Print Page | Close Window

Did Christianity destroy ancient science?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Ancient Europe to 476 AD
Forum Description:
Moderators: WH

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=129493
Printed Date: 28 May 2017 at 03:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Did Christianity destroy ancient science?
Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Subject: Did Christianity destroy ancient science?
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2017 at 17:13
Hi! Ive upploaded a video on my youtube channel debunking the claim that christianity destroyed or held back the achievements of the ancient natural philosophers.

I would really appreciate if you viewed the video and gave your own opinions and thoughts on the subject in the forums comment section.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn6XixUJUe8" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn6XixUJUe8



-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.



Replies:
Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2017 at 23:36
The video was interesting, it pointed out things I hadn't thought about, like the decline of Greek in the Western Roman Empire as reason why natural philosophy was neglected.  The fact that it was solitary individuals exploring natural philosophy is quite different from the subsidization of today.  Technology had a little more inertia than natural philosophy in antiquity.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 01:04
Christianity did play a role in subverting some of the sciences. Anything other than what was considered suitable by the Holy Roman Catholic Church was labelled as witchcraft and/or heresy, regardless of whether or not it was scientifically sound.

Many scientists, especially in the middle ages, were persecuted for their beliefs and teachings.

Today, in some areas, such as genetics, scientists still risk excommunication for their efforts.


-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 02:47
I think you first have to solve the riddle of if Christianity didn't die on the cross or shortly thereafter. In any case defining Christianity is not that easy.

I cannot tell if Jesus (if he even existed) was promoting a eschatological cult or non violent revolution against a foreign power or both. I gave up long ago on sorting out this bit of history because it is so poorly documented.

A more interesting question may actually be if Plato was anti science because it highlights how differently we see the world. In the fifth century the advantages of science were not as evident, especially if society coming apart occupied most of your energy.


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 07:29
Hi Toyomotor!

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Christianity did play a role in subverting some of the sciences. Anything other than what was considered suitable by the Holy Roman Catholic Church was labelled as witchcraft and/or heresy, regardless of whether or not it was scientifically sound.

Many scientists, especially in the middle ages, were persecuted for their beliefs and teachings.



Today, in some areas, such as genetics, scientists still risk excommunication for their efforts.


With do respect, you are just repeating outdated rethoric that have nothing to do with schoolarhship on the subject and that don´t challange any of the claims I make in the video.

As for the catolic church relationship to the natural sciences during the middle ages and it labelleling "wichtcraft and/or heresy" things it did not like I recommend you read some academic litterature on the subject rather then just making empty assertions. Witchcraft was refers to essoterisism and heresy to christian sects that don´t agree with the fundemental christian ortodox teaching. None of which have anything to do with the study of nature.

The catolic church was a bigg contributer to the study of nature during the middle ages and continued to be well into the modern period. If your interessted in the church relationship to the natural sciences during the middle ages I recomend you pick up the litterature I refer to in the video since much of it also cover that subject as well.

"Today, in some areas, such as genetics, scientists still risk excommunication for their efforts."

Irrelevant to the claims Im making in the video.

-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 07:37
Hi!

Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

I think you first have to solve the riddle of if Christianity didn't die on the cross or shortly thereafter. In any case defining Christianity is not that easy.

I cannot tell if Jesus (if he even existed) was promoting a eschatological cult or non violent revolution against a foreign power or both. I gave up long ago on sorting out this bit of history because it is so poorly documented.

A more interesting question may actually be if Plato was anti science because it highlights how differently we see the world. In the fifth century the advantages of science were not as evident, especially if society coming apart occupied most of your energy.


Exept I don´t since that have nothing to do with the claims Im making in the video. And if you doubt the existance of Jesus as an historical person I recommend read some academic litterature on the subject with an open mind and you will know for sure.

"A more interesting question may actually be if Plato was anti science because it highlights how differently we see the world. In the fifth century the advantages of science were not as evident, especially if society coming apart occupied most of your energy."

With due respect, I don´t have clue about what that has to do with the claims Im making in the video.


Best wishes!

Quill

-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 07:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The video was interesting, it pointed out things I hadn't thought about, like the decline of Greek in the Western Roman Empire as reason why natural philosophy was neglected.  The fact that it was solitary individuals exploring natural philosophy is quite different from the subsidization of today.  Technology had a little more inertia than natural philosophy in antiquity.



Thankyou! If you wan´t to know more about the subject I strongly recommend you to pick up the literature I link to in the description(At least check out the free sources).

Best wishes!

