He is. You are not competent to either criticize or praise either one of them.
Are you competent to assert that Richard Carrier is? :cheese:
However, we would expect that someone who writes on the history of science should have some qualification in science and the history of science as well, to be credible, which neither Freeman nor Carrier have, but James Hannam has.
From 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. He writes on the pre-modern and early modern history of science and religion. His first book God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science was published by Icon in 2009 and his articles have appeared in several publications including the Spectator, the Mail on Sunday and History Today. He has also contributed to various academic journals.
He is currently working on a book on the destruction of EnglandÂ’s medieval heritage during the period of the Reformation.
Dr Hannam is a member of the Science and Religion Forum and the British Society for the History of Science.
Thus, we are justified to question the credibilities both Freeman and Carrier wrt their competence and their criticisms of James Hannam.
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?
Post 31 was posted by Lois, not me.
It was in my post 30 whereby the two paragraphs were quoted by me from the wiki on the History of science here]
From the introduction of the wiki:
More recent historical interpretations, such as those of Thomas Kuhn, tend to portray the history of science in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science.[2]
IOW, diverse philosophies/religions, intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science led to the emergence of science.
Wrt the dawn of modern science:
While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is often traced back to the early modern period and in particular to the scientific revolution that took place in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. Scientific methods are considered to be so fundamental to modern science that some consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific.[3] Traditionally, historians of science have defined science sufficiently broadly to include those inquiries.[4]
Still a little vague about what you think causes what. I agree that wonder for the natural world springs up just about anywhere and something like a scientific method requires a more fertile cultural background, but simply listing some other systems doesn’t tell us much. I’m not clear what “Scientific methods are considered to be so fundamental to modern science that some consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific." is trying to say. To me, science is defined by the use of the method, so of course it is “fundamental to" it.
And you keep jumping around. The reasons for the rise of scientific reasoning, methods and practice is slightly different in China, Ancient Greece, The Islamic Golden Age and Western Europe. I think we agree that the term “modern science" applies only to the 17th forward. The reasons why science failed to continue to rise in all but the most recent case also vary.
Since you haven’t done much but cut and paste since you said “science and religion co-evolved", I’m not sure what you think.
Another credible historian of science is Ronald Numbers.
From the wiki here]
Ronald L. Numbers (born 1942) is an American historian of science. He was awarded the 2008 George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society for "a lifetime of exceptional scholarly achievement by a distinguished scholar".[1]
Biography:
Numbers is the son of a Seventh-day Adventist preacher, and was a Seventh-day Adventist in his youth,[1] but now describes himself as agnostic.[2] He became a leading scholar in the history of science and religion and an authority on the history of creationism and creation science.
Numbers received his Ph.D. in history of science from University of California, Berkeley in 1969. Currently he is Hilldale and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. From 1989 to 1993 he was editor of Isis, an international journal of the history of science. With David Lindberg, he has co-edited two anthologies on the relationship between religion and science. Also with Lindberg, he is currently editing the 8-volume Cambridge History of Science.
From his lecture on the "Myths and truth in Science and Religion: A historical perspective" at the University of Cambridge here]
Draper ignored or discounted the scientific contributions of many devout Catholics, from Copermicus and Galileo to Galvani and Pasteur. Only recently we have got a very good study of Catholicism and early modern science from John Heilbron, whose prize-winning study The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories argues that the Roman Catholic church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other – and probably all other – institutions. What would we have done without the Catholic Church?
And:
No scientist to my knowledge, or to the knowledge of friends of mine who work on the history of the scientific revolution, ever lost his life because of his scientific views, though the Italian Inquisition did incinerate the sixteenth-century Copernicun Giordano Bruno – but for his heretical views about the divinity or non-divinity of Christ, not because he believed in the infinity of the world or because he was a Copermicun. He argued that Christ had no human body and that his death on the cross was merely an illusion, which got some church authorities a little upset with him. He had other heretical notions as well.
Galileo:
In contrast to the frequently repeated stories about the torture and imprisonment of Galileo, we now know that he was apparently never physically tortured – he may have experienced a fair amount of mental anguish, but never physically tortured. He left Florence for Rome in 1633. When he arrived in Rome – this was for his trial – he stayed initially at the Tuscan Embassy, rather than in prison or at the offices of the Inquisition. The few days that he spent inside the Vatican during his trial were not passed in a cell but in a special three-room apartment made available for him as an honoured guest by one of the priests there with the Inquisition, and to make life as comfortable as possible they allowed him to get his meals prepared by the chef at the Italian Embassy and brought over to this “non-cell". After his condemnation he was not incarcerated but
placed under house arrest, first at the Villa Medici in Rome, then at the Palace of the Archbishop in Sienna where he stayed for quite a while, and then finally in his own villa outside of Florence. I don’t think any one of us would love to be under house arrest for any period of time, although that was far from the fate that befell him according to so many popular studies of Galileo.
