I am not disputing that in days of old the majority of scientific inquiry was done by religious people. But if everyone is religious, it is to be expected that any invention or discovery was made by a religious person. But IMO, as long as a religious person entertains the concept a talking burning bush, I would say their claim that religion has been beneficial to science is misleading and presumptuous.How about the concept of the Big Bang and the singularity with infinite density, temperature, gravity and zero volume?
I'm fairly certain you have no idea or care what I meant. But you continue to demonstrait it.Can you please explain what you meant?
In the internet age since Web 2.0, it has become a standard of communication. As such it replaces the need for building own arguments. :cheese: Sorry, could not resist...Hi, GdB. The same old GdB. Sorry, could not resist.......:lol:
Quoting GdB:Try to randomly copy and paste unthinkingly. :cheese:As such it replaces the need for building own arguments.And becomes a substitute for thinking.
If this debate actually interests you beyond just looking up bad versions of it in Wikipedia, here is an exchange by two heavy hitters, Charles Freeman and James Hannam.] Hannam is on kkwan’s side and Freeman points out how he writes an entire book on the subject but manages to ignore much of the evidence. I read God’s Philosophers and enjoyed it but had a vague feeling something was missing. With regards to the Scholastics, Freeman quotes Edward grant,"Bad versions of it in wikipedia"? Not so. From this review of James Hannam"s "God's Philosophers" here]The theological community tended to be isolated and so, as Grant puts it, “By the end of the Middle Ages, scholastic logic had become virtually unintelligible to anyone not immersed in its strange juxtapositions of words and bizarre sentences it used as examples". (12) Hannam tells us nothing of this. The best argument that can be made for scholasticism is that it fostered techniques of argument and analysis that could be transferred into new contexts. (Although I still have to find a work that shows that the reasoning of scientists in the seventeenth century can be traced back directly to scholastic logic – they seemed to work within the very different context of empiricism.)He says lots lots more and there is a response from Hannam and a response back. Something we as mere mortal readers of history don’t get to see often.
One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.Hoary old myth:
So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena. The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness.Proper unbiased research:
Hannam sketches how polemicists like Thomas Huxley, John William Draper, and Andrew Dickson White, all with their own anti-Christian axes to grind, managed to shape the still current idea that the Middle Ages was devoid of science and reason. And how it was not until real historians bothered to question the polemicists through the work of early pioneers in the field like Pierre Duhem, Lynn Thorndike, and the author of my astrolabe book, Robert T. Gunther, that the distortions of the axe-grinders began to be corrected by proper, unbiased research. That work has now been completed by the current crop of modern historians of science like David C. Lindberg, Ronald Numbers, and Edward Grant.Dead conflict thesis and atheists:
In the academic sphere, at least, the "Conflict Thesis" of a historical war between science and theology has been long since overturned. It is very odd that so many of my fellow atheists cling so desperately to a long-dead position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century polemicists and not the careful research of recent, objective, peer-reviewed historians. This is strange behavior for people who like to label themselves "rationalists".Rationalism and Charles Freeman:
Speaking of rationalism, the critical factor that the myths obscure is precisely how rational intellectual inquiry in the Middle Ages was. While writers like Charles Freeman continue to lumber along, claiming that Christianity killed the use of reason, the fact is that thanks to Clement of Alexandria and Augustine's encouragement of the use of pagan philosophy, and Boethius' translations of works of logic by Aristotle and others, rational inquiry was one intellectual jewel that survived the catastrophic collapse of the Western Roman Empire and was preserved through the so-called Dark Ages. Edward Grant's superb God and Reason in the Middle Ages details this with characteristic vigor, but Hannam gives a good summary of this key element in his first four chapters.From the conclusion:
That aside, this is a marvelous book and a brilliant, readable, and accessible antidote to "the Myth". It should be on the Christmas wish-list of any Medievalist, science history buff, or anyone who has a misguided friend who still thinks the nights in the Middle Ages were lit by burning scientists.Do take the time to read it in full with an open mind to get a balanced perspective.
I'm fairly certain you have no idea or care what I meant. But you continue to demonstrait it.Can you please explain what you meant? Well wiki says: Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they're saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they're saying at the moment, and anything they've previously said. Consequently, “the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong.".[1] He simply doesn't care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie, while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda. Bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies.[2]
How does stating that most people have a distorted sense of history help your argument kkwan? You and I disagree on the history, so either one us of claiming that others are confused adds nothing. You can say some myth has been overturned, but after a week of posting that, I would hope you could actually point to something that provides evidence for it. I already agreed that White and Draper have flaws, but you have to examine what are the actual flaws and what was correct.
You quote this “and Boethius’ translations of works of logic by Aristotle and others, rational inquiry was one intellectual jewel that survived the catastrophic collapse “ Exactly how did that work? Look up Neo-Platonism, the period in the West when they were working an incomplete set of Plato’s works. Also, how did Europeans rediscover those works? Through the translations from Arabic into Latin. In other words, Europeans didn’t want or didn’t care about the Greek philosophers while the Arab world was devouring them and expanding on them.
Europeans had lost the ability to read the Greek. They had some of the Greek works, but apparently weren’t too interested in them. Show me the principles Clement of Alexaxndria and Augustine used from those works, not just a statement that they did.
I told you, I read the entire book. How would reading the review enlighten me further? The problem with Hannam is he cherry picks history. If you read him, and only him, you will not have all the facts needed to get the whole picture.
Well wiki says: Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they're saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they're saying at the moment, and anything they've previously said. Consequently, “the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong.".[1] He simply doesn't care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie, while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda. Bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies.[2]What wiki? Kindly cite the relevant wiki article where you took the quotation from and explain why the quotation is germane in the context of this discussion, otherwise it can considered as abusive ad hominem.
Well wiki says: Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they're saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they're saying at the moment, and anything they've previously said. Consequently, “the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong.".[1] He simply doesn't care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie, while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda. Bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies.[2]What wiki? Kindly cite the relevant wiki article where you took the quotation from and explain why the quotation is germane in the context of this discussion, otherwise it can considered as abusive ad hominem. That's amazing, and I just figured Handydan made it up. The number of edits and attention to detail in this article is impressive.] And kkwan, you've exposed that you don't bother to look up other people's work. You are treating wikipedia like a source, but it is only a collection of other sources. Conclusions drawn in it are only the consensus of those who care enough to edit a particular page. They are not a substitute for scholarly consensus.
How does stating that most people have a distorted sense of history help your argument kkwan? You and I disagree on the history, so either one us of claiming that others are confused adds nothing. You can say some myth has been overturned, but after a week of posting that, I would hope you could actually point to something that provides evidence for it. I already agreed that White and Draper have flaws, but you have to examine what are the actual flaws and what was correct.It is not "a distorted sense of history", whatever it means. It is the distorted view of the history of science which influenced and misguided many people to the wrong conclusions.
Europeans had lost the ability to read the Greek. They had some of the Greek works, but apparently weren’t too interested in them. Show me the principles Clement of Alexaxndria and Augustine used from those works, not just a statement that they did.Where is the evidence that "Europeans had lost the ability to read the Greek"?
I told you, I read the entire book. How would reading the review enlighten me further? The problem with Hannam is he cherry picks history. If you read him, and only him, you will not have all the facts needed to get the whole picture.When did you tell me you read the entire book? The review was written by an atheist. :cheese: Where is the evidence that James Hannam "cherry picks history"? BTW, from the wiki here]
The book was published in the UK in 2009 by Icon Books Ltd. (ISBN 978-1848310704) and is included in the short list for the Royal Society's 2010 Science Book Prize. The US edition was published in 2011 by Regnery Press under the title The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. In 2011 the book was shortlisted for the Dingle Prize of the British Society for the History of Science.[3]If the book was so distorted and biased, why would the Royal Society and the British Society for the History of Science short list it for prizes? Who is James Hannam? From the website here]
James Hannam has a physics degree from the University of Oxford and a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge.And his website here]
“This period has been poorly documented, and I think this makes HannamÂ’s account all the more extraordinary. It is engaging, informative and I heartily recommend it." NatureMore reviews:
The Genesis of Science is written by a historian with degrees in physics and history from Oxford and London universities. The author also has a PhD in the history of science from the University of Cambridge. It is based on the author’s own research as well as highly regarded academic work by the world’s leading historians of medieval science such as David Lindberg, Edward Grant, William A Wallace, Alan Debus, John North, Lynn Thorndike, Anneliese Maier and Lynn White. This is the first history of medieval science intended for the lay reader and makes available the exciting developments in modern scholarship.You can see and hear him on youtube here] Disclaimer: I have no vested interest to promote his book at all. :)
That's amazing, and I just figured Handydan made it up. The number of edits and attention to detail in this article is impressive.] And kkwan, you've exposed that you don't bother to look up other people's work. You are treating wikipedia like a source, but it is only a collection of other sources. Conclusions drawn in it are only the consensus of those who care enough to edit a particular page. They are not a substitute for scholarly consensus.Thank you for the link to the wiki which Handydan did not provide. How am I supposed to know that? Nonetheless, from the wiki here]
His major areas of interest include moral philosophy, philosophy of mind and action, and 17th century rationalism. His 1986 paper On Bullshit, a philosophical investigation of the concept of "bullshit", was republished as a book in 2005 and became a surprise bestseller, leading to media appearances such as Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. In 2006 he released a companion book, On Truth, which explores society's loss of appreciation for truth.A philosophical investigation of the concept of "bullshit"? One must be very gullible to take it seriously at all. :lol: Generally, wikipedia's articles are well written and comprehensive with detailed notes etc. and there are no compelling reasons not to consider them as a source of reliable knowledge. OTOH, where is the "scholarly consensus"?
When did you tell me you read the entire book?Post 38. Again, do you understand searching?
Where is the evidence that James Hannam "cherry picks history"?In the link I provided in post 38. And read a different book, like Freeman’s A.D. 381 and read about the things that Hannam left out. Richard Carrier provides a much shorter chapter in The Christian Delusion with lists of scientists before the 4th century. Don't expect me to spoon feed this to you since you can't even trouble yourself to type "Hannam" in the search box above.
If the book was so distorted and biased, why would the Royal Society and the British Society for the History of Science short list it for prizes?That is the entire point of the link I provided.
OTOH, where is the “scholarly consensus"?You can’t just look up “scholarly consensus". There’s no website for that. You have to read enough scholars and judge for yourself. Sometimes it’s easy, like someone will say 99% of articles published in the last two years agree. Other times, like this very issue, you are more likely to come across scholars claiming there is no consensus.
Post 38. Again, do you understand searching?This is what you wrote in post 38:
If this debate actually interests you beyond just looking up bad versions of it in Wikipedia, here is an exchange by two heavy hitters, Charles Freeman and James Hannam. Hannam is on kkwan’s side and Freeman points out how he writes an entire book on the subject but manages to ignore much of the evidence. I read God’s Philosophers and enjoyed it but had a vague feeling something was missing.Bold added by me. Did I not understand searching with that written at the end of the paragraph? You should have mentioned post 38 when you wrote "I told you, I read the entire book" in post 46 and if I did not find it, then and only then, can you accuse me of not understanding searching. Devious. :-)
In the link I provided in post 38. And read a different book, like Freeman’s A.D. 381 and read about the things that Hannam left out. Richard Carrier provides a much shorter chapter in The Christian Delusion with lists of scientists before the 4th century. Don't expect me to spoon feed this to you since you can't even trouble yourself to type "Hannam" in the search box above.From the wiki on Charles Freeman here]
Charles Freeman is a scholar and freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome.Freelance historian? :cheese: Education:
He studied law at Trinity College, Cambridge, and after graduation spent a year teaching in Sudan.With Law, no education in science and a freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome, is he competent to criticize James Hannam at all?
You can’t just look up “scholarly consensus". There’s no website for that. You have to read enough scholars and judge for yourself. Sometimes it’s easy, like someone will say 99% of articles published in the last two years agree. Other times, like this very issue, you are more likely to come across scholars claiming there is no consensus.:lol:
Post 38. Again, do you understand searching?This is what you wrote in post 38:
If this debate actually interests you beyond just looking up bad versions of it in Wikipedia, here is an exchange by two heavy hitters, Charles Freeman and James Hannam. Hannam is on kkwan’s side and Freeman points out how he writes an entire book on the subject but manages to ignore much of the evidence. I read God’s Philosophers and enjoyed it but had a vague feeling something was missing.Bold added by me. Did I not understand searching with that written at the end of the paragraph? You should have mentioned post 38 when you wrote "I told you, I read the entire book" in post 46 and if I did not find it, then and only then, can you accuse me of not understanding searching. That might be your expectation, but I expect that if I say something that implies you should have known it and the evidence should be in your memory, it is your responsibility to either recall it, search the thread for it, or be a little more humble that you forgot it or missed it.