Quill

-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 13:46
Hi I liked the video and I half remembered a quote from St Paul. 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world…


http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lightfoot/st_pauls_attitude_towards_philosophy.htm" rel="nofollow - http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lightfoot/st_paul's_attitude_towards_philosophy.htm

This a very brief article but the author makes the point that the term philosophy meant something different to the Jews than it did to the Greeks. Maybe you can help me to understand what this last bit means to you in terms of the early, early church. from the article:

"Clement, who was followed in the main by the earlier Alexandrines, regards Greek philosophy not only as a preliminary training for the gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant given by God to the Greeks. Others, who were the great majority, and of whom may be taken as an extreme type, set their forces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching. St. Paul's speech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers ( http://biblehub.com/acts/17-18.htm" rel="nofollow - Acts 17:18 ), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as much with Clement's representations as with Tertullian's."

thanks


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 14:09
I believe that it is because I have an open mind that I find little evidence for a historical Jesus but that is another topic.

I'm glad you are setting the record straight in regards to Christian culture being not particularly more hostile to objective study of nature than other cultures.  It is popular to paint Islam as being more enlightened than Christianity in regards to the objective study of nature but that assumes that Arab scholars were working within the framework of Islam or just happen to live in places that were Muslim.  The same applies to Christian scholars as well.  The relationship between being nominally Christian as an accident of birth and the influence of Christianity on their work is not obvious.  In both cases I would say that it is more a case of in spite of religion that objective reasoning is found than because of the religion.  There is no doubt that religion provides an educational structure that produces literary competency and assess to previous work but that says nothing about how it influences objectivity.

I mentioned Plato because it also isn't clear that philosophers are not as guilty as theologians in the rejection of objective reasoning based on experience and not relying on some sort of metaphysical mumble jumbo.  Calling science natural philosophy is like equating chemistry with alchemy.  Science as we know it is a fairly recent development and the influence of philosophy is worth questioning.  Every competency has to be developed in small steps and today many people feel that the baby steps that philosophy took are somewhat irrelevant.  

In today's world the social sciences are so heavily influenced by political theory that they have some relevance to this discussion.  Post modernist, Marxist, and other philosophical influences have the same negative effect on these disciplines development as religion had on science.  The similarities are somewhat shocking actually.  It is very difficult to escape a paradign that is enforced by social mores.

The negative effect of Christianity is not limited to science but to some extent cultural development in general.  Religious dogma creates a rigidity that makes the kind of speculation that is needed to explore alternative explanations difficult.  This can certainly be seen in Islamic countries today.  It may be common to all religions.  But here we are only discussing Christianity although I think some comparative study is need to support any hypothesis. 

It's the eschatological nature of Christianity that is most troubling when considering it's influence.  In simple terms why bother with worldly concerns when the end is just around the corner and it's the afterlife you should be concerned with.  Jews seem particularly immune to this negative influence and excel in intellectual fields perhaps because they are still waiting for their savor and remain more motivated.  There is some evidence however that historically the tyrannical rabbinical structure had to give way before this was possible as was the case with the civil authority of the priest. 

I'm not arguing that Christianity has been an entirely bad thing like many atheists who seem obsessed to argue it's influence entirely negative.  I'm just addressing what is in question.  Would Western science have developed without Christianity?  That question supposes alternative histories that are entirely speculative.  What we can do is assume that without some cultural glue Western Europe may not have resisted Islam and would be as backwards as the middle east.

It seems that political correctness has gone out of it's way to make Christianity and Western culture in general a fair target of defamation.  The consensus among historians that Christianity delayed science has more to do with politics than history.  


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 18:07
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Hi I liked the video and I half remembered a quote from St Paul. 

<span style="color: rgb179, 71, 0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; text-align: -webkit-center; : rgb253, 254, 255;">Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world…</span>


http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lightfoot/st_pauls_attitude_towards_philosophy.htm" rel="nofollow - http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lightfoot/st_paul's_attitude_towards_philosophy.htm


This a very brief article but the author makes the point that the term philosophy meant something different to the Jews than it did to the Greeks. Maybe you can help me to understand what this last bit means to you in terms of the early, early church. from the article:

<span ="topic" style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">"Clement</span><span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">, who was followed in the main by the earlier </span><span ="topic" style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">Alexandrines</span><span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">, regards </span><span ="topic" style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">Greek philosophy</span><span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;"> not only as a preliminary training for the gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant given by God to the Greeks. Others, who were the great majority, and of whom may be taken as an extreme type, set their forces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching. St. Paul's speech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers (</span> http://biblehub.com/acts/17-18.htm" rel="nofollow - Acts 17:18 <span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as much with Clement's representations as with Tertullian's."</span>
<span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">
</span>
<span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">thanks</span>


Hi Vanatu!