Do read the whole lecture. It is educational and enlightening.
No scientist to my knowledge, or to the knowledge of friends of mine who work on the history of the scientific revolution, ever lost his life because of his scientific views, though the Italian Inquisition did incinerate the sixteenth-century Copernicun Giordano Bruno – but for his heretical views about the divinity or non-divinity of Christ, not because he believed in the infinity of the world or because he was a Copermicun. He argued that Christ had no human body and that his death on the cross was merely an illusion, which got some church authorities a little upset with him. He had other heretical notions as well.
Oh well, my bad. If he was being a heretic, then he should definitely be burned.
From a historian]
“This was at a time when the ascendant Christian church was shutting down the ancient academies and destroying libraries and books as part of its totalistic war against pagan culture. ‘The burning of books,’ Luciano Canfora notes, ‘was part of the advent and imposition of Christianity.’"
After the ascension of Emperor Constantine, Christianity becoming the official religion of the realm, “Rome’s twenty-eight public libraries ‘like tombs were closed forever,’ laments the noted fourth -century pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus. In pagan times, the Romans boasted libraries of up to 500,000 volumes. But under Christian hegemony, laypersons were regularly forbidden access to books, the profession of copyist disappeared, and so did most secular writings." (Parenti)
Though the writing of Roman history was “a time honored task" undertaken by many, the record was largely erased by “systematic campaigns waged by the Jesus proselytes against library archives, secular learning, and literacy in general."
And the Bible
18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. 19 A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.
Book Acts, Chapter 19
Another historian]
There are innumerable medieval examples of Christian book burning; the philosopher Peter Abelard was forced by a synod council to burn his own book (offering a rationalistic explanation of the doctrine of the trinity) in 1121. In France the works of the heretical Cathars were burned in the thirteenth century, along with the works of the Jewish philosopher Maimonides and the Talmud.
At let’s not forget the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, started in 1559 and finally abolished in 1966. ]
Other noteworthy intellectual figures on the Index include Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, André Gide, Emanuel Swedenborg,Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, René Descartes, Francis Bacon, Thomas Browne, John Milton, John Locke, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal and Hugo Grotius.
Oh well, my bad. If he was being a heretic, then he should definitely be burned.
He was burned:
for his heretical views about the divinity or non-divinity of Christ, not because he believed in the infinity of the world or because he was a Copermicun. He argued that Christ had no human body and that his death on the cross was merely an illusion, which got some church authorities a little upset with him. He had other heretical notions as well.
Who is Richard Rhames and why is he writing history in counterpunch.org, a political website?
A google search for Richard Rhames, historian, came up with Maines farmer, activist, progressive populist but no historian.
Smirkingchimp.com..."News and commentary from the vast left-wing conspiracy" :cheese:
From the same website:
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900.
From the same paragraph you quoted from in the wiki:
Charles Darwin's works were notably never included.[70]
From the introduction:
Some of the scientific theories in works that were on early editions of the Index have long been routinely taught at Catholic universities worldwide; for example in 1758 the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index was finally removed, but already in 1742 two Franciscan mathematicians had published an edition of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) with commentaries and a preface stating that the work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without it.[9] The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno,[10] whose entire works were placed on the Index on 8 February 1600,[11] was because of teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views.[12][13][14] Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, one of whose works was on the Index, was beatified in 2007.[15] In 2002, a retired Roman Catholic bishop gave his personal approval to the writings of Maria Valtorta, which had been placed on the Index in 1960[16] (though never in a printed edition, since the last such edition was published in 1948) and which have still not been given official Church approval.[17][18] The developments since the abolition of the Index signify "the loss of relevance of the Index in the 21st century."[19]
And that's okay with you? That doesn't say anything to you about their willingness to hear other opinions or their being threatened by them? Who else did that? I realize Newton had some tools of alchemy in his lab, but he didn't have tools of torture that I know of.
A google search for Richard Rhames, historian, came up with Maines farmer, activist, progressive populist but no historian.
There are two historians quoted in the quote I provided. Rhymes can quote people just like you do. His ability to write an article can be judged on the truth of what he includes. He includes facts, easily checked, unlike you who quotes conclusions and leaves out facts.
The Bible is not history.
I included that to show that the authoritative book of one of the major religions you have been defending has no problem with burning books.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900.
Is he competent wrt the history of science?
Again, check facts, quit asking me to vet everyone
Charles Darwin's works were notably never included.[70]
So, they banned books 400 years, and continue to warn against them despite not maintaining this particular list, but because they took a pass on this particular, very recent scientist, their entire history of suppressing knowledge is wiped clean? Is that what you are saying?
