• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 742 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:59 am

Original discussion thread for "SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY"

#130: April - June 2014 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:So what happened to abort the development of math and science by the Muslims?

The significance of the Condemnation of 1277 continues to be ignored.

The Galileo affair continues along the Urban Legend track.

Hi, Stahrwe.

I wanted to give you a more precise answer to your questions rather than rely on my faulty memory. Hence, I cheated a bit and looked at the outline that accompanied the course on the history of science - antiquity to 1700 (by THE GREAT COURSES) that I pulled out from mothballs.

There are a few reasons presented for consideration regarding the end of the advancement of Islamic natural philosophy:

1) factionalization
2) the "reawakening" of the latin west which brought armies against many of the Islamic lands (the "pax islamica" had come to an end)
3) the eastern mongol invasions (the one I actually remembered!)


There's also the possibility that "intellectual reasons" brought about the fall of Islam's intellectual movement.
The division in scientific thought between two groups of intellectuals, the mutakallimum and falasifia, might have contributed as well.

It's believed that the mutakallimim eventually was able to undercut the falasifia, who were known as adherents to Greek natural philosophy. The mutakallimum were practioners of "kalam," which was described as "a kind of Islamic speculative and disputational theology."

The historical record is clear: the monotheistic religions valued Greek natural philosophy and we owe a considerable debt to their translations. I think you and I agree that Christianity did not discourage, but rather encouraged and venerated natural philosophy.

The stability of the 12th century brought about by Christianity allowed for the assimilation and further development of Islamic scientific thought. The historical evidence of natural philosophy not only involves what was being done and by whom, but also WHERE it was being done.
For instance, The School of Chartres is one such place:

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

The Royal Portal of the cathedral preserves one memory of this school. It is surrounded by statues of classical figures representing the seven liberal arts, one of which is a statue of Aristotle, I believe.

The many prestigious Christian schools and universities of the middle ages were forums of free natural philosophical thought. There is no evidence that free thought was suppressed behind the walls of the great universities of the time.
Arguments of assertion are the favorite choice of the militant atheists of today who offer no historical evidence to support claims that the Church prohibited scientific practice and growth. The natural scientists at the time had free access to Greek translations in schools and universities. If they had not there would have been no further intellectual growth.


It's PIG-DUMB for anyone to believe anything else WITHOUT having done the research, or at least tried.
Hell, even I've tried.

"The Church banned all science books and told everybody to say Goddidit"
"The Church was burning all science books and scientists at the stake!"


I'm unaware of even one natural philosopher who was burned at the stake for practicing natural philosophy (aka "science").
Someone please name one for me.

I repeat - the historical relationship between science and religion is highly complex. It's not as easy as once upon a time religion forbade the practice of science, then the atheists came to the rescue. That's PIG-DUMB slanted history.
Last edited by ant on Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

As such the Galileo affair is actually a pretty good illustration of the historic clash between the Church and the intellectual movement at the onset of the Enlightenment
No modern historians recognize the validity of that claim.
You simply are using a cause celebre to provide a blanket description of a religion's interaction with science across time.
The Galileo Affair had much, much more involved than what you are fallaciously asserting.

It's very easy to see how your summary of the affair is so water-down and superficial that it leaves out key context.

EDITED: This smacks of collectivism.

(I need to just shake my head at this and move on.)
Last edited by ant on Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:00 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

with respect to Duhem he proved that the Urban Legend that knowledge and science were moribund during the Middle Ages was false. There may have been some who questioned that legend before him, but he devoted his time and energy to searching out the proof.

If the Condemnations of 1277 are NO longer significant, Why Did Stephen Hawking feature them in the episode of Curious which he hosted a couple of years ago, and why did he mischaracterize John XXI?
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

Are you saying that Christianity gave rise to naturalism?
Actually, I didn't even come close to saying that.

Science is dependent upon two things:
1) the external reality of the natural world (the interpreted)
2) human culture (interpreters)

The two opposite ends of perspectives on the history of science are triumphalism and social constructivism.

Triumphalism is the perspective held by those that believe science is a linear progression, gradually achieving "great truths" It largely is dismissive of cultural i AND theological influences that played a vital role in the development of science. Triumphalism leads to arrogance, overly simplistic assumptions, and gross incompleteness. (hello scientific Atheists!)

Social constructivism ultimately fails to see the existence of the natural world independent from human perception.

What science actually is and how it developed lies somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.
The interaction of cultures and human beings, and the effects of such interactions are what gave birth to science. It is this we are discussing here.

It baffles me to see just how dismissive some people are of the enormous contributions religion has made to the growth AND ongoing development of science. Atheists like Richard Dawkins who use overly simplistic, vulgar historical tidbits to advance a worldview are only duping those that subconsciously wish to be duped for the purpose of convincing themselves theirs is the correct worldview.

Richar Dawkins doesn't fool me.
Daniel Dennet doesn't fool me.
Robert Tulip doesn't fool me.

I look to History.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:with respect to Duhem he proved that the Urban Legend that knowledge and science were moribund during the Middle Ages was false. There may have been some who questioned that legend before him, but he devoted his time and energy to searching out the proof.

If the Condemnations of 1277 are NO longer significant, Why Did Stephen Hawking feature them in the episode of Curious which he hosted a couple of years ago, and why did he mischaracterize John XXI?

The popularized belief that the middle ages were "dark" is a total myth.
I agree.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

Feyerabend goes on to discuss the ‘second ingredient’ and remarks that "the second ingredient means that scientific results, wrongly interpreted, may injure human beings.... [it] further implies that questions of fact and reality depend on questions of value. For positivists this is an unfamiliar and even repulsive idea, but only because he is not aware of his own normative prejudices... Thus the church was not only on the right track when measuring reality by human concerns but it was considerably more rational than some modern scientists and philosophers who draw a sharp distinction between fact and values and then take it to for granted that the only way of arriving at facts and, therefore, reality, is to accept the values of science."


Feyerabend
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

Stahrwe wrote:If the Condemnations of 1277 are NO longer significant, Why Did Stephen Hawking feature them in the episode of Curious which he hosted a couple of years ago, and why did he mischaracterize John XXI?
Why do you withold the intentions of your comments? Speak what you mean, and include all necessary information.

To answer your question, Stephen Hawking could very well have been a fool. Who knows? Are we to consider Stephen Hawking an expert on medieval history? What do your questions have to do with anything? The condemnations of 1277 are significant or insignificant based on what effects they had at the time. Not on whether or not a 21st century physicist spoke about them on TV.
ant wrote:Actually, I didn't even come close to saying that.
Yes, you did. You said: "The translation movements undertaken by Christianity and Islam were monumental in both preserving and building natural philosophy into what we today call "science""
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

ant wrote:Actually, I didn't even come close to saying that.
Yes, you did. You said: "The translation movements undertaken by Christianity and Islam were monumental in both preserving and building natural philosophy into what we today call "science""[/quote]


You asked if I'm claiming Christianity gave rise to naturalism.

I said Christianity AND Islam contributed to the preservation and building (progress) of natural philosophy.

If you dont recognize the subtle difference (actually it's not even subtle, it's obvious) then maybe discussing matters like these is not for you.
Last edited by ant on Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

If you dont recognize the subtle difference (actually it's not even subtle, it's obvious) then maybe discussing matters like these is not for you.
Sure ant. I don't see the obvious difference you're referring to. But maybe I'm just dumb. :adore:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE

Unread post

If you'd like we can start a new thread and argue about that one sentence that's wrapped itself around your neck.
I think it's a great way to steer the conversation in another direction.
I'm nearing my limit reading 3rd grade history and whiggism from certain posters here.
Post Reply

Return to “Science Was Born of Christianity: The Teaching of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki - by Stacy Trasancos”