Thx for the comment. My next video is going to be on the trial of Galileo and it should be out this weekend or next week. I recommend you sub if you like my content.

I can´t find the article you are referring to but I will try to answer your question the best I can.

Regarding the quote you sent there are two interpretations I can imagine the author is having in mind(it can be both at the same time).

The first interpretation is very interesting. Among the early christians(at least among several of those who left writings) there was an idea going around that the Greek pagan philosophers had stolen their philosophical ideas and methods form the old testament. This in turn motivated several of the early christians to study philosophy and to use philosophy when studying theology. To quote Edward Grant.

”Terteullian also had harsh words for Socrates, Plato and the other Greek philosophers, and accused them, as did other christian writers, of borrowing many of their ideas from the Old testament.”

Science & Religion. 400 B.C - A.D 1550. Page 104.


The second interpretation I can imagen is that the author is referring to the handmaiden formula attitude to philosophy and the study of nature. This idea first originated with the helenic jew Philo of Alexandria. I explained what this means in the video.


As for St Pauls attitued towards philosophy Im not sure though I don´t find it that relevant to my video since the christian intellectual tradition originated hundred years after Paul and regardless of Pauls relation to philosophy, the general attitude towards philosophy and the study of nature that christians had in the patristic and medieval period was the handmaiden formula which was the attitude championed by Clement of Alexandria and St Augustine.

I hope I answerd your question and I recommend you pick up the literature. :)

Best whishes!

Quill


-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 22:01
HI. I do think your video was a good effort ,no doubt. But you haven't convinced me (not that you have to).Smile 
I can't get past Augustine. He is not Clement, A. says faith before reason and when he says understand to believe he could mean don't drink out the same trough as the animals do, practical reasoning. 

Paul is important. Hundreds of years is nothing in terms of assemblage of the bible. Paul was a bit of an autobiographer it has been argued that Augustine took that format for the Confessions. He also wrote On Galatians the only complete book he wrote about anything in the Bible. Galatians is all about the grace of God over the Jewish law. 

So when Paul is saying in Corinthians that philosophy is a term for virtue it follows that Augustine would have drawn sharp lines between what serves God and what is just speculation, waste where the energy could have been used for greater glory of God. Then Augustine has the same shame for persecuting Catholics as Paul does for persecuting Christians. Paul knew about Greek philosophy to what extent no one can say but if he is at all Platonist its always to place Christ in a superior position to anything with which he is compared. 


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 22:45
[QUOTE=Vanuatu] HI. I do think your video was a good effort ,no doubt. But you haven't convinced me (not that you have to).



Hi!

What did I fail to convince you of? The thesis I argued for in the video was that the early christians did not destroy or hold back the study of nature or philosophy. Do you reject this thesis?



-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 23:57
How early is early? And does the completion of the Cannon Law determine modern Christianity? The book of Enoch isn't seen by the world at large (out of Ethiopian monastery) until 1871. 

Simply look at Fatima Portugal 1917, the supposed apparition of Mary. I'm only using this example anecdotally, one of her messages was that God does not and will not bless the work of science. People in Catholic churches at least, went fully into 20th century with a kind of disdain for science.  

I don't reject it outright. I need to read more but Augustine, is hard to accept. Maybe Thomas Aquinas


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 01:48
Origen was mentioned in the video, and Clement of Alexandria is brought up in the above discussion, Quill, what do you think of the fact that while Origen and Clement are church fathers (and Neoplatonists), they are not saints, because neither is orthodox in his beliefs?

Augustine is neo-Platonist, if one needs to apply a label.  Plato advocates a type of science.  What Hadot calls Orphic, like the speculation of the Timaeus.  The idea of science as the interrogation of nature comes later.  Bacon and Machiavelli.  In ancient Greek terms, the equivalent of the interrogation model would be Promethean, stealing fire from heaven.  One very basic element that Christianity provides is a unity of the divine and of nature, which in a polytheistic system cannot be taken for granted.  Religion paves the way for a unified view of science.

I enjoyed de Santillana's book 'the Crime of Galileo,' I would recommend it especially since it shows the issue as complex, with science, and religion on both sides of the argument.  Aristotle and Ptolemy provide the model for the status quo, whereas the Copernican system is also called Pythagorean or Platonic.

Welcome back Vanuatu!