In the link I provided in post 38. And read a different book, like Freeman’s A.D. 381 and read about the things that Hannam left out. Richard Carrier provides a much shorter chapter in The Christian Delusion with lists of scientists before the 4th century. Don't expect me to spoon feed this to you since you can't even trouble yourself to type "Hannam" in the search box above.
From the wiki on Charles Freeman here]Okay, you are relying on authorities, and bad ones at that. First claiming that wikipedia is an authority then picking other random criteria to make your case. You have no desire to the check the facts of anything you have said, so I should stop caring about what you say. Love the way you attack Freeman and ignore Carrier. Did you think I would miss that?Charles Freeman is a scholar and freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome.Freelance historian? :cheese: Education:He studied law at Trinity College, Cambridge, and after graduation spent a year teaching in Sudan.With Law, no education in science and a freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome, is he competent to criticize James Hannam at all?
Well wiki says: Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they're saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they're saying at the moment, and anything they've previously said. Consequently, “the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong.".[1] He simply doesn't care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie, while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda. Bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies.[2]What wiki? Kindly cite the relevant wiki article where you took the quotation from and explain why the quotation is germane in the context of this discussion, otherwise it can considered as abusive ad hominem. Can you please define completely each and every word in your request? You know, so it is clear?
That might be your expectation, but I expect that if I say something that implies you should have known it and the evidence should be in your memory, it is your responsibility to either recall it, search the thread for it, or be a little more humble that you forgot it or missed it.Must I read through all your posts to look for one sentence? Just be specific and mention the post where you wrote that, is sufficient.
Okay, you are relying on authorities, and bad ones at that. First claiming that wikipedia is an authority then picking other random criteria to make your case. You have no desire to the check the facts of anything you have said, so I should stop caring about what you say.Bold added by me. Prejudice, Lausten.
Love the way you attack Freeman and ignore Carrier. Did you think I would miss that?No, I don't. Wrt to Richard Carrier, from the wiki here]
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an author, trained historian, and blogger, and one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory.What is the Christ myth theory? From the wiki here]
The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[1]Richard Carrier:
One of the new leading advocates of atheism and the Jesus myth theory is Richard Carrier (born 1969). He obtained a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University 2008 and has authored several books including Sense and Goodness without God in 2005, Why I Am Not a Christian in 2011 and Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus in 2012.I enjoyed reading "Why I am not a Christian" but notwithstanding that, with no education in science and a PhD in ancient history, is he, like Freeman, competent to criticize James Hannam?
Can you please define completely each and every word in your request? You know, so it is clear?:lol:
I enjoyed reading "Why I am not a Christian" but notwithstanding that, with no education in science and a PhD in ancient history, is he, like Freeman, competent to criticize James Hannam?He is. You are not competent to either criticize or praise either one of them.
Here’s a question kkwan, in post #31 you pasted a paragraph about Christians in the 14th century and Muslims around or slightly before that time. So what is similar about those two philosophies/religions that leads to science?
Well wiki says: Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they're saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they're saying at the moment, and anything they've previously said. Consequently, “the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong.".[1] He simply doesn't care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth of the matter under discussion in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie, while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda. Bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies.[2]What wiki? Kindly cite the relevant wiki article where you took the quotation from and explain why the quotation is germane in the context of this discussion, otherwise it can considered as abusive ad hominem. That's amazing, and I just figured Handydan made it up. The number of edits and attention to detail in this article is impressive.] And kkwan, you've exposed that you don't bother to look up other people's work. You are treating wikipedia like a source, but it is only a collection of other sources. Conclusions drawn in it are only the consensus of those who care enough to edit a particular page. They are not a substitute for scholarly consensus. It's not from Wikipedia but from a book published by Princeton University Press : On Bullshit, by Harry G Frankfurt. Anyone who has a problem reading it can have someone read it to him, perhaps as a bedtime story. press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html. (CFI Forums insists this is spam, so precede it with http, a colon and two forward slashes.)