From the introduction:
Some of the scientific theories in works that were on early editions of the Index have long been routinely taught at Catholic universities worldwide; for example in 1758 the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index was finally removed, but already in 1742 two Franciscan mathematicians had published an edition of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) with commentaries and a preface stating that the work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without it.[9] The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno,[10] whose entire works were placed on the Index on 8 February 1600,[11] was because of teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views.[12][13][14] Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, one of whose works was on the Index, was beatified in 2007.[15] In 2002, a retired Roman Catholic bishop gave his personal approval to the writings of Maria Valtorta, which had been placed on the Index in 1960[16] (though never in a printed edition, since the last such edition was published in 1948) and which have still not been given official Church approval.[17][18] The developments since the abolition of the Index signify "the loss of relevance of the Index in the 21st century."[19]
This shows that there have always been forces within religions that fight against the authorities of those religions. I already agreed that happens. It also shows that there is no mechanism for those people to present their case and reach a consensus. Sometimes you get away with teaching what's in the list of banned books, sometimes you don't. It shows how long it can take for them to admit they are wrong, 150 years in Rosmini-Serbati's case. Examples of scientists not getting published can be found throughout history, but they almost always are vindicated within their lifetime.
And that's okay with you? That doesn't say anything to you about their willingness to hear other opinions or their being threatened by them? Who else did that? I realize Newton had some tools of alchemy in his lab, but he didn't have tools of torture that I know of.
Of course, it is not okay, but that was in 1600, not 2000.
From the wiki on Giordano Bruno here]
Other scholars oppose such views, and claim Bruno's martyrdom to science to be exaggerated, or outright false. For Yates, while "nineteenth century liberals" were thrown "into ecstasies" over Bruno's Copernicanism, "Bruno pushes Copernicus’ scientific work back into a prescientific stage, back into Hermetism, interpreting the Copernican diagram as a hieroglyph of divine mysteries."[43]
Theological heresy:
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[49] Similarly, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) asserts that "Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc."[50]
Bold added by me.
Wrt to Newton, from the wiki here]
Newton's writings suggest that one of the main goals of his alchemy may have been the discovery of The Philosopher's Stone (a material believed to turn base metals into gold), and perhaps to a lesser extent, the discovery of the highly coveted Elixir of Life.[4] Newton reportedly believed that a Diana's Tree, an alchemical demonstration producing a dendritic "growth" of silver from solution, was evidence that metals "possessed a sort of life."[6]
IOW, Newton was a closet alchemist.
There are two historians quoted in the quote I provided. Rhymes can quote people just like you do. His ability to write an article can be judged on the truth of what he includes. He includes facts, easily checked, unlike you who quotes conclusions and leaves out facts.
The fact is, he is not a historian and there is no evidence that what he wrote was the truth at all.
I included that to show that the authoritative book of one of the major religions you have been defending has no problem with burning books.
Nevertheless, the Bible is not history and I am not defending Christianity.
Again, check facts, quit asking me to vet everyone
The onus is on you to check the credibility of your quotations.
So, they banned books 400 years, and continue to warn against them despite not maintaining this particular list, but because they took a pass on this particular, very recent scientist, their entire history of suppressing knowledge is wiped clean? Is that what you are saying?
Of course not. However, they could not enforce the ban successfully at all.
Again, from the introduction of the wiki mentioned in my previous post:
Some of the scientific theories in works that were on early editions of the Index have long been routinely taught at Catholic universities worldwide; for example in 1758 the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index was finally removed, but already in 1742 two Franciscan mathematicians had published an edition of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) with commentaries and a preface stating that the work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without it.[9] The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno,[10] whose entire works were placed on the Index on 8 February 1600,[11] was because of teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views.[12][13][14] Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, one of whose works was on the Index, was beatified in 2007.[15] In 2002, a retired Roman Catholic bishop gave his personal approval to the writings of Maria Valtorta, which had been placed on the Index in 1960[16] (though never in a printed edition, since the last such edition was published in 1948) and which have still not been given official Church approval.[17][18] The developments since the abolition of the Index signify "the loss of relevance of the Index in the 21st century."[19]
Bold added by me. Q.E.D.? :cheese:
This shows that there have always been forces within religions that fight against the authorities of those religions. I already agreed that happens. It also shows that there is no mechanism for those people to present their case and reach a consensus. Sometimes you get away with teaching what's in the list of banned books, sometimes you don't. It shows how long it can take for them to admit they are wrong, 150 years in Rosmini-Serbati's case. Examples of scientists not getting published can be found throughout history, but they almost always are vindicated within their lifetime
Of course. However, wrt "no mechanism for those people to present their case and reach a consensus" you are too idealistic. :)
Your arguments are incoherent. You apply standards to me that you don’t apply to yourself. You won’t even clarify what you are arguing for. There are other words for you but I don’t like using them on forums.