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 02:14
Thank you franciscosan :)

Isn't Timaeus scheduled for a drive by oh, anytime now?

Was Clement, in some sense using the Greek philosophers to make Christianity more respectable to the Imperial world?
How would Alexandria advance a belief system that was openly mocked by so called libertines and pagans?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 22:47
Hi wolfhnd!

I find it funny how you take the time to write a book in the comment section that dous not adress any of the claims I made in this video. ;-)


”I'm glad you are setting the record straight in regards to Christian culture being not particularly more hostile to objective study of nature than other cultures. It is popular to paint Islam as being more enlightened than Christianity in regards to the objective study of nature but that assumes that Arab scholars were working within the framework of Islam or just happen to live in places that were Muslim. The same applies to Christian scholars as well. The relationship between being nominally Christian as an accident of birth and the influence of Christianity on their work is not obvious. In both cases I would say that it is more a case of in spite of religion that objective reasoning is found than because of the religion. There is no doubt that religion provides an educational structure that produces literary competency and assess to previous work but that says nothing about how it influences objectivity.”


This is your own personal speculations that have nothing to do with scholarship on the subject. If your interested in what historians actually think about christianitys effect on the development of science, I recommend you listen to historian of science Noah Efron.

”To be fair, the claim that christianity led to modern science captures something true and important. Generations of historians and sociologists have discovered many ways in which Christians, Christian beliefs, and christian institutions played crucial roles in fashioning the tenets, methods, and institutions of what in time became modern science.”

”Although they disagree about nuances, today almost all historians agree that Christianity(Catholicism as well as Protestantism) moved early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically. Historians have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their way into scientific discourse, with glorious results; the very notion that nature is lawful, som scholars argued, was borrowed from Christian theology. Christian convictions also affected how nature was studied. For example, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine´s notion of original sin(which held that Adam´s fall left humans implacably damaged) was embraced by advocates of ”experimental natural philosophy”. As they saw it, fallen humans lacked the grace to understand the workings of the world through cogitation alone, requiring in their disgraced state painstaking experiment and observation to arrive at knowledge of how nature work. In this way christian doctrine lent urgency to experiments.”

”Also, many of those today considered ”fore-fathers” of modern science found in Christianity legitimation of their pursuits. René Descarets boasted of his physics that ”my new philosophy is in much better agreement with all the truths of faith than that of Aristotle.” Isaac Newton believed that his system restored the original divine wisdom God had provided to Moses and had no doubt that his christainity bolstered his physics and that his physics bolstered christianity. Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millenium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentalisation, observation, exploration, documentation and publication. They did this in some circumstances, directly in church institutions such as the renowned Jesuit seminary, the Collegio Romano, and in other circumstances less directly, through universities supported in part or full by the church. For all these reasons, one cannot recount the history of modern science without acknowledging the crucial importance of Christianity”.

Historian of science Noah Efron in ”Galileo goes to Jail and other myths about science and religion” Page 80 - 82.

Historian of science Peter Harrison has a good lecture on this subject as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_mTlhN-WuU&t=1419s" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_mTlhN-WuU&t=1419s


”I mentioned Plato because it also isn't clear that philosophers are not as guilty as theologians in the rejection of objective reasoning based on experience and not relying on some sort of metaphysical mumble jumbo. Calling science natural philosophy is like equating chemistry with alchemy. Science as we know it is a fairly recent development and the influence of philosophy is worth questioning. Every competency has to be developed in small steps and today many people feel that the baby steps that philosophy took are somewhat irrelevant. ”

Again, read some actually literature on the subject rather then just make empty assertions”. As for the term ”natural philosophy”, I use it because historians of science use it.

”In today's world the social sciences are so heavily influenced by political theory that they have some relevance to this discussion. Post modernist, Marxist, and other philosophical influences have the same negative effect on these disciplines development as religion had on science. The similarities are somewhat shocking actually. It is very difficult to escape a paradign that is enforced by social mores.”

Have no idea what this have to do with anything…


”The negative effect of Christianity is not limited to science but to some extent cultural development in general. Religious dogma creates a rigidity that makes the kind of speculation that is needed to explore alternative explanations difficult. This can certainly be seen in Islamic countries today. It may be common to all religions. But here we are only discussing Christianity although I think some comparative study is need to support any hypothesis.”

Schoolarship on the historical relationship between science and christianity actually exists(if you don´t know that) and you would know what historians actually thinks if you actually took time to read what they have to say.

”It's the eschatological nature of Christianity that is most troubling when considering it's influence. In simple terms why bother with worldly concerns when the end is just around the corner and it's the afterlife you should be concerned with. Jews seem particularly immune to this negative influence and excel in intellectual fields perhaps because they are still waiting for their savor and remain more motivated. There is some evidence however that historically the tyrannical rabbinical structure had to give way before this was possible as was the case with the civil authority of the priest. ”


Again, your just making empty assertion and also Jews have not excelled in science historically. See lecture by Noah Efron explaining the historical relationship between science and Judaism and I recommend you pick the book he has written on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYiEsxied4" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYiEsxied4



”I'm not arguing that Christianity has been an entirely bad thing like many atheists who seem obsessed to argue it's influence entirely negative. I'm just addressing what is in question. Would Western science have developed without Christianity? That question supposes alternative histories that are entirely speculative. What we can do is assume that without some cultural glue Western Europe may not have resisted Islam and would be as backwards as the middle east.

It seems that political correctness has gone out of it's way to make Christianity and Western culture in general a fair target of defamation. The consensus among historians that Christianity delayed science has more to do with politics than history.”

I don´t want to sound rude but I gonna be honest with. Your personal speculation and perceptions has nothing to do with scholarship on the subject and is irrelevant to history. You say you ”have an opened mind” but still holds that Jesus was not an historical person which a position that not a single historian holds and that is on the same level of conspiracy theory nonsens as flat earth theories.

Historian Bart Erhman explains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W49XA2IFpYs" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W49XA2IFpYs

If you are actually interested in the historical relationship between science and christianity I recommend you go to the library and read actually academic literature on the subject and being prepared to revalue your own ideas if they don´t hold(Recommend you pick up the literature I share in the video description). I can imagen that these ideas probably hold water in your own social circles but they have nothing to do with actual history.

Best wishes!

Quill & Ink History.

-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 23:49
It's not a fiction that Cannon Law and St Augustine support the  absolute inerrantcy of the accepted books. 

Nor that the Catholic Church conducted numerous Inquisitions against heresy or split with Canonical Law. The Church killed and tortured to suppress knowledge.

No Catholic scientific contributions were recorded until the sixth century and it was again practical knowledge. Not speculation on the relationship between man and grace.  

Do you need links to scientists monks killed by the Inquisition over scientific matters?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 01:59
I think Quill has a good point, he is trying to do 'X' and is inviting people to comment on his thesis.

Others wish to use that as a jumping off point for their own speculations or issues, that is valid, but not what Quill is aiming at.  The image of "herding cats" comes to mind.

People paint with a broad brush, they like to say religion is anti-science, whereas the fact is that science has always been in partnership with religion since, forever.  Of course, religion is a power structure, and so at times it has used science as a whipping boy and scapegoat.  I don't see this as a characteristic of religion, so much as a characteristic of humanity.  Galileo did not so much get cross with Catholicism, as he did with Aristotelian Jesuits, the Dominicans and the Pope.  There has, however, been an anti-scientific streak in Protestant denominations, which finds it useful to rant against science (albeit with some justification).


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 03:13
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

It's not a fiction that Cannon Law and St Augustine support the  absolute inerrantcy of the accepted books. 

Nor that the Catholic Church conducted numerous Inquisitions against heresy or split with Canonical Law. The Church killed and tortured to suppress knowledge.

No Catholic scientific contributions were recorded until the sixth century and it was again practical knowledge. Not speculation on the relationship between man and grace.  

Do you need links to scientists monks killed by the Inquisition over scientific matters?

I believe he stated the time frame under discussion to be much earlier than the Inquisition.

None the less I see no reason to be a religious apologist. I also don't think that philosophy is actually linked to science in a meaningful way other than both philosophy and religion both keep literacy alive.  The human brain is like the dog who growls at the book knocked over by the wind, it finds connection everywhere because that is what it has evolved to do.  We find faces in clouds and stars, and conspiracies everywhere.  As I said earlier alchemy became chemistry and natural philosophy became science that doesn't mean that we need more alchemy to advance chemistry, more philosophy to advance science or religion for evidence and reason.  I find none of the argument compelling and still doubt that even the basic myths of religion are historical in any meaningful way let alone that without religion science would not have evolved.

Cultures evolve and science has it's own culture that is evolving without religion today.  The fact that it has it's own moral issues says more about human evolution than about a need for religion. 

 


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 11:24
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think Quill has a good point, he is trying to do 'X' and is inviting people to comment on his thesis.

Others wish to use that as a jumping off point for their own speculations or issues, that is valid, but not what Quill is aiming at.  The image of "herding cats" comes to mind.

People paint with a broad brush, they like to say religion is anti-science, whereas the fact is that science has always been in partnership with religion since, forever.  Of course, religion is a power structure, and so at times it has used science as a whipping boy and scapegoat.  I don't see this as a characteristic of religion, so much as a characteristic of humanity.  Galileo did not so much get cross with Catholicism, as he did with Aristotelian Jesuits, the Dominicans and the Pope.  There has, however, been an anti-scientific streak in Protestant denominations, which finds it useful to rant against science (albeit with some justification).

Revisionism is acceptable it is what Clement of A. needed to do to make Christianity the religion of educated people. Today things need to be revised again or the church will be edged out in favor a different belief system.
All for exploring ideas but saying (paraphrasing) almost all historians agree that Jesus was a true historical figure is getting way ahead of the curve. 
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the Catholic church of 40 years ago and it was still like a wagon wheel in the mud on most matters (non practical) concerning the application of science and agreement with Cannon law only. More to come..


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 11:29
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

It's not a fiction that Cannon Law and St Augustine support the  absolute inerrantcy of the accepted books. 

Nor that the Catholic Church conducted numerous Inquisitions against heresy or split with Canonical Law. The Church killed and tortured to suppress knowledge.

No Catholic scientific contributions were recorded until the sixth century and it was again practical knowledge. Not speculation on the relationship between man and grace.  

Do you need links to scientists monks killed by the Inquisition over scientific matters?

I believe he stated the time frame under discussion to be much earlier than the Inquisition.

None the less I see no reason to be a religious apologist. I also don't think that philosophy is actually linked to science in a meaningful way other than both philosophy and religion both keep literacy alive.  The human brain is like the dog who growls at the book knocked over by the wind, it finds connection everywhere because that is what it has evolved to do.  We find faces in clouds and stars, and conspiracies everywhere.  As I said earlier alchemy became chemistry and natural philosophy became science that doesn't mean that we need more alchemy to advance chemistry, more philosophy to advance science or religion for evidence and reason.  I find none of the argument compelling and still doubt that even the basic myths of religion are historical in any meaningful way let alone that without religion science would not have evolved.

Cultures evolve and science has it's own culture that is evolving without religion today.  The fact that it has it's own moral issues says more about human evolution than about a need for religion. 

 

No. The time frame is part of the problem. Thomas Aquinas of 12th century works but Augustine doesn't, is my 'issue' if there actually is one. I asked him to clarify regarding Cannon law, first codified around 400 AD. The further back in time of the early church the less likely to find agreement on church, philosophy and science. 
And I do think he does great work and I admire what he has done or I wouldn't comment. Seemed like he was looking for some scrutiny to test out his ideas.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 04 Feb 2017 at 01:30
This is what Augustine was about, IMHO. He was a primitive, he helped ritualize the mass and the life of a christian as in "baptism at infancy."
 

Colossians 2:15, Jesus, “disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them,” 

MISTRANSLATIONS AND MISANTHROPES

One of the essential tenants of Universalism is that all punishment in Hell is remedial, curative, and purifying. As long as Western Christianity was mainly Greek — the language of the New Testament — it was Universalist.

Interestingly, NONE of the Greek-speaking Universalists ever felt the need to explain Greek words such as “aion” and “aionion.” In Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled “eon”) is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. When it was translated into Latin Vulgate, “aion” became “aeternam” which means “eternal.” These translation errors were the basis for much of what was written about Eternal Hell.

The first person to write about Eternal Hell was the Latin North African Tertullian who is considered the Father of the Latin Church. As most people reason, Hell is a place for people you don’t like to go! Tertullian fantasized that not only the wicked would be in Hell but also every philosopher and theologian who ever argued with him! He envisioned a time when he would look down from Heaven at those people in Hell and laugh with glee!

Augustine, influential Damnationist theologian

Augustine, influential Damnationist theologian

By far, the main person responsible for making Hell eternal in the Western Church was St. Augustine (354-430 CE). Augustine’s Christian mother did not kick him out of her house for not marrying the girlfriend he got pregnant, but she did oust him when he became a Manichean Gnostic. Later, he renounced Manichaeism and returned to the Roman Church where he was made Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. He did not know Greek, had tried to study it, but stated that he hated it. Sadly, it is his misunderstanding of Greek that cemented the concept of Eternal Hell in the Western Church. Augustine not only said that Hell was eternal for the wicked but also for anyone who wasn’t a Christian. So complete was his concept of God’s exclusion of non-Christians that he considered un-baptized babies as damned; when these babies died, Augustine softened slightly to declare that they would be sent to the “upper level” of Hell. Augustine is also the inventor the concept of “Hell Lite”, a.k.a. Purgatory, which he developed to accommodate some of the Universalist verses in the Bible. Augustine acknowledged the Universalists whom he called “tender-hearted,” and curiously, included them among the “orthodox.”

At this point, it should be noted that many in the early Church who were Universalist cautioned others to be careful whom they told about Universalism, as it might cause some of the weaker ones to sin. This has always been a criticism of Universalism by those who think that people will sin with abandon if there is no threat of eternal punishment. In fact, modern psychology has affirmed that love is a much more powerful motivator than fear, and knowing that God loves each and every person on the planet as much as God loves you does not promote delinquency. Conversely, it is Christian exclusivity that leads to the marginalization of other human beings and the thinking that war and cruelty to the “other” are justified since they’re going to Hell anyway! This kind of twisted thinking led to the persecution of the pagans, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust.

http://christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/salvation-conspiracy/" rel="nofollow - http://christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/salvation-conspiracy/



-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2017 at 00:58
Hell is one thing, Holocaust is another.
I guess that I never believed that people necessarily knew what they were talking about when they talked about hell or God, etc.  I never doubted them for that matter either.  Augustine is an amazing thinker, who has shaped the world in many ways, I tend to think those ways are favorable over all.  I think Augustine is well reasoned, whether you agree with him is another matter.  But I see him as advocating communication, over the use of violence to make his point.

Let's say you have a pool table with various pockets, all pockets except one will occasionally spit out a ball (or balls), of course, the one will end up with all the balls in it eventually.  That is like religion, if you are exclusive and don't permit people from ideological backsliding, eventually everyone will belong to your organization, whereas if you allow people to leave and worship at other temples, well eventually you will end in none, given a lively, and active environs.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2017 at 22:18
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think Quill has a good point, he is trying to do 'X' and is inviting people to comment on his thesis.

Others wish to use that as a jumping off point for their own speculations or issues, that is valid, but not what Quill is aiming at.  The image of "herding cats" comes to mind.

People paint with a broad brush, they like to say religion is anti-science, whereas the fact is that science has always been in partnership with religion since, forever.  Of course, religion is a power structure, and so at times it has used science as a whipping boy and scapegoat.  I don't see this as a characteristic of religion, so much as a characteristic of humanity.  Galileo did not so much get cross with Catholicism, as he did with Aristotelian Jesuits, the Dominicans and the Pope.  There has, however, been an anti-scientific streak in Protestant denominations, which finds it useful to rant against science (albeit with some justification).

Finally, as someone who has studied alchemists you should know that early Christians and alchemists followed the book of Enoch. It was the mindset even in Alexandria 350 AD that the closer you were to antediluvian Enoch, the closer you are to Adam. No one in the early church was looking to modernize that belief. Please demonstrate any proof that they were.
Quill has a theory- what is his point?
How exactly are 'others' using Quill's theory for speculation? As far as I can see Quill is doing the speculation and you are obfuscating, there was a broad brush used by the early church, accuracy seems unimportant here as others are deliberately ignoring the nature and mindset of people at the time in question.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2017 at 23:58
Just an aside- the church fathers were St Paul, and the apostles Peter, Mark and John. Their students followed. 
Where is St Augustine identified as an early church father?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 01:09
There is a book called 'the last of the Fathers,' about Bernard of Claurivaux. by Thomas Merton.  So if you look at the Western (Catholic) Church, you have church fathers as late as middle ages.  But usually when Church Fathers are mentioned, what is talked about is theologians in the first centuries of Christianity.  Eastern Orthodoxy recognizes there are still individuals becoming saints, who are (also considered) Church Fathers.

Look up Church Fathers on wikipedia.

Are you asking what Quill said?  You can look up his video as easily as I can.  I seem to remember that Quill has a fairly cogent argument, but others want to grab the ball and run off with it.   Make it into something else.  Of course, you are talking about something I wrote 15+ days ago.  I don't know what he said, I don't know what I said, I have kind of moved on since then, and I believe so did he.  I don't know if he is monitoring this thread.  He wanted people to respond to what he wrote, the case he made, and so I tried to give him some concrete feedback.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 02:10
The church fathers were the people who knew Jesus and their students by definition. Later writers have added to the list but we were talking about a particular time frame and a philosophy, were we not? 
Augustine represents a paradigm shift from the "Early Church Fathers"

http://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology" rel="nofollow - http://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology
Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen's allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of
Augustinian amillennialism.

