Sorry Lausten,
I do not share the energy you probably have to dive that deep into the history of science in the Middle Ages. I am not onto a crusade against all of Christianity, nor in favour of it. I think I represented the general view of historians, as e.g. expressed here].
I am an atheist and a humanist, but that does not mean that I must be an absolute anti-religionist.
I would suggest you discuss this with real historians, more or less the same way that somebody who found an error in relativity theory should discuss this with physicists, not with laymen, as most of us are in this forum. Why not discuss this directly with James Hannam?
This word “crusade", I don’t think you know what it means.
I hear your “general view" and note that it disregards how theology became so integrated into the early universities. It also ignores how and why schools like Cambridge or Oxford or the Sorbonne began. Not to mention the earliest forms of modern science like the Royal Society. Religion is hardly mentioned in their histories because it is irrelevant. This is not anti-religion, it’s separation from religion. When that happens, religions notice that people are doing just fine without them and start claiming that those were their ideas all along. An example of that was my opening post.
I am currently taking Richard Carrier’s online course “Naturalism as a Worldview". He and others are on a “crusade" to be accessible to people like me. Hannam does not appear to be quite as open, but at least he did engage in the online back-and-forth that I linked. Normally, scholars just write what they write, then others either confirm it by building on it, or write something else. Then it’s up to us to determine what’s up. Which, although sometimes difficult, is still much more interesting than taking a Junior High level “general view" as gospel.
You've been given multiple examples of how religion has been a vehicle for advancing society. This disproves your statement.You have been given multiple examples of how religion impedes society.So your claim that religion has been a vehicle for advancing society has not been proven. You see only part of the picture and look no further. Lois
This word “crusade", I don’t think you know what it means.I think I know very well what it means, and therefore I used it consciously.
An example of that was my opening post.In my eyes you did not give any example, because you have not referred to anybody who claims that Lemaitre discovered the big bang theory because he was a catholic priest. As a physicist he did a nice piece of work, which originally was not even recognised by Einstein. And his 'philosophy of science' was also clear, when he advised the pope not to proclaim the big bang as catholic dogma. (AFAIK it was a shock for many astronomers and physicists that the universe really would have a beginning. It was against the cosmological principle: 'on greater scales no time or place in the universe are special'. It turns out that there are special times.)
I am currently taking Richard Carrier’s online course “Naturalism as a Worldview". He and others are on a “crusade" to be accessible to people like me.Hmm. Carrier. He is also on the crusade of denying that there was a historical Jesus. His project seems to be the total deconstruction of Christianity. But is seems he has not much support in the academic world, has he?
If no one ever tried to use the fact that Lemaitre was a Christian as evidence for a positive connection between religion and science, then yes, my blog post would just be blowing in the wind. That you would deny that anyone has ever done that is extremely weird. Especially since you have claimed it is meaningful that other scientists were Christians in this very thread. You also skip over the importance of what the Pope said. The point is, theist send things up the flag pole, so to speak, and if they play well then they keep saying them. If not, they become things that only extremists say.
I could really care less about your opinion of the historical Jesus. As you’ve noted, you don’t care to spend much time on looking into facts or how history is proven.
If no one ever tried to use the fact that Lemaitre was a Christian as evidence for a positive connection between religion and science, then yes, my blog post would just be blowing in the wind.As long as you do not mention authors who do say so, I suspect it is just hot air, yes. But if you can mention a few authors I will stand corrected.
Especially since you have claimed it is meaningful that other scientists were Christians in this very thread.In the generality of your formulation I would never agree. What I am saying is that the cultural influence of Christianity played a role in the development of modern science. Of course it was mainly a negative one, but I think it is generally supposed by historians that without some of the elements of Christian theology science might not have developed in the West. (If you think that is contradictory, then read better what I wrote.)
You also skip over the importance of what the Pope said. The point is, theist send things up the flag pole, so to speak, and if they play well then they keep saying them. If not, they become things that only extremists say.Is it important? What is important that extremist Christians, especially in the US, do not accept scientific proven theories (big bang, evolution, AGW etc), and have so much influence on school curricula and politics. What should I care about some previous pope claiming too much honour for the discovery of physicist who also happened to be a catholic priest?
I could really care less about your opinion of the historical Jesus. As you’ve noted, you don’t care to spend much time on looking into facts or how history is proven.Not totally, of course. I read Ehrman's 'Did Jesus exist'. But I assume you think he is totally wrong...
I read Ehrman's 'Did Jesus exist'. But I assume you think he is totally wrong...No, you are wrong. I don’t think like you do, that someone is totally right or totally wrong. You’ve been accusing me of that from the beginning for no reason. I haven’t read Carrier’s latest, but he blogged that he came up with the chance of Jesus having been a real person somewhere around 20% (I don’t remember the exact number). That’s how history is done. It’s not like Physics where you can keep testing and increasing your accuracy.
What should I care about some previous pope claiming too much honour for the discovery of physicist who also happened to be a catholic priest?You said, “What I do find interesting is that Lemaitre told the pope not to make a Catholic dogma of the big bang." And I agree. That was my point. It is more important that the scientist schooled the theist (and not just any theist, The Pope), than it is that a scientist was also a priest. And, really, you’re making me google for you? CNN] Mentions a few authors] For believing Jews, the story of the Big Bang resonates perfectly with the story of creation told in Genesis] Both sides presented]
I haven’t read Carrier’s latest, but he blogged that he came up with the chance of Jesus having been a real person somewhere around 20% (I don’t remember the exact number).OK. Of course I don't know how one estimates chances in such cases, but I can live with the idea. If everybody would discuss this topic with the addition that they are not 100% sure, but tend to some idea being true, the discussion would not be so fierce as they often are.
You said, “What I do find interesting is that Lemaitre told the pope not to make a Catholic dogma of the big bang." And I agree. That was my point. It is more important that the scientist schooled the theist (and not just any theist, The Pope), than it is that a scientist was also a priest.Exactly. So what now is the 'distortion of truth'?
And, really, you’re making me google for you? CNN] Mentions a few authors] For believing Jews, the story of the Big Bang resonates perfectly with the story of creation told in Genesis] Both sides presented]In all these links, Lemaitre is only once mentioned in a listing of scientists that happened to be Christians by an anonymous commenter.
In all these links, Lemaitre is only once mentioned in a listing of scientists that happened to be Christians by an anonymous commenter.Okay, now you are just messing with me. Whether you know it or not. You complained about me making narrow definitions to make my arguments work, now you’re doing it. Wikipedia] Evidence for God] Quote: At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists] Happy?
If everybody would discuss this topic with the addition that they are not 100% sure, but tend to some idea being true, the discussion would not be so fierce as they often are.You are the one who made the ‘essentialistic’ and ‘crusade’ accusation. The whole point is that you don’t take one thing, like a theory about a beginning or what religious culture a scientist happened to be born into and turn it into a proof of God. I don't find it necessary to constantly repeat that I am not 100% certain, that is a basic tenant of reasonable conversation.
Exactly. So what now is the 'distortion of truth'?See links above
Okay, now you are just messing with me. Whether you know it or not. You complained about me making narrow definitions to make my arguments work, now you’re doing it.No no! I am not messing with you. I don't get your point, and it seems to me that is because you are moving your point again and again. Look at your first posting: you said that the fact that 'the “Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest' is a distortion of the truth. It just isn't! It is the truth! But of course he was not inspired by his belief when he got at the idea of the primeval atom. He had his own, physical arguments to pose his theory: Hubbles discovery of the expanding universe, and the possibility of an expanding universe given General Relativity. So Christians might draw wrong conclusions out of this fact, but it is a fact. And then you just come with listings of scientists who happened to be Christians? And really, some of the pages you linked are surely not the intellectual top of Christian theology, are they? Do you think it is useful to make intellectual arguments against them?
The whole point is that you don’t take one thing, like a theory about a beginning or what religious culture a scientist happened to be born into and turn it into a proof of God.Now I don't know what you are saying anymore. I am just saying that some of the elements in Christianity were necessary for modern science to develop. I just looked up my 'Shortest History of Europe' by John Hirst. Assuming that he reflects the general understanding of history among academic historians, he just makes my point. Now I have only the German translation, but freely translated back, he states that the Church kept many of the writings of the old Greeks for their rational insights that partially reflected Christian truth. They were useful as fingerpost to the truth and for discussing the truth. Greek philosophy served as support for Christianity (end of Chapter 1).
In fact, the priest who proposed the big bang theory came to his conclusion in spite of his religion, not because of it. Everything in his religion spoke against such a thing as the big bang instead of a godly creation all at once. He stepped putside of his religious beliefs to consider the big bang–more proof that religion impedes science, it does not inspire it.
Lois
Look at your first posting: you said that the fact that 'the “Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest' is a distortion of the truth. It just isn't! It is the truth!Maybe “twisting of the facts" would have been better words. The theory was proposed by an astronomer, based on the work of physicists. His previous job had nothing to do with it is the point. I’m not going to change this to a discussion about why I should or shouldn’t point out things that fundamentalists are doing wrong or whether or not it is fundamentalists only that are doing it. The original story is about the Pope. If you don’t consider the Pope is somewhere near the intellectual top of Christianity, then I don’t know where you’re coming from. So you say, “some of the elements in Christianity were necessary for modern science to develop", but then as evidence, “the Church kept many of the writings of the old Greeks for their rational insights that partially reflected Christian truth." So, were the Greek elements the necessary ones, and did they just happened to work for Christians, or did the Christians offer something? Of course they accepted things that are obviously true. You can only hold out against that for so long, and boy did they try. They couldn’t have suppressed every scientific insight. That wouldn’t be possible and it’s not necessary for me to counter every detail of every policy for the concept to remain true.
Maybe “twisting of the facts" would have been better words. The theory was proposed by an astronomer, based on the work of physicists. His previous job had nothing to do with it is the point.What do you mean 'previous job'? He never stopped being a priest. But obviously he was psychologically able to separate his two jobs. I don't know how he did it, but he did. he even became president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in later years. Maybe it would be interesting to read his writings. Might give nice arguments against fundamentalist Christians.
The original story is about the Pope. If you don’t consider the Pope is somewhere near the intellectual top of Christianity, then I don’t know where you’re coming from.Pope Pius XII was put astray by declaring that the Big Bang theory proved that there was a creator. But he let himself be corrected. By Lemaître.
So you say, “some of the elements in Christianity were necessary for modern science to develop", but then as evidence, “the Church kept many of the writings of the old Greeks for their rational insights that partially reflected Christian truth." So, were the Greek elements the necessary ones, and did they just happened to work for Christians, or did the Christians offer something?Can it be that more than one factor are necessary conditions? This is just an error in your thinking, to look for the single one 'necessary factor'. From the contents, yes, the Greek elements were necessary, but it was also necessary that the Greek writings were conserved. They were conserved by Christianity (and by the Muslim world, of course), because some of the theologians saw something valuable in them. Why? I mentioned it already several times: because those theologians wanted to know God better by studying nature, and the Greeks were their guides how to do this.
Everything in his religion spoke against such a thing as the big bang instead of a godly creation all at once.This is completely wrong. A lot of Christians welcomed the idea because they saw the Big Bang as the moment of Creation. As you see in my reaction to Lausten, the pope Pius XII even wanted to make a dogma of it. Of course it was not the creation as it was described in the bible, but at least there seemed to be a 'magical beginning'. Good place and time for postulating a creator. In the beginning there was a lot of resistance in the scientific community against the idea of the expansion having a beginning. In the first place because it was against the cosmological principle regarding not living in a special time; in the second place the atheist scientists saw the problem that Christians might run away with it. In that those scientists were right, they actually do, but the scientific community accepted the Big Bang theory, because in the end it is still the best theory that explains the observations.