Your arguments are incoherent. You apply standards to me that you don't apply to yourself. You won't even clarify what you are arguing for. There are other words for you but I don't like using them on forums.
I merely pointed out fundamental factual flaws and omissions in your "arguments".
:cheese:
Your arguments are incoherent. You apply standards to me that you don't apply to yourself. You won't even clarify what you are arguing for. There are other words for you but I don't like using them on forums.
I merely pointed out fundamental factual flaws and omissions in your "arguments".
:cheese:
No you didn't
Yes, I did. In post 1, and from the wiki here]
From the introduction:
Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.
However, this is what you wrote in post 2:
I won’t get too hooked into this because I’ve covered a lot of it in the “Religion vs Science" thread and I’ve pretty well reached my conclusions. I would be interested in any actual evidence for what you’re saying, like, “Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality." What communities? And it sounds like a conditional welcome, much like what the Pope said in the 13th century, that is, go ahead and do science, just stay away from “ultimate" reality, i.e. God.
Bold added by me.
And:
The second half your post is all opinion, and really irrelevant to the debate. The key to your argument is “religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas", but that ignores that religion or some kind of myth developed with almost all early civilizations. Separating them and understanding which is cause and which is affect is almost impossible. What is traceable are laws and norms and how they were enforced and philosophies that challenged them and changed them. Show me anything that demonstrates what happened to technology as Rome fell, or as the Muslim Empire weakened and what was said and done to bring technology back.
Bold added by me.
Apparently, you did not/will not take the time and the effort to read the wiki with an open mind.
If you did, you would reconsider your "conclusions" and realize that the wiki is not "all opinion".
Apparently, you did not/will not take the time and the effort to read the wiki with an open mind.
If you did, you would reconsider your "conclusions" and realize that the wiki is not "all opinion".
As with just about everything you post, your evidence does not lead to your conclusion. The important relative phrase you did not put in bold is
I would be interested in any actual evidence for what you’re saying
I said I have reached conclusion, yes, I did that by examining evidence. Your posts, and the wikis you link rarely include evidence, they mainly discuss conclusions others have made. Then you rely on authority and credentials. Granted, you at least apply that correctly in that you cite a historian to make a historical conclusion, but there are historians who disagree, so we have to go a little deeper.
Even when you point to evidence, like Hannam's, I pointed out all the evidence he ignores. If I flipped a coin 100 times and only showed you 40% of my results, results that I selected, I could say I have evidence that the coin is one-sided. Just like your argument.
Apparently, you did not/will not take the time and the effort to read the wiki with an open mind.
If you did, you would reconsider your "conclusions" and realize that the wiki is not "all opinion".
As with just about everything you post, your evidence does not lead to your conclusion. The important relative phrase you did not put in bold is
I would be interested in any actual evidence for what you’re saying
I said I have reached conclusion, yes, I did that by examining evidence. Your posts, and the wikis you link rarely include evidence, they mainly discuss conclusions others have made. Then you rely on authority and credentials. Granted, you at least apply that correctly in that you cite a historian to make a historical conclusion, but there are historians who disagree, so we have to go a little deeper.
Even when you point to evidence, like Hannam's, I pointed out all the evidence he ignores. If I flipped a coin 100 times and only showed you 40% of my results, results that I selected, I could say I have evidence that the coin is one-sided. Just like your argument.
I wholeheartedly agree with Lausten! As I said before, "garbage in, garbage out".
As with just about everything you post, your evidence does not lead to your conclusion. The important relative phrase you did not put in bold is
I would be interested in any actual evidence for what you’re saying
I said I have reached conclusion, yes, I did that by examining evidence. Your posts, and the wikis you link rarely include evidence, they mainly discuss conclusions others have made. Then you rely on authority and credentials. Granted, you at least apply that correctly in that you cite a historian to make a historical conclusion, but there are historians who disagree, so we have to go a little deeper.
Even when you point to evidence, like Hannam's, I pointed out all the evidence he ignores. If I flipped a coin 100 times and only showed you 40% of my results, results that I selected, I could say I have evidence that the coin is one-sided. Just like your argument.
What evidence have you examined and what is the credibility of those "evidence"?
How about Ronald Numbers?
Flipping a coin?
You are hilarious. :lol:
POST #1 "More Debating". . .
It's good that we are able to have a conversation at a similar level to these two guys but a little bad that this is where the conversation is stuck. {…}
I wholeheartedly agree with Lausten! As I said before, "garbage in, garbage out".
If anything, you are GIGO. :lol:
Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber, you're glue. What bounces off me sticks to you! (Sticking my tongue out at you)
:lol:
Do I dare back track to the rest of the story, you tell me :ohh: