughout time.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes, the Church played a very minor role in the Spanish Inquisition, and that role consisted primarily in trying to neutralize it. The Spanish Inquisition was pretty much entirely a weapon of the secular state, and one that Ferdinand and Isabella (and their successors) shoved down the Church?s throat over papal objections. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, "It was entirely controlled by the Spanish kings".


That's ridiculous and you know it. Pretending the Church was an innocent victim or hero on this matter is such a distortion of history I can;t believe it was even put on the board.

Religioustolerance.org has some key points on this issue:


1227: Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisitional Courts to arrest, try, convict and execute heretics.

1252: Pope Innocent III authorized the use of torture during inquisitional trials. This greatly increased the conviction rate.


1258: Pope Alexander IV instructed the Inquisition to confine their investigations to cases of heresy. They were to not investigate charges of divination or sorcery unless heresy was also involved.

1265: Pope Clement IV reaffirms the use of torture.

1326: The Church authorized the Inquisition to investigate Witchcraft and to develop "demonology," the theory of the diabolic origin of Witchcraft. 1

1330: The popular concept of Witches as evil sorcerers is expanded to include belief that they swore allegiance to Satan, had sexual relations with the Devil, kidnapped and ate children, etc.


[snip]

1430's: Christian theologians started to write articles and books which "proved" the existence of Witches.

1450: The first major witch hunts began in many western European countries. The Roman Catholic Church created an imaginary evil religion, using stereotypes that had circulated since pre-Christian times. They said that Pagans who worshiped Diana and other Gods and Goddesses were evil Witches who kidnapped babies, killed and ate their victims, sold their soul to Satan, were in league with demons, flew through the air, met in the middle of the night, caused male impotence and infertility, caused male genitals to disappear, etc. Historians have speculated that this religiously inspired genocide was motivated by a desire by the Church to attain a complete religious monopoly, or was "a tool of repression, a form of reining-in deviant behavior, a backlash against women, or a tool of the common people to name scapegoats for spoiled crops, dead livestock or the death of babies and children." Walter Stephens, a professor of Italian studies at Johns Hopkins University, proposes a new theory: "I think Witches were a scapegoat for God." 3 Religious leaders felt that they had to retain the concepts of both an omnipotent and an all-loving deity. Thus, they had to invent Witches and demons in order to explain the existence of evil in the world. This debate, about how an all-good and all-powerful God can coexist in the world with evil is now called Theodicy. Debate continues to the present day.


[snip]

1484: Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull "Summis desiderantes" on DEC-5 which promoted the tracking down, torturing and executing of Satan worshipers.


1500: During the 14th century, there had been known 38 trials against Witches and sorcerers in England, 95 in France and 80 in Germany. 4 The witch hunts accelerated. "By choosing to give their souls over to the devil witches had committed crimes against man and against God. The gravity of this double crime classified witchcraft as crimen exceptum, and allowed for the suspension of normal rules of evidence in order to punish the guilty." Children's testimony was accepted. Essentially unlimited torture was applied to obtain confessions. The flimsiest circumstantial evidence was accepted as proof of guilt.

Circa 1550 to 1650 CE: Trials and executions reached a peak during these ten decades, which are often referred to as the "burning times." They were mostly concentrated in eastern France, Germany and Switzerland. Witch persecutions often occurred in areas where Catholics and Protestants were fighting. Contrary to public opinion, suspected witches -- particularly those involved in evil sorcery -- were mainly tried by secular courts. A minority were charged by church authorities; these were often cases involving the use of healing magic or midwifery.








http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm


As to the Columbia Article all it says is that the Spainish Inquisition was more a product of the King/Queen then the Church, but it did not say the same about the Inquisition in general.


Also the Galileo Project has a lot to say on this subject, especially on the fact that there were three separate Inquisitions, the most alienated (but hardly uncontrolled totally) by the Pope was the Spainish. Which was gurdgingly approved by the pope not for humane interests but because it gave the Church less authority over procedings.


After the Roman Church had consolidated its power in the early Middle Ages, heretics came to be regarded as enemies of society. The crime of heresy was defined as a deliberate denial of an article of truth of the Catholic faith, and a public and obst inate persistence in that alleged error. At this time, there was a sense of Christian unity among townspeople and rulers alike, and most of them agreed with the Church that heretics seemed to threated society itself.

However, the repression of heresy remained unorganized, and with the large scale heresies in the 11th and 12th centuries, Pope Gregory IX instituted the papal inquisition in 1231 for the apprehension and trial of heretics. The name Inquisition is der ived from the Latin verb inquiro (inquire into). The Inquisitiors did not wait for complaints, but sought out persons accused of heresy. Although the Inquisition was created to combat the heretical Cathari and Waldenses, the Inquisition later extended i ts activity to include witches, diviners, blasphemers, and other sacrilegious persons.


also:

Another reason for Pope Gregory IX's creation of the Inquisition was to bring order and legality to the process of dealing with heresy, since there had been tendencies in the mobs of townspeople to burn alleged heretics without much of a trial.




If they persisted in their heresy, however, Pope Gregory, finding it necessary to protect the Catholic community from infection would have suspects handed over to civil authorities since these her etics had violated not only Church law but civil law as well. The secular authorities would apply their own brands of punishment for civil disobedience which, at the time, included burning at the stake.

On the Spainish Inquisition:

A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834.


and:

. In its first twelve years, the activities of the Roman Inquisition were relatively modest and were restricted almost exclusively to Italy. Cardinal Carafa became Pope Paul IV in 1555 and immediately urged a vigorous pursuit of "suspects." His snare did not exclude bishops or even cardinals of the Church. Pope Paul IV carged the congregation to draw up a list of books which he felt offended faith or morals. This resulted in the first Index of Forbidden Books (1559). Although succeeding popes tempered the zeal of the Roman Inquisition, many viewed the institution as the cutomary instrument of papal government used in the regulation of Church order. This was the institution that would later put Galileo on trial.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html



Hence there was the Medieval, Spainish and Roman Inquisition.

And before the Inquisition "heretics" were usually punished by angry mobs of religious folk.

On the proceedings of the Inquisition:

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/procedure.html

From 1400-1800 an estimated 50-100 thousand were killed by the Inquisition.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Civil

I found an interesting gem here:

Being accused by the courts of Witchcraft was not an automatic death sentence. Overall, about 48% of all trials ended in an execution. It was the local, community courts which had the highest rate of executions, often reaching 90% of the cases. The Inquisition usually pardoned any witch who confessed and repented.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

In any event the Spainish Inquisition alone killed around 10,000 people. That's not much compared to the 50-100 thousand of the more church controlled and religious Inquisitions.


Only 48 percent? And up to 90 percent?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Yes, DM, but what I was referring to was a pattern of contesting not just Grant's interpretations but even his basic factual assertions. I ask again: consider just the example I gave above of statements you explicitly challenged Grant on:

1. Theologians and natural philosophers in medieval Islam often disputed with one another and the theologians were generally a separate class of individuals than the natural philosophers.

2. In the medieval West, theologians and natural philosophers had a lot of interdisciplary training (i.e. theologians were required to study natural philosophy in medieval European universities) and were often the very same individuals.

There's nothing about causation in those statements. In fact, let's set aside, for a moment, how these facts should best be interpreted or whether they have any effect at all on how science developed in the West or in Islam. What I found puzzling was that you challenged them as facts. Where are the other experts who dispute the truth of either (1) or (2) above? What "disconfirming data" about (1) and (2) caused you to challenge those particular statements? If the answer is that there are aren't any, then what is so unreasonable about accepting them as facts (for the purpose of this discussion) and keeping the argument on the level of interpreting those facts? Grant is an expert in medieval natural philosophy/science - who did it, how it was taught, what it theorized, how it was received in the societies of that era, and so forth. I'm open to the possibility that he got basic historical facts like (1) and (2) above wrong (again, leaving interpretation wholly aside for the moment), but without specific reasons to suspect that, it seems unlikely.


CEO your distinction between "general claims" and specific facts is meaningless, at least in this event. Grant is making general claims about Islam, about the Byzantines, about the Catholic Church and about progress in general.

I would like to know how this is supported, if by any means. Simply saying "you cannot challenge Grant" is no argument.

baking these claims up with your own unproven claims 1 and 2, amounts to circular reasoning.


I have reasons to suspect that 1 and 2 above are wrong, because for many years the Byzantine Empire, Muslim world and Chinese world were ahead of Europeans in terms of progress and because other experts, like Jared Diamond, have provided a more rigourously tested case for why some societies developed more technolgy and science then others without utilizing religion in the explanation.

Also because the Church generally restricted thought, perpetuate superstitions at odds with science to this day, and has interferred with science before.

Again science rose around the time that Church power declined, something that further throws Grants claims into question.

Also today, Muslims, Hindus, Biddhists, Shintoists, Marxists, Jews and Protestants today can do science just fine without any of the Church's specific religious or philosophical commitments.

There is no evidence to this day that the Catholic Church, due to its philosophical commitments is ahead of any of these religious groups now. If that were the case Italy would be on top of the scientific world, producing the world's foremost scientists while the rest of the world played catch up: it hasn't.

It seems that all these different religious groups, when given the right material inventions and under the right pressure, are quite willing to adopt technology and science just as much as any Catholic.

I can't see why this would be if religion alone was such a necessary progressive ingredient, instead of it simply being more geographical conditions.


All these things together along with the argument on how faith and reason are two fundamentally conflicting methods, and how religion tends to support reactionary superstition gives me reason to doubt Grant's testimony and ask for more evidence.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That's ridiculous and you know it. Pretending the Church was an innocent victim or hero on this matter is such a distortion of history I can;t believe it was even put on the board.Distortion of history? What are you talking about? I merely suggested the following:

- the Spanish throne, rather than the Church, really controlled the Spanish Inquisition;
- the Church reluctantly ceded to royal pressure to go along with Spain's idea; and
- the Pope subsequently attempted to intervene in order to rein in abuses committed by Ferdinand and Isabella's inquisitorial appointees.

The first two points are adequately established in the sources already brought forward. As to the papal stance, the Columbia Encyclopedia's entry on Pope Sixtus IV (http://www.bartleby.com/65/si/Sixtus4.html) alludes to it:Sixtus consented (1478) to the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition and then found the Spanish ignoring his rebukes for illegal procedure and jurisdiction and his demands for moderation. He welcomed into the Papal States the Jews expelled from Spain.We learn more at atheism.about.com (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_sixtusiv.htm):Although Sixtus took measures to repress heresy, for example with the Waldenses, he objected to what he perceived to be abuses committed in the name of the Spanish Inquisition (which he created at the request of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile). Despite this he was not able to do much to counteract the abuses because King Ferdinand threatened to withdraw his military support if Sixtus took action to stop the Inquisition. The most Sixtus could do was issue a brief reprimanding inquisitors for over-zealousness in the treatment of alleged heretics.A partial text of that brief is reproduced here (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/DOCs/Isabella_ch16.doc); in it the Pope diplomatically protests to Spain:The accusation is made that hasty action and disregard of legal procedure on the part of [Ferdinand and Isabella's] Inquisitors have brought about the unjust imprisonment and even severe torturing of many innocent persons who have been unjustly condemned as heretics, despoiled of their possessions and made to pay the extreme penalty …The pope also complains of having been deceived from the very beginning by Spain's ambassadors concerning Ferdinand and Isabella's true plans for the Inquisition.

Despite your inference, I am hardly casting the Church as victim or hero in this affair; the informed reader can draw his or her own conclusions.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
As to the Columbia Article all it says is that the Spainish Inquisition was more a product of the King/Queen then the Church, but it did not say the same about the Inquisition in general.But I didn't say the same about the Inquisition in general, either, so isn't this a strawman? I simply repeated what the encyclopedia said about control over the Spanish Inquisition specifically. Curiously, at least 90 percent of your post in response does not relate to my remarks about the Spanish Inquisition (and the parts that do relate don't refute my statements), which leaves one doubting its immediate relevance here.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Has anybody once considered this simple fact (sorry if I haven't had time to read the encyclopedia of discourse completely to this point):

The Catholic Church was founded by the Roman Empire, Christianity first being made the state religion by Constantine, during a time when Rome's domains were shrinking and its 'morality' under heavy scrutiny by its denizens. Greece, replete with all of its science, technology, philosophy, and mathematics, was still a strong influence in Rome. When Rome fell, or more correctly, transformed into the Papal States and Byzantine Empire, followed by consolidation into the Holy Roman Empire, all of this accumulated knowledge had been stored away (or destroyed as in the case of the Library of Alexandria) - in the monasteries! The reason that "scientific thought" was arising within the Catholic Church or being fostered by it was because there was only one caste able to read and understand this vast storehouse of accumulated knowledge written in Greek and Latin: the Catholic priests! Peasants could not read these languages, if they could read at all. Since the 'aristocracy' was so tightly entwined with the Church, the progression of knowledge and scientific understanding over time from priests to royalty to wealthy businessmen to the general populace makes sense.

All that the Catholic Church did was cause a hiatus in the progression of knowledge that perhaps allowed those seeing it as new and unadulterated to see it in a new light. I hate to speak in "what ifs", but had Greece continued progressing, unstifled by Persia and Rome, actual science as we know it today may have actually been born there centuries earlier. It is highly probable that Archimedes, had he not been killed by Roman centurians, or someone following in his footsteps could have been the father of scientific thought as we know it had circumstances varied.

The Catholic Church's only contribution to science was their misfortune of not having destroyed ALL of the ancient documents embodying the knowledge of Rome and Greece... Welcome to the discussion, kuroyume. Sorry not to have acknowledged your input before.

I am interested to know on what basis you blame the Church for the destruction of the Alexandrian Library? As Leif Roar helpfully pointed out in an earlier post, this account has been refuted by modern historians (article 1 (http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm); article 2 (http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9)).

Also, why do you think that the Church actually initiated a hiatus in scientific learning? In an excellent article by David C. Lindberg (http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs/pub_progs_dl_Lindberg.html) on the relationship between science and Christianity in late antiquity, Lindberg writes:It seems unlikely, therefore, that the advent of Christianity did anything to diminish the support given to scientific activity or the number of people involved in it. The study of nature held a very precarious position in ancient societies; with the exception of medicine and a little astronomy, it served no practical function and was rarely seen as a socially useful activity. As a result it received little political patronage or social support but depended on independent means and individual initiative. With the declining economic and political fortunes of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, people of independent means decreased in number, and initiative was directed elsewhere. ... Inevitably the pursuit of science suffered. Christianity did little to alter this situation. If anything, it was a little less otherworldly than the major competing ideologies (Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and the mystery religions) and offered slightly greater incentive for the study of nature.

... It would also be a distortion to create the impression that [in the late Classical period] there was no Christian involvement in natural philosophy or that the church retarded or crushed science.(Source: David C. Lindberg, "Science and the Early Church", in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Univ. of Cal. Press, 1986))

[Gregor]

Again, too much spin CEO.

The claim of Xians destroyed the library has not been refuted. Rather, it appears that there is no consensus on the culprits.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
Again, too much spin CEO.

The claim of Xians destroyed the library has not been refuted. Rather, it appears that there is no consensus on the culprits. There is certainly no consensus as to who the culprit was, or even as to whether there is any validity to the notion that the Great Library of Alexandria was destroyed in a single catastrophic event. However, although I would welcome correction, I do not think that it is spinning to suggest that modern historians have refuted (http://www.bartleby.com/61/17/R0121700.html) (in the sense of denying the accuracy of) Edward Gibbon's assertion that the historical record is sufficient to indict Christians for the destruction of the Great Library, and several have offered extremely convincing arguments for why this is so (thus also refuting Gibbon's case in the sense of overthrowing by argument).

Naturally, this does not denote total consensus even as to this point, but I didn't argue that such a consensus existed. That said, I am not aware of any major recent scholarly works that concur in Gibbon's thesis regarding the Christian destruction of the Great Library. Even the Egyptian government's website (http://www.bibalex.org) for the modern Alexandrian Library suggests that Bishop Theophilus was responsible for the destruction of the Serapeum (a temple in Alexandria that once housed an ancillary collection of books), but does not charge Christians with the disappearance of the Great Library. (Even there, Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria) points out that it is unclear whether the Serapeum still housed books at the time of its destruction.)

To sum up, as a recent article in The New Yorker observed, surveying the historical literature on the matter, that: The evidence against the Christians is even more circumstantial. After Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, in 324 A.D., tensions rose in Alexandria between pagans and Christians. In 391 A.D., the Christians went on an iconoclastic rampage, smashing pagan idols throughout the city and destroying the Temple of Serapis, which housed the daughter library. But there is no specific record of their having also attacked the Great Library in the Mouseion.(Source: Alexander Stille, "Resurrecting Alexandria", The New Yorker, May 8, 2000)

Again, I was not basing my statement entirely on the sources cited, for the sake of convenience and information, by Leif Roar - nor did I purport to. They are merely representative of the scholarship which led me to make that statement. A somewhat similar situation obtained with respect to my statement concerning papal efforts to moderate abuses of the Spanish Inquisition. Surely there is a difference between that and "spinning" or reading too much into certain sources?

[DialecticMaterialist]

From Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel:

I've set myself the modest task of trying to explain the broad pattern of human history, on all the continents, for the last 13,000 years. Why did history take such different evolutionary courses for peoples of different continents?

My theme, then, is the different courses of history for peoples of different continents.
As we all know, Eurasians, especially peoples of Europe and eastern Asia, have spread around the globe, to dominate the modern world in wealth and power. Other peoples, including most Africans, survived, and have thrown off European domination but remain far behind in wealth and power. Still other peoples, including the original inhabitants of Australia, the Americas, and southern Africa, are no longer even masters of their own lands but have been decimated, subjugated, or exterminated by European colonialists. Why did history turn out that way, instead of the opposite way?
Why weren't Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians the ones who conquered or exterminated Europeans and Asians?

This question can easily be pushed back one step further. By the year A.D. 1500, the
approximate year when Europe's overseas expansion was just beginning, peoples of the different continents already differed greatly in technology and political organization. Much of Eurasia and North Africa was occupied then by Iron Age states and empires, some of them on the verge of industrialization. Two Native American peoples, the Incas and Aztecs, ruled over empires with stone tools and were just starting to experiment with bronze. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa were divided among small indigenous Iron Age states or chiefdoms. But all peoples of Australia, New Guinea, and the Pacific islands, and many peoples of the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, were still living as farmers or even still as hunter/gatherers with stone tools.
Obviously, those differences as of A.D. 1500 were the immediate cause of the modern
world's inequalities. Empires with iron tools conquered or exterminated tribes with stone tools. But how did the world evolve to be the way that it was in the year A.D. 1500?

This question, too can be easily pushed back a further step, with the help of written
histories and archaeological discoveries. Until the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 B.C., all humans on all continents were still living as Stone Age hunter/gatherers. Different rates of development on different continents, from 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 1500, were what produced the inequalities of A.D. 1500. While Aboriginal Australians and many Native American peoples remained Stone Age hunter/gatherers, most Eurasian peoples, and many peoples of the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, gradually developed agriculture, herding, metallurgy, and complex political organization. Parts of Eurasia, and one small area of the Americas, developed indigenous writing as well. But each of these new developments appeared earlier in Eurasia than elsewhere.
So, we can finally rephrase our question about the evolution of the modern world's
inequalities as follows. Why did human development proceed at such different rates on
different continents for the last 13,000 years? Those differing rates constitute the broadest pattern of history, the biggest unsolved problem of history, and my subject today.

To appreciate how far from obvious is the answer to this question, imagine that an alien historian from Outer Space had visited the Earth 50,000 years ago. If that visitor had been asked to predict which continent's people would develop technology most rapidly, and who would conquer whom, what do you think that the alien would have predicted? The alien might well have answered "Africa," because human history in Africa had a six-million-year head start over history on the other continents. Or, the alien might instead have predicted "Australia," the continent with perhaps the earliest evidence of anatomically and behaviorally fully modern humans, and the continent with by far the earliest evidence for human use of watercraft. The visitor would surely have written off Europe, where Homo sapiens still hadn't even arrived as of 50,000 years ago. To that visitor, the state of the world as we see it today would be incomprehensible. What were the reasons for the unexpected outcome?


and:


For the last 10,000 years the Tasmanians represented a study of isolation unprecedented in human history except in science fiction novels. Here were 4,000 Aboriginal Australians cut off on an island, and they remained totally cut off from any other people in the world until the year 1642, when Europeans "discovered" Tasmania. What happened during those 10,000 years to that isolated 4,000 person society? And what about nearby Flinders Island, which originally supported a population of 200 cut-off Aboriginal Australians?

When Europeans discovered Tasmania in the 17th century, it had technologically the simplest, most "primitive" human society of any society in the modern world. Native Tasmanians could not light a fire from scratch, they did not have bone tools, they did not have multi-piece stone tools, they did not have axes with handles, they did not have spear-throwers, they did not have boomerangs, and they did not even know how to fish. What accounts for this extreme simplicity of Tasmania society? Part of the explanation is that during the 10,000 years of isolation, the Aboriginal Australians, who numbered about 250,000, were inventing things that the isolated 4,000 Tasmanians were not inventing, such as boomerangs. Incredibly, though, archeological investigations have shown one other thing: during those
10,000 years of isolation, the Tasmanians actually lost some technologies that they had carried from the Australian mainland to Tasmania. Notably, the Tasmanians arrived in Tasmania with bone tools, and bone tools disappear from archeological record about 3,000 years ago. That's incredible, because with bone tools you can have needles, and with needles you can have warm clothing. Tasmania is at the latitude of Vladivostok and Chicago: it's snowy in the winter, and yet the Tasmanians went about either naked or just with a cape thrown over the shoulder.

How do we account for these cultural losses and non-inventions of Tasmanian society? Flinders Island was even more extreme - that tiny society of 200 people on Flinders Island went extinct several millenia ago. Evidently, there is something about a small, totally isolated human society that causes either very slow innovation or else actual loss of existing inventions. That result applies not just to Tasmania and Flinders, but to other very isolated human societies. There are other examples. The Torres Strait islanders between Australia and New Guinea abandoned canoes. Most Polynesian societies lost bows and arrows, and lost pottery. The Polar Eskimos lost the kayak, Dorset Eskimos lost dogs and bow drills, and Japan lost guns.

When firearms arrived in Europe, there were European princes who similarly banned firearms, and there were European princes who banned printing, but you can guess what happened. When a prince in the middle of Europe banned firearms, within a short time the prince next door who did not ban firearms either walked in and conquered, or else the prince who banned firearms quickly realized his or her mistake and reacquired firearms from next door. The banning of the guns could work only in isolated Japan, where there were no neighbors as a threat, and where there were no neighbors from whom to reacquire the technology.

So these stories of isolated societies illustrate two general principles about relations between human group size and innovation or creativity. First, in any society except a totally isolated society, most innovations come in from the outside, rather than being conceived within that society. And secondly, any society undergoes local fads. By fads I mean a custom that does not make economic sense. Societies either adopt practices that are not profitable or for whatever reasons abandon practices that are profitable. But usually those fads are reversed, as a result of the societies next door without the fads out-competing the society with the fad, or else as a result of the society with the fad, like those European princes who gave up the guns, realizing they're making a big mistake and reacquiring the fad. In short, competition between human societies that are in contact with each other is what drives the invention of new technology and the continued availability of technology.

The other lesson that I would like to draw from history concerns what is called the optimal fragmentation principle. Namely, if you've got a human group, is that group best organized as a single large unit, or is it best organized as a number of small units, or is it best fragmented into a lot of small units?
...I propose to get some empirical information about this question by comparing the histories of China and Europe. Why is it that China in the Renaissance fell behind Europe in technology?

...China was also on the verge of building powerful water-powered machinery before the Industrial Revolution in Britain, but the emperor said "Stop," and so that was the end of the water-powered machinery in China. In contrast, in Europe there were princes who said no to electric lighting, or to printing, or to guns. And, yes, in certain principalities for a while printing was suppressed. But because Europe in the Renaissance was divided among 2,000 principalities, it was never the case that there was one idiot in command of all Europe who could abolish a whole technology. Inventors had lots of chances, there was always competition between different states, and when one state tried something out that proved valuable, the other states saw the opportunity and adopted it. So the real question is, why was China chronically unified, and why was Europe chronically disunified? Why is Europe disunified to this day?

The answer is geography. Just picture a map of China and a map of Europe. China has a smooth coastline. Europe has an indented coastline, and each big indentation is a peninsula that became an independent country, independent ethnic group, and independent experiment in building a society: notably, the Greek peninsula, Italy, the Iberian peninsula, Denmark, and Norway/Sweden. Europe had two big islands that became important independent societies, Britain and Ireland, while China had no island big enough to become an independent society until the modern emergence of Taiwan. Europe is transected by mountain ranges that split up Europe into different principalities: the Alps, the Pyrenees, Carpathians - China does not have mountain ranges that transect China. In Europe big rivers flow radially - the Rhine, the Rhone, the Danube, and the Elbe - and they don't unify Europe. In China the two big rivers flow parallel to each other, are separated by low-lying land, and were quickly connected by canals.
For those geographic reasons, China was unified in 221 B.C. and has stayed unified most of the time since then, whereas for geographic reasons Europe was never unified. Augustus couldn't do it, Charlemagne couldn't do it, and Napoleon and Hitler couldn't unify Europe. To this day, the European Union is having difficulties bringing any unity to Europe.


Found here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Guns_Germs_Steel.html

Also I found these excerpts most interesting (from Diamond's article in how to the history of wealth entitled How to Get Rich):





I propose to get some empirical information about this question by comparing the histories of China and Europe. Why is it that China in the Renaissance fell behind Europe in technology? Often people assume that it has something to do with the Confucian tradition in China supposedly making the Chinese ultra-conservative, whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition in Europe supposedly stimulated science and innovation. Well, first of all, just ask Galileo about the simulating effects of the Judeo-Christian tradition on science. Then, secondly, just consider the state of technology in medieval Confucian China. China led the world in innovation and technology in the early Renaissance. Chinese inventions include canal lock gates, cast iron, compasses, deep drilling, gun powder, kites, paper, porcelain, printing, stern-post rudders, and wheelbarrows ? all of those innovations are Chinese innovations. So the real question is, why did Renaissance China lose its enormous technological lead to late-starter Europe?


Bold is mine.

Found here:

http://digerati.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond_rich/rich_p6.html


Basically it was China's geography and plotics that ended it: not Europes. Basically certain isolationist and reactionary policies that would not work in Europe, could work in China because the region was so unified.


Now contrast that with what happened with ocean-going fleets in Europe. Columbus was an Italian, and he wanted an ocean-going fleet to sail across the Atlantic. Everybody in Italy considered this a stupid idea and wouldn't support it. So Columbus went to the next country, France, where everybody considered it a stupid idea and wouldn't support it. So Columbus went to Portugal, where the king of Portugal considered it a stupid idea and wouldn't support it. So Columbus went across the border to a duke of Spain who considered this stupid. And Columbus then went to another duke of Spain who also considered it a waste of money. On his sixth try Columbus went to the king and queen of Spain, who said this is stupid. Finally, on the seventh try, Columbus went back to the king and queen of Spain, who said, all right, you can have three ships, but they were small ships. Columbus sailed across the Atlantic and, as we all know, discovered the New World, came back, and brought the news to Europe. Cortez and Pizarro followed him and brought back huge quantities of wealth. Within a short time, as a result of Columbus having shown the way, 11 European countries jumped into the colonial game and got into fierce competition with each other. The essence of these events is that Europe was fragmented, so Columbus had many different chances.


Also:


Essentially the same thing happened in China with clocks: one emperor's decision abolished clocks over China. China was also on the verge of building powerful water-powered machinery before the Industrial Revolution in Britain, but the emperor said "Stop," and so that was the end of the water-powered machinery in China. In contrast, in Europe there were princes who said no to electric lighting, or to printing, or to guns. And, yes, in certain principalities for a while printing was suppressed. But because Europe in the Renaissance was divided among 2,000 principalities, it was never the case that there was one idiot in command of all Europe who could abolish a whole technology. Inventors had lots of chances, there was always competition between different states, and when one state tried something out that proved valuable, the other states saw the opportunity and adopted it. So the real question is, why was China chronically unified, and why was Europe chronically disunified? Why is Europe disunified to this day?

The answer is geography. Just picture a map of China and a map of Europe. China has a smooth coastline. Europe has an indented coastline, and each big indentation is a peninsula that became an independent country, independent ethnic group, and independent experiment in building a society: notably, the Greek peninsula, Italy, the Iberian peninsula, Denmark, and Norway/Sweden. Europe had two big islands that became important independent societies, Britain and Ireland, while China had no island big enough to become an independent society until the modern emergence of Taiwan. Europe is transected by mountain ranges that split up Europe into different principalities: the Alps, the Pyrenees, Carpathians-- China does not have mountain ranges that transect China. In Europe big rivers flow radially -- the Rhine, the Rhone, the Danube, and the Elbe -- and they don't unify Europe. In China the two big rivers flow parallel to each other, are separated by low-lying land, and were quickly connected by canals. For those geographic reasons, China was unified in 221 B.C. and has stayed unified most of the time since then, whereas for geographic reasons Europe was never unified. Augustus couldn't do it, Charlemagne couldn't do it, and Napoleon and Hitler couldn't unify Europe. To this day, the Europe Union is having difficulties bringing any unity to Europe.


And:

You've seen that effect even in modern times. Twenty years ago, a few idiots in control of the world's most populous nation were able to shut down the educational system for one billion people at the time of the Great Cultural Revolution, whereas it's impossible for a few idiots to shut down the educational system of all of Europe. This suggests, then, that Europe's fragmentation was a great advantage to Europe as far as technological and scientific innovation is concerned. Does this mean that a high degree of fragmentation is even better? Probably not. India was geographically even more fragmented than Europe, but India was not technologically as innovative as Europe. And this suggests that there is an optimal intermediate degree of fragmentation, that a too-unified society is a disadvantage, and a too-fragmented society is also a disadvantage. Instead, innovation proceeds most rapidly in a society with some intermediate degree of fragmentation.












So CEO's explanation fails for many reasons imo. 1) It cannot account for why technology progressed faster in some continents over others, or why this progress was continent wide, not simply regional. (Diamond does by examining how the nature of the different continents). 2) Certain geopolitical explanations seem more convincing.(Feudalism seems to have helped advance science and invention more then Christianity)

And 3) Most innovations to Europe that were necessary for science came from outside of Europe. (Many European inventions and discoveries came from the Middle East and China).

Diamond's explanation not only shows why Europe pulled ahead of China, but why Europe pulled ahead of China after China had been ahead of Europe for centuries. Basically China's unity worked for it for a while and being a great river valley civilization gave it a head start. But that head start only lasted so long, especially seeing as reactionary forces gained power at a key time in China (something impossible in Europe). This same head start according to Diamond represents the same reason why the Middle East was at first ahead of Europe, then fell behind. Something CEO's theory cannot likewise take into account.

Thus CEO's conjecture concerning the development of science and invention, while plausible, simply fall apart under the heavy barrage of Guns, Germs and Steel. in the realm of what is probable.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Welcome to the discussion, kuroyume. Sorry not to have acknowledged your input before.

I am interested to know on what basis you blame the Church for the destruction of the Alexandrian Library? As Leif Roar helpfully pointed out in an earlier post, this account has been refuted by modern historians (article 1 (http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm); article 2 (http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9)).

Also, why do you think that the Church actually initiated a hiatus in scientific learning? In an excellent article by David C. Lindberg (http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs/pub_progs_dl_Lindberg.html) on the relationship between science and Christianity in late antiquity, Lindberg writes:(Source: David C. Lindberg, "Science and the Early Church", in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Univ. of Cal. Press, 1986))

Thanks for the welcome and am sorry for the long delayed response. I have read nothing contrary to the historical conclusion that the riots and burning at Alexandria were by Christians. So, I'm doing some more reading on the general subject prior to making another response.

Kuroyume

[Cleopatra]

Let's at least save this gem.

[ceo_esq]

I'm rescuscitating this thread because of a germane discussion underway in another thread entitled "Medieval Christianity and geography" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60331), which I propose to continue here.

In that thread, kuroyume0161 comments:Originally posted by kuroyume0161
But in what way does the idea of improved cartography bolster a generalized notion that scientific inquiry was assisted and advanced by a dogmatic theological institution?It does not, and in fact my point in the other thread was not to argue that geography and cartography made huge advances in the medieval period. I'm quite prepared to concede that these disciplines may have suffered worse than many other areas of scientific learning as a result of the fall of the Roman empire. My primary point was to contest the notion that medieval Christianity was responsible for retarding progress in the area.

However, the present thread proffers a great deal of evidence, I think, that scientific inquiry was assisted and advanced by the Catholic Church. The evidence ranges from the broadly philosophical (Christianity proposes several metaphysical assumptions, not current in the classical world, which incidentally are conducive to science) to the specifically material (the Church sponsored many of the institutions and individuals that generated scientific learning), and nearly everything in between.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
DialecticMaterialist made many good points concerning papal support for the Holy Inquisition and religion as the non-cause for other society's advances in technology and scientific understanding.DialecticMaterialist made many good points, but none which persuasively contradict my thesis, I think. That said, I must confess that I don't fully understand the sentence you wrote. Perhaps you could rephrase it, and identify some examples of what you're talking about.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Again, this boils down to a stable society with financial wealth to support the acceptance of such inquiry - whether or not that financially stable institution is secular or theological. Things didn't get interesting in Medieval/Renaissance Europe until just this situation occurred (same goes for Greece and Rome). Early Europe (Byzantine Empire and early Medieval periods) was a shambles and I'd like to see a list of scientific advancements during these time periods not having been lifted wholy from Roman or Grecian influences.I entirely agree that what you're referring to is probably a necessary factor for the development of real science. However, it is not a sufficient factor. Other stable societies with material resources did not witness the rise of science. Only Latin Christianity did. I don't discount DialecticMaterialist's argument that there may have been other, more material, considerations that also favored the rise of science in the West. I just find it absurdly unlikely that such explanations are exhaustive.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
To further this, secular or theological does have an implication in another respect (one that we are seeing a lot ot today concerning stem cells, cloning, euthanasia, race, and sexual orientation, for example). A stable financial theological society does not invest in technology or scientific inquiry that threatens its stability - restrictions or limitations are placed on the areas of study, advancement of knowledge, and the free dispersal thereof. This was true of the early Renaissance particularly - Librorum Prohibitorum.Institutions of any sort, whether secular or religious, display similar tendencies regarding the preservation of their own stability. However, there is no evidence that substantial restrictions or limitations were placed on the science curriculum or the circulation of scientific learning in Catholic Europe. Conversely, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the Catholic Church, generally speaking, has historically viewed scientific advancement as something that assists in, not undermines, its mission.

With respect to academic limitations and restraints on circulation of learning, I believe I already adduced, in this thread, some evidence that the autonomy of university scholars was carefully protected in medieval universities, and that scientific scholarship tended to circulate freely throughout the Catholic world during the relevant times. I also showed that the Index of Prohibited Books and its predecessors did not affect works of science as a general rule.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Look, I'm painting a single-colored picture here. Of course, Latin as a common language, universities, and other frameworks created by the RCC assisted in fostering advancements. But I think the situation was unique in that they were gradually stabilizing after the chaos of falling Rome, the plagues, and feudal systems, reclaiming history through ancient documents, and in need of a societal base that would perform this reconstruction (craftsman, artisans, merchants, engineers, mathematicians, accountants, and even some of those wild and crazy scientists). The RCC had opened Pandora's box in the process. They thought that they could control the spread and acquisition of knowledge in the same way they controlled everything else in Europe.I don't think the record supports this picture of the Church's motives with specific regard to science. I also think, by the way, that the notion that the Catholic Church controlled everything in Europe at the relevant times is exaggerated. Much of the time the Church was locked in various struggles with more powerful secular forces, which routinely sought to exert control over the Church and not infrequently succeeded in doing so (witness the Spanish Inquisition).
Originally posted by Robin
I thought you would have needed that evidence before presenting the picture in the first place.

What you need to do is to present more actual examples of religion suppressing science or trying to control the spread of knowledge.

We have the example that Galileo was persecuted and Copernicus' work was prohibited for about 120 years. OK, what other cases are there? Bruno was executed for heresy, not his scientific ideas. I don't know of any evidence that Da Vinci was ever persecuted or controlled by the Church for his inventions. Copernicus was actually encouraged to publish by some within the Church.

So is the picture being painted solely on the basis of what the Vatican did to Galileo and the banning of Copernicus' book? Is that really a fair call? It seems to me that the examples of religions fostering science are more common than religion suppressing science. Well put; I can't argue with any of this.

As I have previously suggested, it turns out in practice to be extremely difficult to identify clear, concrete examples (particularly during the Middle Ages) of the Church repressing scientific endeavors, and particularly of it persecuting scientists on the basis of scientific work. DialecticMaterialist, in the early days of this thread, tried heroically to adduce such examples but without much success. It pretty much comes down to Galileo, and some historians have argued that his case was not really about the science either.

A couple of minor point regarding the banning of Copernicus' book: as I understand it, the book was allowed to circulate at all times with a handful of assertions redacted out (heliocentric theory per se did not incur the Church's objections). Its removal from the Index meant simply the restoration of a few original passages in subsequent editions.

You're absolutely right about Giordano Bruno. His unjustified reputation as a scientific martyr has a lot of staying power, though. This is a bit off-topic, but I was recently reading John Bossy's fascinating Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair. Bossy points out that there's good evidence to suggest that Bruno thought he might be able to overthrow the papacy by personally casting a magical enchantment on the Pope. A very strange person, Signor Bruno.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
We have much, much more than this. Here's a short list followed by links for self-indulgent expansion.

***

The Librorum Prohibitorum is a list of prohibited books (that the RCC still keeps, by the way). Some among those books are scientific literature.

Copernicus' book was eventually added to the Librorum Phohibitorum.

Giordano Bruno was burned as a heretic partly for supporting Copernicus' theory.

Galileo Galilei was admonished and then placed under house arrest until death with orders to not defend or teach his scientific theories. This resulted in:
# The silencing of Descartes.
# Persecution of Campanella and of Kepler.

Roger Bacon (13th Century) was imprisoned for 14 years for his experiments in time pieces, optics, chemical extractions, refraction of light, etc.

John Barillon (14th Century) was jailed because he possessed chemical furnaces and apparatus.

Antonio de Dominius (15th Century) was killed by the Inquisition for his experiments into the properties of light.

Leonardo DaVinci was eventually banned from performing autopsies on humans remains cited as desecration. He also wrote in 'mirror writing', one reason to protect himself from "Inquisitive" church officials.

***

Might I suggest this link for a researched book :

Andrew White's "The Warfare of Science With Theology" (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html)

and then hop back a level for more texts here:

Science and Religion (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/sci.shtml)

Robert Yikes. You may not be aware of this, but Andrew White's book is a thoroughly discredited hatchet job. Contemporary historians of early science (e.g. Lindberg; Grant; Brooke) are obliged to spend far too much time trying to undo the damage he did to the field. Here (http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm) is an essay explaining why.

Campanella's case, by the way, I discussed earlier in this thread. Evidence strongly suggests he got in trouble for reasons having nothing to do with science.

The story about da Vinci and dissection is almost certainly a myth. I find no current scholarly mention of it, and it seems inherently unlikely since the practice of scientific human dissection originated in Italian religious faculties in the 12th century and grew rapidly throughout the Latin West.

[AWPrime]

Burning people for heresy, is a sign of thought control and limitation.

The church may not have killed everybody that disagreed, but they did create a climate in which science couldn't progress much.

[kuroyume0161]

Andrew White's biases or not, most of that short list stands. I can't quote any further on Leonardo and especially Campanella, but AWPrime makes my point simplisticly:

The RCC didn't mind scientific progress unless it conflicted with their dogma. A heliocentric solar system (redundantly stated, I suppose) shattered their Aristotlian idea of perfectly nested spheres from Earth to the Almighty and moved Earth from the 'center of the universe'. The RCC had invested much time in the pursuit of suppressing this knowledge (Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo).

Other studies didn't bother them. Newtonian physics, for instance, wasn't attacked much since it had no direct bearing on the state of the Heavens and Earth - only on its operations. No big deal by that time.

On the other hand, when Darwin proposed his theory on the origin of species, well, my, we're still fighting the recoil from that one one hundred and fifty years later.

It is difficult to discuss how the RCC affected scientific progress since we'll never know the alternative history. All that we do know is that most scholarly pursuits of any magnitude were done under the constant scrutiny of the RCC. Their control wasn't absolute, yet, but it was far-reaching nonetheless.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Andrew White's biases or not, most of that short list stands.

You should probably read the criticisms against White's work before you make that assertion.

On the other hand, when Darwin proposed his theory on the origin of species, well, my, we're still fighting the recoil from that one one hundred and fifty years later.

We do? You might, but actually there's very little opposition to the theory of evolution outside of certain Christian churches in the USA. The Catholic Church, in particular, has not voiced any strong opposition to it -- in fact, it has more or less tacitly approved of it on a couple of occasions.

It is difficult to discuss how the RCC affected scientific progress since we'll never know the alternative history. All that we do know is that most scholarly pursuits of any magnitude were done under the constant scrutiny of the RCC. Their control wasn't absolute, yet, but it was far-reaching nonetheless.

Well, it can be argued how stringent that scrutiny was outside of the theological fields, but even if we accept your statement as it stands, it's worth remembering that it was under the domain of the Catholic church, and only under that domain, that modern scientific thought developed.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Burning people for heresy, is a sign of thought control and limitation.

Yes, but it is not evidence that this control and limitation was imposed on scientific thought and ideas.

The church may not have killed everybody that disagreed, but they did create a climate in which science couldn't progress much.

Except, of course, that science did progress much precisely in a "thought-climate" at least in part created by the Catholic church.


(Edited to fix tags.)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Yes, but it is not evidence that this control and limitation was imposed on scientific thought and ideas.
Same could be said for the taliban.


Except, of course, that science did progress much precisely in a "thought-climate" at least in part created by the Catholic church.
At a snail pace.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Same could be said for the taliban.

Yes, and?

At a snail pace.

Compared to what?

[Robin]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Oh, so to present a picture, one needs all of the evidence, whether it is known to exist or not?
No, just the evidence that is known to exist and not the evidence that is known to be unreliable.
Giordano Bruno was burned as a heretic partly for supporting Copernicus' theory.
Do you have any contemporary sources to back this up? I have looked into this in detail and there are no records of trial. But if Bruno was executed for supporting Copernicus, why was Copernicus left alone? Why were Copernicus' close allies left alone? No, Bruno was burned as a heretic but it is unlikely it had anything to do with his scientific works.
Galileo Galilei was admonished and then placed under house arrest until death with orders to not defend or teach his scientific theories. This resulted in:
# The silencing of Descartes.
# Persecution of Campanella and of Kepler.
It is certainly true about Galileo, but was Descartes noticeably silent? What specifically was he silent about? Kepler (not a Roman Catholic) continued to present evidence in favour of the Copernican system. Certainly he expressed some nervousness in correspondence but it did not seem to stop him. ceo_esq has also mentioned about Campanella.
Roger Bacon (13th Century) was imprisoned for 14 years for his experiments in time pieces, optics, chemical extractions, refraction of light, etc.
You don't mention that the Pope personally intervened to ensure that his science was preserved. Nobody knows how long his imprisonment was for or exactly why.
John Barillon (14th Century) was jailed because he possessed chemical furnaces and apparatus.

Antonio de Dominius (15th Century) was killed by the Inquisition for his experiments into the properties of light.
Can't find any reference to these except ones that refer back to your source - do you have supporting evidence? Let's face it White's other inaccuracies don't inspire confidence that he is correct about these.
Leonardo DaVinci was eventually banned from performing autopsies on humans remains cited as desecration. He also wrote in 'mirror writing', one reason to protect himself from "Inquisitive" church officials.
ceo_esq has already pointed out that this is unlikely to be true.

So very little of your list stands. What it boils down to is that your examples of church interference with science are the trials of Galileo and the prohibition of Copernicus' work for around a century.

Pit this against the establishment of universities (you guys talk as though this was a minor achievement), the preservation of ancient texts (even ones antithetical to Christianity like Lucretius ) the fomentation of a love of knowledge for its own sake. Don't forget that Galileo and Copernicus did not exist in a vacuum, they were building on thought that had come before, for example Oresme.

What scientific breakthrough has the RCC accomplished? Well for example there is the heliocentric model of the solar system - accomplished by a churchman using church resources and published by the church, with the active encouragement of his peers withing the church.

That the church later backslid and prohibited the book and persecuted Galileo is of course shameful, but you have to look at all the evidence on balance.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Frostbite
There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership

Well, needed by those in power to gain and maintain power.

Isaac Asimov suggested (among many others) that religion caused and perpetuated the dark ages by (among other things) outlawing the charging of interest. That's part of it, of course.

, but today, would manking be more technologically advanced if it weren't for the intellectual hurdles caused by religion? [/B]

Past societies that were religious but relatively open economically thrived quite well. It's more about keeping the trade routes open, so to speak. When a nation, for religious or political reasons, stops keeping the trade routes open and moves to lord over their own people more and more, trade suffers and technological redardation occurs.

[AWPrime]

A lot of religions carry the mentality of 'I don't need to know/only god knows/the holy book is enough'.

This limits the amount of people willing going into science and how far science is taken. As a result in those religious socialites only urgent/dire need stimulates research.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
A lot of religions carry the mentality of 'I don't need to know/only god knows/the holy book is enough'.

This limits the amount of people willing going into science and how far science is taken. As a result in those religious socialites only urgent/dire need stimulates research.

That's a nice theory, but it's not enough to postulate it -- you also have to show that it's supported by the available evidence.

[LW]

Originally posted by Robin
So very little of your list stands. What it boils down to is that your examples of church interference with science are the trials of Galileo and the prohibition of Copernicus' work for around a century.

And regarding Galilei it should be remembered that he provoked the conflict with Church himself. His attitude was that anybody who didn't completely agree with him was a complete idiot and he didn't keep this view a secret. That wasn't the most diplomatic thing to do, especially since one member of his interested audience was Pope Urban VII.

[kuroyume0161]

Okay, so let's just throw in the towel and say that no person who ever advanced scientific study was ever discouraged in one way or another by the RCC because it was all their fault or a misunderstanding.

Great apologetics. Keep up the good historical rewriting...

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Frostbite
There's no doubt religion was much needed in the Middle Ages when illiterate masses needed guidance and leadership, but today, would manking be more technologically advanced if it weren't for the intellectual hurdles caused by religion?
pfft. i can rape that thinking.

what u have done is post something, that, that u timidly hope will help u feel as a brave and barrier-breaking thinker. unfortunately, u failed miserably.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. - a. einstein

that always holds true, it's not just religion. you try to be original, others will mock you. that is independant of religion. mostly because they're jealous they didnt' think of ur idea and are stuck in their unoriginal thinking.

[Ladewig]

In the politics forum there is a thread about the president of the United States saying that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools and another thread explaining that a Bible course being taught in over two dozen states has in its curriculum such egregious errors as "NASA scientists have confirmed that the sun stopped just as described in the book of Joshua."

Yet in this forum we are arguing over whether religion slow us down.

Please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall.

[ceo_esq]

I've done a bit more research into the cases of Campanella, Dominis and Barrillon.

The current Encyclopedia Britannica does not characterize Tommaso Campanella (born Giovanni Domenico Campanella) as a scientist or natural philosopher. On the subject of his famous run-in with the Spanish Inquisition, which led to a long prison term, it says:[Campanella] became in 1599 the spiritual leader of a plot to overthrow Spanish rule in Calabria. The plot was discovered, and he was arrested and taken to Naples. Forced under torture to confess his leadership in the plot, he feigned madness to escape death and was sentenced to life imprisonment. [He served 27 years, and lived for another 13 after his release.] ... Discovery of an anti-Spanish plot in Naples in 1634 caused him to flee to France, where he was welcomed by King Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu.There is obviously no support here for the notion that his sentence resulted from any scientific endeavors.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_de_Dominis) has some information on Marco Antonio de Dominis, all of it drawn from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. (Curiously, Dominis seems not to have made the editorial cut for the current Britannica edition.) I was able to locate a 2002 article in the 15-volume New Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0787640042), but it does not add much new information. The bibliography suggests that little significant scholarship has been done on the subject of Dominis since the 1950s, and the major 20th-century treatments are written in Italian.

At any rate, I find absolutely no support for the claim that Dominis was "killed by the Inquisition" for his scientific work. For one thing, all sources but White agree that Dominis died in custody while his trial was underway. For another, it's evident that he got in trouble for his numerous published attacks on the papacy and his controversial views on ecclesiastical law and Church history. His single recorded scientific work (on the physics of rainbows) was published in Venice more than a decade before Dominis found himself before the Inquisition, and it does not appear to have been raised in the proceedings. There is likewise no evidence that Dominis' scientific theories were suppressed by the Church (nor any plausible reason to imagine they would have been). We know, for example, that only a few decades after Dominis' death, Sir Isaac Newton had read his optical theories.

John Barrillon, though supposedly a 14th-century figure, appears nowhere in the index to the 13-volume Dictionary of the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Middle_Ages); I searched under several possible spelling variations. Not surprisingly, he is also absent from all of the general or biographical reference works I consulted in print. As Robin already pointed out, all online references to Barrillon are readily traceable to Andrew D. White himself, who of course offered no source. There would appear to be a strong likelihood that White fabricated the reference.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Okay, so let's just throw in the towel and say that no person who ever advanced scientific study was ever discouraged in one way or another by the RCC because it was all their fault or a misunderstanding.

Great apologetics. Keep up the good historical rewriting... This isn't apologetics, kuroyume. It's simply a skeptical approach to history. If the specifics of the historical record support a historical claim, terrific. If not, the claim deserves to be withdrawn, at least pending new information.

When did closely examining the historical record become "rewriting history"? Wouldn't you rather find out what history actually tells us?

[kuroyume0161]

Let's see. So far we're down to "no scientist was ever placed in peril or subjugated by RCC for their work". Galileo, that stubborn ba$tard, it was his fault. And Bruno was burned for anything but supporting Copernicus. And Copernicus, although never discouraged, never had his book added to the Librorum Prohibitorum (along with books by Galileo). Galileo was never taken to the Holy Inquisition, shown the instruments of torture, and not made to recant his theories (do not defend or teach). He was not later taken back for breaking this recantation and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. And during the time that the RCC was in full power, the sciences all reached their highest potential. I see it all now... ;)

I support evidenced history and evidence is only given by sources. I'm not a scholar on this and am rather busy working in the meantime. So, if the argument is 'won' by the person with more time to expend on finding the factual morsels just to support their case, so be it. I presented what I've read and what was available online (obviously not the best source for research). I'll just wait for someone who has done extensive research to fix the inbalance.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
I support evidenced history and evidence is only given by sources. I'm not a scholar on this and am rather busy working in the meantime. So, if the argument is 'won' by the person with more time to expend on finding the factual morsels just to support their case, so be it.

How very magnamious of you -- but actually the argument is won by he who presents proper evidence for his claims.

Your implicit argument that "if I only had more time, I'd find the evidence I know must exist out there somewhere" honestly sounds like an UFO / cryptozoologist / conspiracy believer. You're basically admitting that your mind is made up, and you'll only consider evidence that supports your belief.

(I must also say that I think ceo_esq has provided substantially more than just "factual morsels" on this thread.)

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
How very magnamious of you -- but actually the argument is won by he who presents proper evidence for his claims.

Your implicit argument that "if I only had more time, I'd find the evidence I know must exist out there somewhere" honestly sounds like an UFO / cryptozoologist / conspiracy believer. You're basically admitting that your mind is made up, and you'll only consider evidence that supports your belief.

(I must also say that I think ceo_esq has provided substantially more than just "factual morsels" on this thread.)

What claims? That cartograpny proves that the RCC supported and enhanced scientific research? That Galileo and Bruno were actually just mofos that deserved what they got? F.O.A.D.L.M.F (interpret that)

Yes, if I had more time. I, most unlike you, have work that takes up most of my time - 10-16 hours a day, 7 days a week. You've obviously never done computer programming for a living. And I have three dogs, three horses, bills, a house, and other duties to attend to when I'm not busy developing code (that actually makes money). What do you do again? Sit here and argue all day?

Ad hominem, so nice. Notice that I never attacked you, ceo_esq, or Robin. How about apologizing? Now!!

ceo_esq has some good points, but they're (as usual) mostly details in a sea of obviousness. The RCC during the Medieval/Renaissance was a dogmatic, theological, greedy, power-hungry organization that supported what profitted it and demolished anything that threatened its power. Crusades, wars, mass killings of heretics, an institution to torture and kill heretics, spreading of "the Holy Word" around the world by destroying, killing, enslaving helpless civilizations, witch burnings. Yes, this is the noble pursuit of scientific advancement in all of its most glorious forms...

As I pointed out, the reason for "the Enlightenment" had little to do with the RCC and more to do with economic/societal/governmental stabilities and the slow deciphering of the ancient texts (Roman and Grecian). That is recovery of hidden, nearly lost knowledge (which the RCC did not hand out freely). The RCC played a very small part in that (having accumulated vast vaults of wealth - I guess that that is a lie as well).

Another tidbit: Latin was used by the RCC and adopted by the scholarly. But, pray tell, when did the RCC establish the public teaching of Latin to the masses? Never, that's when. You can answer the why when you get a clue.

Robert

- No more from me - I have real work to do.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
What claims? That cartograpny proves that the RCC supported and enhanced scientific research? That Galileo and Bruno were actually just mofos that deserved what they got? F.O.A.D.L.M.F (interpret that)

Nobody has made those claims.

Yes, if I had more time. I, most unlike you, have work that takes up most of my time - 10-16 hours a day, 7 days a week. You've obviously never done computer programming for a living.

Amusingly enough, computer programming is what I do for a living.

Ad hominem, so nice. Notice that I never attacked you, ceo_esq, or Robin. How about apologizing? Now!!

I don't see I have made an ad hominem. I commented on how your argument sounds to me -- I didn't in any way dismiss your argument because of some perceived characteristic of you as a person.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
What claims? That cartograpny proves that the RCC supported and enhanced scientific research?Kuroyume, I don't think anyone's alleged this. As I mentioned before, I'm quite prepared to concede that cartography was an area of scientific practice and learning that suffered more than most during the Middle Ages (at least the early Middle Ages). I simply don't agree that the blame for this can be laid at the feet of the Church, or that the limited progress of cartography suggests that the Church retarded and hindered science.

My prima facie case for the proposition that the Catholic Church has, on balance, supported and enhanced the scientific enterprise is set forth elsewhere in this thread. I don't mind pointing out that it is a viewpoint shared by the pre-eminent experts in early science history. And the opposite view no longer enjoys currency among specialists in the field. Why you would prefer to cling to an outdated myth is not clear to me.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
That Galileo and Bruno were actually just mofos that deserved what they got?I don't think anyone has alleged that either. Neither man deserved what he got. But Bruno's case was not an example of the Church persecuting scientific endeavors. Galileo's case may well have been (although some historians dispute that), but if so it was an isolated case that involved a number of additional factors (including the undeniable fact that his personality and behavior contributed to the harshness of his treatment). In order to establish a pattern of persecution, more examples are required, and those examples should be unambiguous (e.g. the link between the scientific activity and the persecution should be clear). Otherwise, why should anyone take the existence of such an attitude on the part of the Church for granted? Why would anyone believe it existed (in any systematic fashion) at all?
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
F.O.A.D.L.M.F (interpret that)You've got me stumped on the "L". I have a sinking feeling that "F.O.A.D." stands for "f*ck off and die", and "M.F." means "motherf*ckers". If I'm wrong, I apologize. If I'm right, I assure you that this sort of thing is uncalled for.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Yes, if I had more time. I, most unlike you, have work that takes up most of my time - 10-16 hours a day, 7 days a week. You've obviously never done computer programming for a living. And I have three dogs, three horses, bills, a house, and other duties to attend to when I'm not busy developing code (that actually makes money). What do you do again? Sit here and argue all day?I entirely understand your frustration, kuroyume. I often feel the same way myself. I'm sure that no one here blames you for not being able to devote the time you think it would require for you to mount an appropriate defense of your position.

Obviously our jobs and other obligations come first. I'm an attorney, which is also a profession that requires a great deal of time and sacrifice. Some people might say in jest that my job involves sitting and arguing all day, of course. But I freely admit that I'm on vacation this week, and accordingly I have an unfair advantage in this discussion.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Ad hominem, so nice. Notice that I never attacked you, ceo_esq, or Robin. How about apologizing? Now!!It's not clear to me how I've made an ad hominem attack on you, but if I have then I apologize to you unreservedly. It was not my intent. You are quite right that you have never attacked me in such a manner, to my knowledge.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
ceo_esq has some good points, but they're (as usual) mostly details in a sea of obviousness. The RCC during the Medieval/Renaissance was a dogmatic, theological, greedy, power-hungry organization that supported what profitted it and demolished anything that threatened its power. Crusades, wars, mass killings of heretics, an institution to torture and kill heretics, spreading of "the Holy Word" around the world by destroying, killing, enslaving helpless civilizations, witch burnings. Yes, this is the noble pursuit of scientific advancement in all of its most glorious forms...The problem, as I see it, is that the "sea of obviousness" to which you refer is actually a generalized impression that you and many other people have absorbed or been taught, but which turns out upon inspection (and in the light of contemporary scholarship) to be substantially falsified. You have internalized it so thoroughly, however, that you take it as axiomatic. Are you at all open to this impression being corrected? I suspect that many of the negative things you think you know about the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (killings, torture, enslavement, etc.) are in fact greatly caricatured, and in many instances not fairly attributable to the Church at all. Moreover, they do not necessarily bear the relation to the scientific enterprise that you might expect.

Historians knowledgeable about such things have been working hard to dispel such myths in the past few decades. Why not take advantage of their labors? Particularly since the dubious views in question have a demonstrable and unsavory connection to religious bigotry in the last couple of centuries? I would think that anyone would be glad to shed such misconceptions, given the opportunity. It's not always an easy thing to do. But that's typical of critical thinking.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
As I pointed out, the reason for "the Enlightenment" had little to do with the RCC and more to do with economic/societal/governmental stabilities and the slow deciphering of the ancient texts (Roman and Grecian). That is recovery of hidden, nearly lost knowledge (which the RCC did not hand out freely). The RCC played a very small part in that (having accumulated vast vaults of wealth - I guess that that is a lie as well).Whether all this is true or false, I doubt many experts agree with this picture today. Certainly not the ones I'm familiar with. But I've already produced the scholarship on which I rely for my view. If you have the time, it would be nice to see what there is to support your view.
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Another tidbit: Latin was used by the RCC and adopted by the scholarly. But, pray tell, when did the RCC establish the public teaching of Latin to the masses? Never, that's when. You can answer the why when you get a clue.What are you basing this on, and what point are you trying to make?
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
- No more from me - I have real work to do. Well, I hold out some hope that when you have time available, you will be able to continue this discussion. It certainly would be poorer without your input.

[AWPrime]

Why is this discussion limited to the middle ages RCC?

Lets add Islam and currect thrends, for a more clear image.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Why is this discussion limited to the middle ages RCC?

Lets add Islam and currect thrends, for a more clear image. The thread was dead until we revived it for the purpose of carrying over a discussion from elsewhere that concentrated more or less on the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

However, medieval Islam was discussed earlier in the thread, and so were a number of more recent trends. There's certainly no reason for the limiting the discussion, I agree.

[Cleopatra]

Also, if you brought the discussion to our era for example it would be turned into a pure political discussion, a very interesting political discussion though.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Ditto. And that's now that the church is not even close to what it was in the middle ages. Imagine how many brilliant young minds were dedicated to stupid theological studies in those times! Imagine what could have done a Thomas Aquinus in a society where the destinity for gifted people was not the clery by default!.


Originally posted by Ladewig
In the politics forum there is a thread about the president of the United States saying that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools and another thread explaining that a Bible course being taught in over two dozen states has in its curriculum such egregious errors as "NASA scientists have confirmed that the sun stopped just as described in the book of Joshua."

Yet in this forum we are arguing over whether religion slow us down.

Please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

from http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/article1.html


Where is Evolution in Catholic Teaching?


by Anthony Nevard

On 25th October 1996, it was widely reported that Pope John Paul II had at long last acknowledged that Darwin’s evolutionary view of the world’s history was true. We were informed that this was the implication of part of his letter to the advisory body, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which referred to evolution as being “more than a hypothesis�.

Was this a denial of the account of Creation in Genesis, or even a novel infallible teaching? Far from it! Even the Pope cannot change the meaning of the essential doctrines of the Faith, as they are truths revealed by God Himself. Incredibly, at a time when even atheist and agnostic scientists have rejected Darwinism as unsupportable, we were told that the Pope now accepts it! This article is intended to assure Catholics that Evolution has never been reconcilable with Papal teachings.

The mysteries of our origins can never be fully accessible to unaided reason or scientific research, but are part of God’s Revelation to Man. To accept them, we need the gift of Faith: but these truths are above our powers of reason, not in contradiction to them. Though we know that Sacred Scriptures are true, as God is their Author, we need the authority of the Church to interpret them infallibly, avoiding the excesses of both literalism and liberalism. The following key doctrinal teachings will clarify the Catholic position.

1870 VATICAN COUNCIL

* Faith and Reason (e.g. the findings of true science) cannot be in real opposition: Truth is One.
* God created a good world.
* God, through His Providence. protects and guides all He has Created.
* The first Man, body and soul, was created by God.

The idea that a spiritual soul was created in an animal body is alien to the words of the Scriptures, Christian Tradition, and all the Church Fathers and theologians.

1907 Pope St. Pius X Encyclical Pascendi

* Condemned Modernism, which is based on Evolution.
* Condemned the idea that the Faith must be subject to current views of Science and History.

1909 Biblical Commission Decree

Reinforced traditional Catholic doctrines on Creation.

* Creation by God at the beginning of time
* Special creation of Man; the formation of the first woman from the first man.
* The unity of the human race
* Their initial state of justice, integrity and immortality
* The testing of Adam and Eve by a positive precept
* Their temptation and sin under the influence of the Devil
* Their expulsion from Paradise
* The promise of a Redeemer.

Principles of interpretation of Genesis 1-3

* These chapters relate to real events, not myths, legends or mere allegories or symbols.
* Not all words and sentences need be understood in the literal sense; those which have been variously interpreted by the Church Fathers and theologians may be understood according to one's own judgement, subject to the Faith.

* We need not expect scientific exactitude in expressing the inner nature of visible things or to read the complete order of creation.

* The word day may be taken as a natural day or a certain space of time, and this question may be freely discussed.

1950 Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Humani Generis

* Expresses sorrow at current discord and error on moral and religious matters that threatens the principles of Christian culture. [para. 1, 2]

* Warns us not to hold evolution as proved, or to use it to explain the origin of all things; this leads to pantheism, materialism and other false philosophies. [para. 5, 6]

* Warns of dangers of ignoring Papal teaching, so leading to relativism. [para. 15, 16]

* Danger of limiting Scriptural inerrancy to religious matters only. [para. 22, 23]

* Permits research and discussion into the doctrine of evolution regarding the question of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter. [para. 36]
* Research must consider theories favourable and unfavourable to evolution fairly. [para. 36]
* Each human soul is specially created by God. [para. 36]
* Polygenism [theory of several human evolutionary origins] is unacceptable, as it is not reconcilable with the doctrine of Original Sin. [para. 37]

1962-65 Vatican Council II

No reference was made to creation, evolution, science or the interpretation of Genesis.

1994 Pope John Paul II. Catechism of the Catholic Church

Creation

31 pages of text; 36 subheadings in the Index; 59 page references. The traditional teachings are all clearly reiterated with references; for example:

"Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves: “Where do we come from?�, “Where are we going?� , “What is our origin?� , “What is our end?� , “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?� The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions." [para. 282]

"Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place... they express the truths of creation its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation." [para. 289]

Evolution

No mention of evolution anywhere in the text or in the Index.

We must conclude that the Catholic Church continues to teach officially that the human race is descended from Adam and Eve. Any theory of origins that conflicts with these authoritative teachings must be false and hence opposed to Christianity.

I have read the cathecism but I can't find a viable link now. What it says is that the origin of life has to be atributed to god. Read the trend here:

http://www.ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/072905/072905h.php

A recent article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in The New York Times, asserting that “unguided, unplanned� evolution is inconsistent with Catholic faith, should be read with caution warn a number of Catholic scientists and theologians, including the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.


So even now RCC doctrine is slowing us down and has no intention to change. And now tell me that we have science now thanks to christianism.....

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
from http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/article1.html



I have read the cathecism but I can't find a viable link now. What it says is that the origin of life has to be atributed to god. Read the trend here:

http://www.ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/072905/072905h.php

A recent article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in The New York Times, asserting that “unguided, unplanned� evolution is inconsistent with Catholic faith, should be read with caution warn a number of Catholic scientists and theologians, including the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.


So even now RCC doctrine is slowing us down and has no intention to change. And now tell me that we have science now thanks to christianism..... The first source constitutes an interesting and unofficial spin on Catholic doctrine by a lay group seeking to justify creation science. By itself, it would appear to mean nothing. The second source, as I read it, is actually somewhat reassuring insofar as it suggests that Catholic doctrine is unlikely to conflict with evolution or any other scientific theory (accompanying philosophical baggage is another matter, of course). It certainly hasn't happened yet with regard to the evolution question.

Remember that Catholic schools were the first to adopt widespread teaching of evolutionary theory. Do you have any evidence that we're experiencing an actual slowdown? Or, for that matter, any counterevidence directly responsive to the many specific points and authorities raised in this thread?

[Robin]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Let's see. So far we're down to "no scientist was ever placed in peril or subjugated by RCC for their work". Galileo, that stubborn ba$tard, it was his fault. And Bruno was burned for anything but supporting Copernicus. And Copernicus, although never discouraged, never had his book added to the Librorum Prohibitorum (along with books by Galileo). Galileo was never taken to the Holy Inquisition, shown the instruments of torture, and not made to recant his theories (do not defend or teach). He was not later taken back for breaking this recantation and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. And during the time that the RCC was in full power, the sciences all reached their highest potential. I see it all now... ;)
Nice attitude. I never said, suggested or implied that Galileo brought the persecution on himself or that Copernicus' book was not prohibited. But am I supposed to just bite my tongue and nod my head in polite agreement when people say things that I believe to be untrue?

If someone had said that Darwin had recanted on his deathbed, would I be wrong to contradict this? So if someone says that Bruno was executed for supporting Copernicus and I know this to be a furphy why can't I speak up? And if I do speak up I get accused of being an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church.

I would at least ask you to consider that apart from the persecution of Galileo and the banning of Copernicus' book for over a century, the list of examples you originally gave has been shown to be unreliable. Furthermore this list appears again and again when this discussion comes up.

Is it not at least possible that this sea of obviousness might be a sea of assumption?

[Robin]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Ditto. And that's now that the church is not even close to what it was in the middle ages. Imagine how many brilliant young minds were dedicated to stupid theological studies in those times! Imagine what could have done a Thomas Aquinus in a society where the destinity for gifted people was not the clery by default!.
I can see nothing in Aquinas work that would indicate that he might have made great scientist of mathematician and I can see no evidence that the Church did anything to hold him back from these things. On the contrary he probably found his calling.

Compare to Nicolas Oresme who produced many ground breaking scientific and mathematical works, his association with the Church did nothing to hold him back. He came from a peasant background so there was probably no other profession in the Middle Ages that would have allowed him to pursue this work.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The first source constitutes an interesting and unofficial spin on Catholic doctrine by a lay group seeking to justify creation science. By itself, it would appear to mean nothing.


What would be meaningfull for you? An official document by the pope that says that evolution is fine as long as it doesn't research the origin of life? Wait....that's the new cathecism!
The official foctrine of the RCC is ID, not evolution. ID is not Evolution.


The second source, as I read it, is actually somewhat reassuring insofar as it suggests that Catholic doctrine is unlikely to conflict with evolution or any other scientific theory (accompanying philosophical baggage is another matter, of course). It certainly hasn't happened yet with regard to the evolution question.


It conflicts with evolution. It endorses ID. They say it clearly. The evolution proccess is guided for them.

Remember that Catholic schools were the first to adopt widespread teaching of evolutionary theory. Do you have any evidence that we're experiencing an actual slowdown? Or, for that matter, any counterevidence directly responsive to the many specific points and authorities raised in this thread?

I haven't seen any catholic schools text that says clearly that man and apes share a common ancestor. Actually, I studied in a public school here (In my country, the church manage some aspects of the curricula). In Biology, we studied evolution, but the teachers always said that man was created by god. And in religion classes (mandatory here until 1990 in public schools) the teachers (usually a nun) always said that evolution was an evil concept that denies the creation of god. That was the official curricula of the church for public schools here.
So my evidence is first hand.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Robin
I can see nothing in Aquinas work that would indicate that he might have made great scientist of mathematician and I can see no evidence that the Church did anything to hold him back from these things. On the contrary he probably found his calling.

Compare to Nicolas Oresme who produced many ground breaking scientific and mathematical works, his association with the Church did nothing to hold him back. He came from a peasant background so there was probably no other profession in the Middle Ages that would have allowed him to pursue this work.

Aquinas always made a brilliant deductive proccess to show that the church teaching aren't in conflict with reason. But when it cames to the final points os his demonstrations, he resorted to scripture. That was because his mind frame was molded to abandon reason when it conflicts with church teachings. Is that science? Can it be the origin of science? If he wouldn't have been limited by this methaphysical framework, I guess he could have contributed some points to human knowledge. But instead, he produced nothing of value. That is a waste of intellect.

I can see that research was ALLOWED in other fields. But not in others. That's the definition of slowing down science.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
It conflicts with evolution. It endorses ID. They say it clearly. The evolution proccess is guided for them.

That isn't a conflict with the theory of evolution any more than an intentionally designed zeppelin is in conflict with the theories of buoyancy. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms behind the development of life -- it does not preclude a supernatural entity "loading the dice."

(Of course, the theory of evolution does in no way require or postulate such an entity, but to postulate such an entity on other grounds does not run afoul of anything in the theory of evolution.)


(Edited to fix tags.)

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
What would be meaningfull for you? An official document by the pope that says that evolution is fine as long as it doesn't research the origin of life? Wait....that's the new cathecism!
The official foctrine of the RCC is ID, not evolution. ID is not Evolution.


See this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59418

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


That isn't a conflict with the theory of evolution any more than an intentionally designed zeppelin is in conflict with the theories of buoyancy. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms behind the development of life -- it does not preclude a supernatural entity "loading the dice."

(Of course, the theory of evolution does in no way require or postulate such an entity, but to postulate such an entity on other grounds does not run afoul of anything in the theory of evolution.)


(Edited to fix tags.) [/B]

It does. Evolution means random changes selected by its survival value and nothing else. NOTHING else. If somebody wants to add another entity, then should give evidence for that. If they have no evidence, then they have no grounds to alter the theory to introduce imaginary entities. That's anti-science, wich is the topic of this thread AFAIK

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by jjramsey
See this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59418
I'll keep your last words there :

My guess is that this is a trial balloon. Now that there is popular objection, the Church can backpedal by pointing to its official position, which doesn't require it to embrace ID. If there hadn't been any uproar, the Church might have brought ID to the Catholic schools and maybe funded some ID efforts.

They are relevant to this thread. They want to slow down science. Fortunately, they don't have the power to rule ID as a fact. But that's not because the church loves research and welcomes any new discovery even if conflicts with scripture.

As someone said before, science advaces despite the church efforts to maintain us in ignorance and be the sole owner of thruth.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
It does. Evolution means random changes selected by its survival value and nothing else.

No, the theory of evolution does not assume perfect randomness or the lack of conscious control on the process. Cattle, dogs and many other animals have for several thousand years been exposed to a conscious, controlled breeding effort by humans, entirely in accordance with the theory of evolution.

It is merely a matter of the environment being so that being the "fittest" entials "having the quality Farmer Brown is breeding for."

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
No, the theory of evolution does not assume perfect randomness or the lack of conscious control on the process. Cattle, dogs and many other animals have for several thousand years been exposed to a conscious, controlled breeding effort by humans, entirely in accordance with the theory of evolution.

It is merely a matter of the environment being so that being the "fittest" entials "having the quality Farmer Brown is breeding for."

Well then I guess that you are saying that, as farmers select animals by its utility value, there is room in evolution theory for an imaginary being that selects us based in its utility. And then you would like to imply that it it compatible with evolution (I'm speculating here) That would be the ultimate argument for ID I guess :). The church theory is the one with the imaginary being, BTW.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Well then I guess that you are saying that, as farmers select animals by its utility value, there is room in evolution theory for an imaginary being that selects us based in its utility. And then you would like to imply that it it compatible with evolution (I'm speculating here)

I am simply saying that the theory of evolution does not preclude such an entity.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I am simply saying that the theory of evolution does not preclude such an entity.
As long as the entity is supernatural, my bet is that ET precludes it.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
No, the theory of evolution does not assume perfect randomness or the lack of conscious control on the process. Cattle, dogs and many other animals have for several thousand years been exposed to a conscious, controlled breeding effort by humans, entirely in accordance with the theory of evolution.

It is merely a matter of the environment being so that being the "fittest" entials "having the quality Farmer Brown is breeding for."

The mechanisme behind evolution consists of two main parts:

Mutation (random)

and

Selection (be it natural or man)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The mechanisme behind evolution consists of two main parts:

Mutation (random)

and

Selection (be it natural or man)


You left out the most important bit: transfer of the parents trait to the offspring. Also, the theory of evolution does not set any demands on that the changes are random -- only that they do occur, and that they are relatively small.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
It conflicts with evolution. It endorses ID. They say it clearly. The evolution proccess is guided for them.First of all, that article points out that there is a "long history" of "compatibility of evolution with Catholic faith."

Second, it points out that "the most recent Vatican document to treat evolution ... argues that Catholic theology does not commit the church to one side or the other in the strictly scientific dispute between evolution and design." That's as it should be. The Catholic Church, while favorably disposed toward the scientific enterprise, is not a scientific entity. This article makes clear that Catholic theology and science are distinct spheres, which ought to reassure you that they will not, as a matter of course, get in each other's way.

Third, it's clear that no amount of scientific research is going to confirm or deny the Church's metaphysical suppositions regarding divine creation and the origins of human life, so Catholic doctrine on this point can hardly be said to pose an obstacle to scientific learning. Evolutionary science, like any sort of science, is susceptible to what the article calls "philosophical applications", and it's only when a theory begins to depart the realm of empirical science that it crosses over into the Church's bailiwick. What the article calls "evolutionism" or "neo-Darwinism" (materialistic philosophical interpretations of evolutionary biology) is pretty much on the same level as Intelligent Design: neither one is science; both are speculative metaphysical systems inspired by empirical observations. You can see how it it's possible to have an intractable problem with the tacked-on philosophy without ever getting in the way of the underlying science. The article suggests that this distinction is "crucial", but you seem to be ignoring it.

Fourth, the article acknowledges the existence of some people (including some Catholics) who "think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy" - collapsing the distinction between metaphysics and science. But it notes this is not Church doctrine. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, whether or not a person accepts Darwinian evolution, General Relativity, or the notion of a flat earth is irrelevant to Catholic dogma. It's not in the business of incorporating any particular scientific theory into its dogma.

You certainly have adopted a one-sided and alarmist interpretation of that article. I thought it contained a number of reasons for optimism in this matter.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I haven't seen any catholic schools text that says clearly that man and apes share a common ancestor. Actually, I studied in a public school here (In my country, the church manage some aspects of the curricula). In Biology, we studied evolution, but the teachers always said that man was created by god. And in religion classes (mandatory here until 1990 in public schools) the teachers (usually a nun) always said that evolution was an evil concept that denies the creation of god. That was the official curricula of the church for public schools here.
So my evidence is first hand. I'm not too bothered by what Catholic schools might or might not teach in their religion classes (even if it includes editorializing on subjects learned in other courses), so long as in biology class the content of evolutionary theory is imparted.

In the United States, state education departments generally provide a list of "approved" textbooks in each subject, and public and private school officials must choose from that list. A cursory online review of textbook lists supplied by U.S. Catholic schools suggests that such schools generally rely on the same titles and publishers found in public high school biology curricula. Your results may vary.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
You left out the most important bit: transfer of the parents trait to the offspring.
And this trait was at one time a mutation.

Also, the theory of evolution does not set any demands on that the changes are random -- only that they do occur, and that they are relatively small.
Only stating that they are

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
And this trait was at one time a mutation.

Not necessarily. Traits can also, for instance, arise from the particular combination of genetic material from mother and father.

Only stating that they are [/QUOTE]

Sorry?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Not necessarily. Traits can also, for instance, arise from the particular combination of genetic material from mother and father.
Then the mutation that created the components is still responsible for that trait.




Sorry?
random

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Then the mutation that created the components is still responsible for that trait.

Ultimately, yes. However, the combination of genetic material is usually a more important driving force in evolution than mutation is.

random

The theory of evolution does not state that the changes are random.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Ultimately, yes. However, the combination of genetic material is usually a more important driving force in evolution than mutation is.
No. A mutation creates new/different genes. A combination is just a combination.

The theory of evolution does not state that the changes are random.
I never said that - I was stating that. :D


If you really want to learn something about evolution please visit: http://www.talkorigins.org/

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Well then I guess that you are saying that, as farmers select animals by its utility value, there is room in evolution theory for an imaginary being that selects us based in its utility. And then you would like to imply that it it compatible with evolution (I'm speculating here) That would be the ultimate argument for ID I guess :).

Except that's not ID, but rather theistic evolution. Theistic evolution says basically that the origin of species happened according to neo-Darwinian evolution, but that God is nonetheless somehow behind it all. ID, on the other hand, is all about discrediting neo-Darwinism, trying to finding gaps that neo-Darwinism cannot explain.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
No. A mutation creates new/different genes. A combination is just a combination.

A combination can create new traits which didn't exist in either of the parents. Mutation is important in preventing a genetic pool from stagnating, but the main genetic drift is caused by crossover and selection, not by mutation. (Mutation in more advanced organisms is comparatively rare, after all, as the reproduction mechanisms contains a lot of error prevention.)

I never said that - I was stating that. :D

Now you've lost me.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Except that's not ID, but rather theistic evolution. Theistic evolution says basically that the origin of species happened according to neo-Darwinian evolution, but that God is nonetheless somehow behind it all. ID, on the other hand, is all about discrediting neo-Darwinism, trying to finding gaps that neo-Darwinism cannot explain.

IIUC, what you are telling me is that theistic evolution is neo-Darwinian evolution, just adding that god made it appear as is there is no god? In that very, very weak acception RCC doctrine is compatible with science. But, I haven't seen it stated that way ina any RCC document.
Now, the question is (just to stay in topic) :
Is that science speeding up religion or all those years while deniying evolution, was religion slowing down science?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
A combination can create new traits which didn't exist in either of the parents.
No actually a combination only makes use of traits.

Can you give me one example of your argument?

Mutation is important in preventing a genetic pool from stagnating, but the main genetic drift is caused by crossover and selection, not by mutation.
You mean to claim that selection causes genetic diversity, instead of the common view that it selects upon the available selection?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
First of all, that article points out that there is a "long history" of "compatibility of evolution with Catholic faith."


Would you please tell me how many years have this "long story"?


Second, it points out that "the most recent Vatican document to treat evolution ... argues that Catholic theology does not commit the church to one side or the other in the strictly scientific dispute between evolution and design." That's as it should be. The Catholic Church, while favorably disposed toward the scientific enterprise, is not a scientific entity. This article makes clear that Catholic theology and science are distinct spheres, which ought to reassure you that they will not, as a matter of course, get in each other's way.

Where you find the "favorable" part?. That was something that the church HAD to accept, just because is a fact. Can you see that the whole document is a permission for catholics to believe a limited form of evolution?


Third, it's clear that no amount of scientific research is going to confirm or deny the Church's metaphysical suppositions regarding divine creation and the origins of human life, so Catholic doctrine on this point can hardly be said to pose an obstacle to scientific learning. Evolutionary science, like any sort of science, is susceptible to what the article calls "philosophical applications", and it's only when a theory begins to depart the realm of empirical science that it crosses over into the Church's bailiwick. What the article calls "evolutionism" or "neo-Darwinism" (materialistic philosophical interpretations of evolutionary biology) is pretty much on the same level as Intelligent Design: neither one is science; both are speculative metaphysical systems inspired by empirical observations. You can see how it it's possible to have an intractable problem with the tacked-on philosophy without ever getting in the way of the underlying science. The article suggests that this distinction is "crucial", but you seem to be ignoring it.

You can't say that "no amount of scientific research" can't do something in the factual sphere. And creation, and origins of human life are factual claims, and belong to science in every aspect. Science had to fight with religion because it takes matters from faith field and puts them in reason field. There is the basic matrix of the conflict, and that's why religion is slowing us down.

Fourth, the article acknowledges the existence of some people (including some Catholics) who "think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy" - collapsing the distinction between metaphysics and science. But it notes this is not Church doctrine. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, whether or not a person accepts Darwinian evolution, General Relativity, or the notion of a flat earth is irrelevant to Catholic dogma. It's not in the business of incorporating any particular scientific theory into its dogma.

The fact is that the religious framework favours those claims, instead of science claims.

You certainly have adopted a one-sided and alarmist interpretation of that article. I thought it contained a number of reasons for optimism in this matter.


I can't find anything to be optimistic about this. I would like to see something like " We are glad that we, humans, know more. Please keep investigating anything you want, we will support this. There are no limits for research and, if sometime we find that scripture or RCC doctrine is wrong, then we will happily change the doctrine".


I'm not too bothered by what Catholic schools might or might not teach in their religion classes (even if it includes editorializing on subjects learned in other courses), so long as in biology class the content of evolutionary theory is imparted.



I can read your statement as:
"I'm not too bothered by what Catholic schools might or might not do to slow science and educate people in the magical realm,(even if it includes editorializing on subjects learned in other courses), so long as in biology class the content of evolutionary theory is imparted, advancing science.
"
It's and admission that religion is still slowing us down, and secular forces trying to moving uns forward.

In the United States, state education departments generally provide a list of "approved" textbooks in each subject, and public and private school officials must choose from that list. A cursory online review of textbook lists supplied by U.S. Catholic schools suggests that such schools generally rely on the same titles and publishers found in public high school biology curricula. Your results may vary.

And do vary. For what we have discussed until now, I still fail to see how is that you can defend religion.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
No actually a combination only makes use of traits.

Can you give me one example of your argument?

Sure -- two parents who both express the trait A, but has recessive genes for the trait B can get a child that has a trait (phenotype) that neither of the parents had. Sure, the alleles existed in the gene-pool in advance, but it was through crossover that the trait was introduced into the population (where it can be selected for.)

You mean to claim that selection causes genetic diversity, instead of the common view that it selects upon the available selection? [/QUOTE]

No, I'm saying that the main force for genetic drift (i.e. the "delta v" of the gene-pool; the speed of evolution) is primarily driven by crossover and selection, and that mutation plays a minor part in this -- which is why some populations can, with a stable size and in the absence of strong selection, stay at genetically stable "tableus" for long periods of time, while other populations go through rapid evolutionary change during the same time.

[thaiboxerken]

What? Religion slows us down? Nah. Look at USA, we are leading the scientific world in stem-cell research and cloning and our children are the most scientifically educated in the world. All because religion promotes these things.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What? Religion slows us down? Nah. Look at USA, we are leading the scientific world in stem-cell research and cloning and our children are the most scientifically educated in the world. All because religion promotes these things.

Considering that the USA is the scientific locomotive in a wide selection of fields, and conducts far more scientific and engineering research per capita than comparable regions with less focus on religion (such as northern Europe, Australia or the far East,) I really don't think there's much weight to your argument.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Sure -- two parents who both express the trait A, but has recessive genes for the trait B can get a child that has a trait (phenotype) that neither of the parents had. Sure, the alleles existed in the gene-pool in advance, but it was through crossover that the trait was introduced into the population (where it can be selected for.)
So you don't know that the trait can be introduced in a population without it being selectable?

No, I'm saying that the main force for genetic drift (i.e. the "delta v" of the gene-pool; the speed of evolution) is primarily driven by crossover and selection, and that mutation plays a minor part in this
Remove mutation (changes in genetic materiaal) out of evolution and see how far you get.

which is why some populations can, with a stable size and in the absence of strong selection, stay at genetically stable "tableus" for long periods of time, while other populations go through rapid evolutionary change during the same time.
No, selection pressure is responsable for that.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Considering that the USA is the scientific locomotive in a wide selection of fields, and conducts far more scientific and engineering research per capita than comparable regions with less focus on religion (such as northern Europe, Australia or the far East,) I really don't think there's much weight to your argument.

By importing a lot of their researchers from comparable regions with less focus on religion.

;)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Considering that the USA is the scientific locomotive in a wide selection of fields, and conducts far more scientific and engineering research per capita than comparable regions with less focus on religion (such as northern Europe, Australia or the far East,) I really don't think there's much weight to your argument.

We currently are, yes, but the religious are trying to derail us by limitting science and poisoning it with religious nonsense. They are slowing us down one success at a time.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Aquinas always made a brilliant deductive proccess to show that the church teaching aren't in conflict with reason. But when it cames to the final points os his demonstrations, he resorted to scripture. That was because his mind frame was molded to abandon reason when it conflicts with church teachings. Is that science? Can it be the origin of science?
Why are you asking me? I have already said that I can see nothing to indicate that Aquinas would have made a good mathematician or scientist. Why don't you address instead the counter example I gave of Oresme - would you call his work science?
If he wouldn't have been limited by this methaphysical framework, I guess he could have contributed some points to human knowledge. But instead, he produced nothing of value. That is a waste of intellect.

I can see that research was ALLOWED in other fields. But not in others. That's the definition of slowing down science.
Specifically what fields was research not allowed in? It seems to me that the scholastic movement covered a very wide range, Oresme alone covered a wide range - mathematics, physics, astronomy, psychology, economics. Yes, I call that science, many of his ideas anticipated the revolutions of Copernicus and Galileo. If he was limited by the Church then I would be interested to know what other profession was open to a peasant in the middle ages that would have allowed him to make such contributions to human knowledge.

Oresme and others contributed importantly to human knowledge in a variety of areas, so if Aquinas contributed nothing it is because he had nothing to contribute. There is a modern prejudice that the scholastic movement contributed nothing of value so people like Oresme lack the recognition they might have had.

And don't forget that Copernicus himself was never prevented from doing his work, never persecuted for it. Are you saying that Copernicus' work is not science?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
So you don't know that the trait can be introduced in a population without it being selectable?[/B]

Any trait that exists in a population can be selected for by natural selection.

Remove mutation (changes in genetic materiaal) out of evolution and see how far you get.

Which might be why I further up stated that mutation was important? (And actually, if you have an existing population you can get quite far with just crossover and selection.)

No, selection pressure is responsable for that.

No, selection pressure alone does not cause genetic drift, as selection pressure merely remove gene-sets from the pool -- there needs to be a mechanism that can "respond" to the selection pressure and actually modify the gene-sets. In species with two different sexes, the main mechanism that does that is the crossover of genes between the parents. This is easily demonstrated by simple simulations (genetic algorithms.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
We currently are, yes, but the religious are trying to derail us by limitting science and poisoning it with religious nonsense. They are slowing us down one success at a time.

Says he, as the train he's on outraces all the others.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Robin
Why are you asking me? I have already said that I can see nothing to indicate that Aquinas would have made a good mathematician or scientist.

I'm not really asking anything. Look at those questions as an invitation to speculate.


Why don't you address instead the counter example I gave of Oresme - would you call his work science?

Because your example has no relevance to the point. Ok there are some people that could investigate something without being burned at the stake. So what? If religion would have succeded, then science as we know it would not exist. If we would have a theocracy (ala taliban) then we would have an equivalent science. The problem with prevent that from success was that the clergy was too corrupt, letting secular groups eventually gain some power.

Specifically what fields was research not allowed in? It seems to me that the scholastic movement covered a very wide range, Oresme alone covered a wide range - mathematics, physics, astronomy, psychology, economics. Yes, I call that science, many of his ideas anticipated the revolutions of Copernicus and Galileo. If he was limited by the Church then I would be interested to know what other profession was open to a peasant in the middle ages that would have allowed him to make such contributions to human knowledge.

Anything that directly contradicts scripture was not allowed to research. (we are talking yet of the middel ages isn't it?). Other profession could be courtesan of some king or feudal lord.

Oresme and others contributed importantly to human knowledge in a variety of areas, so if Aquinas contributed nothing it is because he had nothing to contribute. There is a modern prejudice that the scholastic movement contributed nothing of value so people like Oresme lack the recognition they might have had.

What can be of value about scholastic? could you mention something?

And don't forget that Copernicus himself was never prevented from doing his work, never persecuted for it. Are you saying that Copernicus' work is not science?

Have you beaten your wife today ? ;)

[Robin]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I'm not really asking anything. Look at those questions as an invitation to speculate.
Well as I have already pointed out it cannot be true that the Church prevented Aquinas from making contributions to science when so many of his contemporaries did make very valuable contributions to science.
Because your example has no relevance to the point. Ok there are some people that could investigate something without being burned at the stake. So what?
Can you give me an example of someone who was burned at the stage for some scientific investigation?

I give one of the many examples of people who have made scientific investigations with the help rather than the hindrance of the Church and you call it irrelevant. So any other examples I give will presumably be irrelevant, and yet you are not prepared to present any evidence to back up your claim.
If religion would have succeded, then science as we know it would not exist.
Evidence please,
Anything that directly contradicts scripture was not allowed to research. (we are talking yet of the middel ages isn't it?).
Evidence, examples please. Nicolas of Cusa in the 13th century stated that the earth moved and that there were inhabitants on planets other than earth. Far from being persecuted he was made a cardinal.
Other profession could be courtesan of some king or feudal lord.
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that peasants could not become courtesans, that some social status was required for this.
What can be of value about scholastic? could you mention something?
Oresme's work in mathematics and physics is well recognised as being an important precursor to both Copernicus and Galileo, he demonstrated that there was no reason to suppose that the Sun was moving rather than the earth was rotating. The scholastics developed the idea that gravity was present in all bodies, not just the earth, which paved the way for Copernicus. Oresme developed the first method of rectangular co-ordinates in mathematics, in anticipation of Cartesian co-ordinates.

Ockham's contribution to logic is important, particularly the idea of three valued logic and he comes close to defining De Morgan's theorem.

I think this was of great value, Copernicus and Galileo didn't work in a vacuum, they built on the work of those who came before.

But the trouble is that you have me running off and finding evidence and arguments, yet you provide none of your own. Where is your evidence that in the middle ages the Church prevented people from researching some areas?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Would you please tell me how many years have this "long story"?Lucifuge, I'm referring to a quotation from your own source. Did you read your own source to find out why the article concludes that there is a "long history" of "compatibility of evolution with Catholic faith"? Did you even notice that it made such an assertion?

The article traces such history to 1950, the year in which Humani Generis was promulgated. However, one could argue that there is no real evidence of incompatibility prior to Humani Generis, either, since Humani Generis is not reversing any prior doctrinal decree. Indeed, one could argue that the compatibility is a priori (i.e. because science and Catholic doctrine deal with different orders of reality, they could never be in formal conflict) - in which case the compatibility was true even before evolution was discovered.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Where you find the "favorable" part?. That was something that the church HAD to accept, just because is a fact.You have six pages of examples in this thread demonstrating the benign view the Catholic Church has usually taken toward science.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Can you see that the whole document is a permission for catholics to believe a limited form of evolution?I already pointed out that Catholics have, in one sense, "permission" to believe or disbelieve any scientific theory they desire. They do not have "permission" to sign on to every philosophical schema inspired by particular scientific knowledge. Views of human evolution that purport either to rule out or in metaphysical notions of "divine Providence" or whatever (rather than simply not factoring in the possibility) are not scientific views. They are philosophical views.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
You can't say that "no amount of scientific research" can't do something in the factual sphere. And creation, and origins of human life are factual claims, and belong to science in every aspect.Sure I can. Any intelligible proposition must be factually either true or false, yet there are an infinite number of such propositions the truth of which is intrinsically incapable of determination by the scientific method.
Sartre was right when he said that existence precedes essence.
It is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than it is to take up arms against a sea of troubles.
My ex-girlfriend truly hated me.
A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
All dogs go to heaven.
Slavery is morally unjustifiable.All of these statements are either true or false, but no amount of scientific analysis will establish which of the two it is.

I think you do not have a very clear notion of the limits of science's scope of inquiry.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Science had to fight with religion because it takes matters from faith field and puts them in reason field. There is the basic matrix of the conflict, and that's why religion is slowing us down.No one has yet been able to show in the thread so far that this "basic matrix" is true, either necessarily or contingently. The supposed conflict between reason and faith received quite a bit of attention earlier in the thread.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I can't find anything to be optimistic about this. I would like to see something like " We are glad that we, humans, know more. Please keep investigating anything you want, we will support this. There are no limits for research and, if sometime we find that scripture or RCC doctrine is wrong, then we will happily change the doctrine".Roman Catholic doctrine, as set forth in the Catechism, tends not to be the sort of thing that could possibly be falsified scientifically. I don't believe it was ever a doctrinally defined position that the sun orbited the earth, for example, or that God chose any specific mechanism for the creation of human life. One of the (perhaps too) clever things about Catholicism is that its doctrines are, at least as far as I can see, generally conceived in such a way as to be more or less invulnerable to empirical analysis. That's a good thing for science, however, because it means that the Church has usually not felt any doctrinal threat from scientific learning and has felt free to encourage it.

By the way, of course science by definition has limits to what it can research. But does anyone really think those ought to be the only limits? What about ethics concerns?
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I can read your statement as:
"I'm not too bothered by what Catholic schools might or might not do to slow science and educate people in the magical realm,(even if it includes editorializing on subjects learned in other courses), so long as in biology class the content of evolutionary theory is imparted, advancing science.
"
It's and admission that religion is still slowing us down, and secular forces trying to moving uns forward.
Lucifuge, amicus, it really is time for you to produce something persuasive or else retract your claim that Christianity has been hindering science in a systematic way. You have offered nothing but speculation and you have not refuted any of the evidence or authorities offered in the entire thread. Please show us something more concrete - even if it's just a couple of citations to some current specialists in the field who actually agree with you.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
For what we have discussed until now, I still fail to see how is that you can defend religion. I am not defending religion in any apologetic sense. I am refuting the specific assertion that religion was a net hindrance to the development of science in the West. Why? Because the arguments backing the assertion are weak and poorly reasoned, and shouldn't be suffered to stand.

With so little solid evidence available to support that assertion, and its origins as a myth well-known to historians by now, you would think the task of refuting it would be less time-consuming. Yet there always seems to be somebody else who thinks they can show know why it must be true.

It reminds me of Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. No matter how many people times fail to produce evidence of paranormal abilities, there's always somebody else who can't let go of the cherished notion that such things must exist, and is willing to step forward and embarrass himself trying to prove it.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Ok there are some people that could investigate something without being burned at the stake. So what?I reiterate Robin's point: can you establish that anyone in pre-modern European history was ever burned at the stake, by or on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, for investigating something scientifically? Not for magic, or occult philosophy, or unorthodox Christology, or anything like that - but as a punishment for the actual pursuit of science or natural philosophy?

And if you can't, then wouldn't it be better to assume that it probably didn't happen very often, if ever?
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
If religion would have succeded, then science as we know it would not exist.That is simply a naked assertion, whereas you have not even begun to address the several arguments already advanced in these pages that without religion (one particular religion, at least) science as we know it might not exist. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be as far along.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
If we would have a theocracy (ala taliban) then we would have an equivalent science.How exactly do you know this? Not that it's especially relevant, since theocracies of any sort (much less Islamic ones) were not typical of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance in Western Europe. But I suspect that you are drawing a completely unsound comparison between Christianity and Islam.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
The problem with prevent that from success was that the clergy was too corrupt, letting secular groups eventually gain some power.Yet modern science was certainly founded in religious milieus, not by secular groups.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Other profession could be courtesan of some king or feudal lord.Strictly speaking, this might be true, but since a courtesan is a kind of prostitute I wonder if you didn't mean courtier.
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
What can be of value about scholastic? could you mention something?How about the invention of the scientific method? Lucifuge, would you please refer back to the multiple times in this thread that I have cited Edward Grant and David Lindberg, among others, on this very subject?

[Robin]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Strictly speaking, this might be true, but since a courtesan is a kind of prostitute I wonder if you didn't mean courtier.

Thanks, I didn't even spot that the wrong word had been used. I believe that courtiers were of high social standing in the first place so this would not have been an option for Oresme.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Says he, as the train he's on outraces all the others.

It's only a matter of time until that train is derailed, if the current trends continue. An alarming number of americans in the usa think that evolution is "just a theory" after all. Rome eventually fell, as great as it was.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Any trait that exists in a population can be selected for by natural selection.
Even heard of neutral mutations?


Also I would like to give you an example: Some people have a natural resistance to malaria. This is caused by a single copy of a specific gene. The resistance is the trait of the gene that was formed by mutation.

This gene also has a side-effect when two copies of the gene are present; death. You might want to claim it as a trait of combination but we both know that isn't the case.


Which might be why I further up stated that mutation was important?
You thought of it to be a minor contributer.

And actually, if you have an existing population you can get quite far with just crossover and selection.
You will get no new genes with just crossover and selection.


No, selection pressure alone does not cause genetic drift, as selection pressure merely remove gene-sets from the pool
And by doing so it determains the 'direction and vector' of evolution.

there needs to be a mechanism that can "respond" to the selection pressure and actually modify the gene-sets.
There is no need.

In species with two different sexes, the main mechanism that does that is the crossover of genes between the parents. This is easily demonstrated by simple simulations (genetic algorithms.) [/B]
Show me

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's only a matter of time until that train is derailed, if the current trends continue. An alarming number of americans in the usa think that evolution is "just a theory" after all. Rome eventually fell, as great as it was.

You know, if you'd asked me if the theory of evolution was "just a theory" I'd have to say "yes." After all, it is just a theory -- there's nothing magical about it that transcends its nature as a scientific theory.

Yes, it's a theory that's overwhelmingly held to be correct, as there is a huge amount of direct and indirect evidence backing it, and it is "just a theory" on the same level that general relativity or quantum theory are "just theories."

I'd still have to answer "yes" to the question.

That's some of the trouble with polls -- you never know if people answers what you asked or what you meant.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Well. I've been asked to give evidence about how religion delayed science in the middle ages. I can't understand why it's too hard to see that, if even now religion is trying to stop science whenever possible, in the middle ages, when they have total control of political institutions they haven't done the same.

Evidence of the delay and mortal opposition of science by religion is extense. I was afraid that the most complete source I have for this was only in print, and my copy is in spanish so I just have the time to traslate and put just a tiny percentage of the evidence. I was wrong, thanks god :P. I found online the definitive work of John William Draper, "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science". It's not a hard text to read, and is very well documented. Please go to
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper00.htm

to find the entire book. Specially see chapter X , "Latin Christianity in Relation to Modern Civilization." (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper10.htm), chapter II, "The Origin of Christianity. -- Its Transformation on Attaining Imperial Power. -- Its Relations to Science." (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper02.htm)

I have an excerpt jut to set the tone of the discussion:


At this time the bishopric of Alexandria was held by one Theophilus. An ancient temple of Osiris having been given to the Christians of the city for the site of a church, it happened that, in digging the foundation for the new edifice, the obscene symbols of the former worship chanced to be found. These, with more zeal than modesty, Theophilus exhibited in the market-place to public derision. With less forbearance than the Christian party showed when it was insulted in the theatre during the Trinitarian dispute, the pagans resorted to violence, and a riot ensued. They held the Serapion as their headquarters. Such were the disorder and bloodshed that the emperor had to interfere. He dispatched a rescript to Alexandria, enjoining the bishop, Theophilus, to destroy the Serapion; and the great library, which had been collected by the Ptolemies, and had escaped the fire of Julius Cæsar, was by that fanatic dispersed.



The bishopric thus held by Theophilus was in due time occupied by his nephew St. Cyril, who had commended himself to the approval of the Alexandrian congregations as a successful and fashionable preacher. It was he who had so much to do with the introduction of the worship of the Virgin Mary. His hold upon the audiences of the giddy city was, however, much weakened by Hypatia, the daughter of Theon, the mathematician, who not only distinguished herself by her expositions of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, but also by her comments on the writings of Apollonius and other geometers. Each day before her academy stood a long train of chariots; her lecture-room was crowded with the wealth and fashion of Alexandria. They came to listen to her discourses on those questions which man in all ages has asked, but which never yet have been answered: "What am I? Where am I? What can I know?"

Hypatia and Cyril! Philosophy and bigotry. They cannot exist together. So Cyril felt, and on that feeling he acted. As Hypatia repaired to her academy, she was assaulted by Cyril's mob -- a mob of many monks. Stripped naked in the street, she was dragged into a church, and there killed by the club of Peter the Reader. The corpse was cut to pieces, the flesh was scraped from the bones with shells, and the remnants cast into a fire. For this frightful crime Cyril was never called to account. It seemed to be admitted that the end sanctified the means.

So ended Greek philosophy in Alexandria, so came to an untimely close the learning that the Ptolemies had done so much to promote. The "Daughter Library," that of the Serapion, had been dispersed. The fate of Hypatia was a warning to all who would cultivate profane knowledge. Henceforth there was to be no freedom for human thought. Every one must think as the ecclesiastical authority ordered him, A. D. 414. In Athens itself philosophy awaited its doom. Justinian at length prohibited its teaching, and caused all its schools in that city to be closed.



While these events were transpiring in the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, the spirit that had produced them was displaying itself in the West. A British monk, who had assumed the name of Pelagius, passed through Western Europe and Northern Africa, teaching that death was not introduced into the world by the sin of Adam; that on the contrary he was necessarily and by nature mortal, and had he not sinned he would nevertheless have died; that the consequences of his sins were confined to himself, and did not affect his posterity. From these premises Pelagius drew certain important theological conclusions.

At Rome, Pelagius had been received with favor; at Carthage, at the instigation of St. Augustine, he was denounced. By a synod, held at Diospolis, he was acquitted of heresy, but, on referring the matter to the Bishop of Rome, Innocent I., he was, on the contrary, condemned. It happened that at this moment Innocent died, and his successor, Zosimus, annulled his judgment, and declared the opinions of Pelagius to be orthodox. These contradictory decisions are still often referred to by the opponents of papal infallibility. Things were in this state of confusion, when the wily African bishops, through the influence of Count Valerius, procured from the emperor an edict denouncing Pelagius as a heretic; he and his accomplices were condemned to exile and the forfeiture of their goods. To affirm that death was in the world before the fall of Adam, was a state crime.



It is very instructive to consider the principles on which this strange decision was founded. Since the question was purely philosophical, one might suppose that it would have been discussed on natural principles; instead of that, theological considerations alone were adduced. The attentive reader will have remarked, in Tertullian's statement of the principles of Christianity, a complete absence of the doctrines of original sin, total depravity, predestination, grace, and atonement. The intention of Christianity, as set forth by him, has nothing in common with the plan of salvation upheld two centuries subsequently. It is to St. Augustine, a Carthaginian, that we are indebted for the precision of our views on these important points.
By



For more than a thousand years Latin Christianity controlled the intelligence of Europe, and is responsible for the result.

That result is manifested by the condition of the city of Rome at the Reformation, and by the condition of the Continent of Europe in domestic and social life. -- European nations suffered under the coexistence of a dual government, a spiritual and a temporal. -- They were immersed in ignorance, superstition, discomfort. -- Explanation of the failure of Catholicism -- Political history of the papacy: it was transmuted from a spiritual confederacy into an absolute monarchy. -- Action of the College of Cardinals and the Curia -- Demoralization that ensued from the necessity of raising large revenues.

The advantages accruing to Europe during the Catholic rule arose not from direct intention, but were incidental.

The general result is, that the political influence of Catholicism was prejudicial to modern civilization.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Well. I've been asked to give evidence about how religion delayed science in the middle ages. I can't understand why it's too hard to see that, if even now religion is trying to stop science whenever possible, in the middle ages, when they have total control of political institutions they haven't done the same.You haven't even established the proposition that "even now religion is trying to stop science whenever possible."
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Evidence of the delay and mortal opposition of science by religion is extense. I was afraid that the most complete source I have for this was only in print, and my copy is in spanish so I just have the time to traslate and put just a tiny percentage of the evidence. I was wrong, thanks god :P. I found online the definitive work of John William Draper, "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science". It's not a hard text to read, and is very well documented. Please go to
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper00.htm

to find the entire book. Specially see chapter X , "Latin Christianity in Relation to Modern Civilization." (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper10.htm), chapter II, "The Origin of Christianity. -- Its Transformation on Attaining Imperial Power. -- Its Relations to Science." (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper02.htm)

I have an excerpt jut to set the tone of the discussion: You seem so earnest, Lucifuge, that I almost regret to inform you that the source you have cited is just another discredited piece of 19th-century polemic. Its author John Draper, incidentally, was a medical doctor, not a professional historian, and the absence of footnotes makes one wonder why you call it "very well documented".

"Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact, that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study" (source: Colin Russell, "The Conflict of Science and Religion", in Ferngren et al. (eds.), The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815316569) (Garland, 2000)).

Perhaps you could at least identify your supposed Spanish-language source for us - unless it was simply a Spanish translation of Draper's rubbish?