Can it be that more than one factor are necessary conditions? This is just an error in your thinking, to look for the single one 'necessary factor'. From the contents, yes, the Greek elements were necessary, but it was also necessary that the Greek writings were conserved. They were conserved by Christianity (and by the Muslim world, of course), because some of the theologians saw something valuable in them. Why? I mentioned it already several times: because those theologians wanted to know God better by studying nature, and the Greeks were their guides how to do this.We can definitely agree that there are many factors. I probably have been less than clear that I think that. History does not support your statement that Greek writings were conserved. The Greek schools were closed and the scholars and books were forced to the East. I haven't been able to find an exact accounting, but just about any source on the subject will note that the Christians were working with a subset and the lack of education made them unreadable by almost everyone anyone. It was not until the Reconquista, the wars where Christians took over Muslim Spain, that we got those works back.
Everything in his religion spoke against such a thing as the big bang instead of a godly creation all at once.This is completely wrong. A lot of Christians welcomed the idea because they saw the Big Bang as the moment of Creation. As you see in my reaction to Lausten, the pope Pius XII even wanted to make a dogma of it. Of course it was not the creation as it was described in the bible, but at least there seemed to be a 'magical beginning'. Good place and time for postulating a creator. In the beginning there was a lot of resistance in the scientific community against the idea of the expansion having a beginning. In the first place because it was against the cosmological principle regarding not living in a special time; in the second place the atheist scientists saw the problem that Christians might run away with it. In that those scientists were right, they actually do, but the scientific community accepted the Big Bang theory, because in the end it is still the best theory that explains the observations. Christians may have welconed the idea but the church did not. The church did not formally accept that the earth revolved around the sun for 500 years. I think we have to distinguish between Christians and the church. Individual Christians DID advance science--but they did it by disregarding the church's teachings--something they could not avoid if they wanted to practice science. That doesn't mean they gave up their faith, only that they trimmed it to suit their pursuit of science. The church's teachings have been and remain anti science. Yes, they've come around in later years, albeit kicking and screaming, on a few issues, but they're sill dragging their feet. This is why my position is that religion did not inspire science. It has always stood in the way as long as it could. If there had been no Christians who decided to think independently, outside the church's teachings, there would be no Christians practicing science and making scientific discoveries. Lois
History does not support your statement that Greek writings were conserved.No? Greek philosophy that fitted Christianity best was conserved, like many writings of Plato and Neoplatonists. Aristotle was very much lost, yes, but it came back through... Muslisms? So Aristotle survived thanks to Muslim intellectuals, and when it was rediscovered by Christianity, and it was immediate tried to reconcile the revelation with Aristotle's rationality. Of course, Aristotle first rocketed after he was read without the ballast of Christianity, but Christianity definitely played a role in its reception in the western world.
I think we have to distinguish between Christians and the church.We have to distinguish between several topics that are discussed here in this thread. Topic1: Lemaître I think we all agree here. There was no intellectual impetus of Lemaître's Catholicism to his scientific research. Topic2: Can Christianity be an inspiration of science? This is more or less a philosophical question. Trying to rephrase the question a little in Lausten's gust: can a world view that contains belief in supernatural entities and/or processes inspire science, that does not contain such a belief at all. My answer is clear: of course it can. If a religious world view contains more than just supernatural elements, than one can possibly study these natural elements without reference to the supernatural elements. There is absolutely no logical contradiction. And if one thinks that one can get better insight in the doings of a creator by studying the natural world, his creation, then your 'research' is inspired by your belief. Topic3: Was Christianity an inspiration of science? That is a historical question, not a philosophical one. So it is not something you can just have an opinion about. If you have an opinion about it, then it must be based on historical facts, checked and counter checked by peers. Or you are a layperson, and you take the historic consensus fro granted. (Which is my position, I am a layperson on this topic. But I do know something about the history of philosophy, and funny enough, some of the greater names under theologians are also known as philosophers, and even funnier, are also mentioned in history of science. That should ring a bell.) AFAIK it is still a consensus between historians that Christian theology contained elements that in the end made it into science. So that is not to say that it was science, but that without this tendency of trying to understand God and his creation rationally, science might not have gotten into existence. There is no contradiction with this proposition, and the fact that Christianity mostly opposed scientific tendencies.
I am not aware of any scientific consensus on this matter. That’s what makes it fun to discuss. Most of the rest of what you’re saying is repetition of earlier posts, so I’m just picking one thing to respond to for now.
How do you know that specific Greek texts were selected because of some best fit? Is there any record of this selection process? Anything about why those were selected and not others? Any record of even an awareness that there were other texts? I don’t know of any evidence for that. Instead, we know they were indiscriminately destroying “pagan" texts. They were ceasing to learn from or teach from them.
Do you even know what the term “Neoplatonist" means? Those who taught it didn’t call themselves that. They were teaching from a limited set of texts, but they didn’t know that. The term was applied to them much later when all of Plato’s works were understood as a whole and compared to the “wrong" teaching of the Neoplatonists.
If something was destroyed, then obviously we can’t know what that was. Unless of course it was not completely destroyed. 700 hundred years ago a monk erased a rare work from Archimedes because he needed some paper for a prayer book. But with modern methods, we recovered it.] So we know this got into the hands of Christians and they saw no value in it. Do you believe this is some sort of anomaly?
I am not aware of any scientific consensus on this matter. That’s what makes it fun to discuss.I think for you it is not fun. Crusades are no fun. And I already mentioned an introductory work of history above that just makes my point, and I am not aware that many historians protested against Hirst's description of the role of Christianity in the development of Western culture.
Most of the rest of what you’re saying is repetition of earlier posts,.Yes, of course, because you deliver also the same kind of arguments again and again. Say we have a set of 2 different colours of marbles: red and green. The majority is red. Now I say that a few are green, and then you go on giving examples of red marbles. Now it turns out that the green ones can change colour and become blue. I notice this, but you say, no, and give another example of a red marble.
How do you know that specific Greek texts were selected because of some best fit? .Because it makes sense: Augustine, living in the 4th century was influenced by Neoplatonists. So their writings were known and used by him. Most of the works of Plato were known during the middle ages. Aristotles ideas were much more difficult to integrate with Christianity than Plato's, and his works were lost. But when they were rediscovered, they were again picked up by theologians, made to new syntheses, that even made it to Catholic dogmas (Thoams Aquinas). And you say Christianity played no role in the survival of Greek writings? Were the Greek works rediscovered during the Renaissance, or mainly re-read with fresh eyes?
Do you even know what the term “Neoplatonist" means?I used to like the visions of Plotinus very much during my course in Greek philosophy at university when I was a student of philosophy, yes, thank you for asking.
Those who taught it didn’t call themselves that. They were teaching from a limited set of texts, but they didn’t know that. The term was applied to them much later when all of Plato’s works were understood as a whole and compared to the “wrong" teaching of the Neoplatonists.Has this any meaning in our discussion, except displaying your in-depth knowledge of ancient history?
If something was destroyed, then obviously we can’t know what that was. Unless of course it was not completely destroyed. 700 hundred years ago a monk erased a rare work from Archimedes because he needed some paper for a prayer book. But with modern methods, we recovered it.] So we know this got into the hands of Christians and they saw no value in it. Do you believe this is some sort of anomaly?And here you go again. Another red marble. Sorry Lausten, I don't have the persevering energy and interest in this discussion, I just notice that it is against everything I learned, partially in Academia, partially from other main stream sources. If you are right, it will eventually make it to a consensus between historians, I'll wait for that. Good luck.