You can keep your Wiki, no ty.

I know what Quill said that's why I tried to inquire about naming Augustine. I don't know why Quill put it behind him, he never comments directly to inquiry.
You respond to threads written years ago but will not clarify your position from 15 days ago? You don't know what you wrote? The church fathers used Enoch as a guide and for the men of the early church it would be heresy to embrace Greek philosophy. Augustine is a schism in the early church not in keeping with the church fathers. 


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 02:15
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Hell is one thing, Holocaust is another.
I guess that I never believed that people necessarily knew what they were talking about when they talked about hell or God, etc.  I never doubted them for that matter either.  Augustine is an amazing thinker, who has shaped the world in many ways, I tend to think those ways are favorable over all.  I think Augustine is well reasoned, whether you agree with him is another matter.  But I see him as advocating communication, over the use of violence to make his point.

Let's say you have a pool table with various pockets, all pockets except one will occasionally spit out a ball (or balls), of course, the one will end up with all the balls in it eventually.  That is like religion, if you are exclusive and don't permit people from ideological backsliding, eventually everyone will belong to your organization, whereas if you allow people to leave and worship at other temples, well eventually you will end in none, given a lively, and active environs.

Agree or disagree is not the point that's right. Augustine is not representative of a consistent view dating back to the church fathers. The rest of what you wrote here, seems unrelated as does comment on use of violence.(??) he was aviolent man for most of his young adult life. He is penitent not liberal.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 02:57
I wouldn't have thought that Christianity destroyed ancient science, retarded it's progress and development certainly.

As we all know, Holy Mother Church tortured and executed anyone whose views were a departure from those of the Church, calling them heretics.

There is no doubt in my mind that European sciences would have progressed better and earlier had there been no interference by the Church.

Quote Agree or disagree is not the point that's right. Augustine is not representative of a consistent view dating back to the church fathers. The rest of what you wrote here, seems unrelated as does comment on use of violence.(??) he was aviolent man for most of his young adult life. He is penitent not liberal.

I agree. Notwithstanding that the Church was supposed to stand for all that was good and righteous, it directed a reign of terror across Europe and the New World for hundred of years.

Can the Roman Catholic Church justify past deeds?




-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 03:32

With it, no longer was the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church. Rather, Christianity would be, in many ways, a mirror-image of the empire itself. "It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalistic." https://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology#P146_35695" rel="nofollow - 70  It was a huge force for stability. https://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology#P147_35740" rel="nofollow - 71  Hence, Christianity after 313 would become worldly, rather than other-worldly.

The church's new-found favor from Rome caused dramatic upheavals. Jerome complained that "one who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; another moves overnight from the ampitheatre to the church; a man who spent the evening in the circus stands next morning at the altar, and another who was recently a patron of the stage is now the dedicator of virgins." https://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology#P149_36189" rel="nofollow - 72  He wrote that "our walls glitter with gold, and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry." https://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology#P150_36396" rel="nofollow - 73

Good quote from St Jerome. The first step was Origen and Augustine basically saying that the five books of Moses (Enoch was to be kept out of the Bible as per the Church Fathers) were not about the Jews but about Christianity (paraphrasing) next step the Jews are booted from Jerusalem. Oh well, looks like God just cut the Jews off. Too bad the but the Pentateuch was really about 3rd century Christians not the Israelites.

JP II did a good deal of apologizing. I don't think anyone tries to justify it anymore.



-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 18:52
Hi there! I did not se that people have started to write on the tread again. For your info Im working on new videos at the moment. Im going to try to respond to the comments but Im not going to stay on the tread for a longer discussion.

Franciscosan: Thx for your comments!

Vanuatu: Hi! It´s not clear what point you are trying to make? If you could try to formulate what problems you se with the claims in the video, please do so on the messages and I will try to respond as best as a can.

Toyomotor: Hi again! Ive wrote earlier that I recommend you to read litterature on this subject and still recommend that you do that(since judging by the comment you made, I don´t think you have). Here are some books I would recommend to start with.

"Beginnings of Western science" by David C Lindberg.

"Science and religion 400 B.C - A.D 1550" by Edward Grant.

"God´s philosophers" by James Hannam.

I won´t go into a debate on this forum but if there is any litterature you would recommend on the subject, Il gladly pick it up and read it when I have time.




-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 23:59
Quill, you don't mention the Apostolic Fathers but you imply that all was darkness until St Clement A. applied Greek Philosophy to the interpretation of the "Word." In the view of Pentecostalism , Baptists and Evangelicals, the list of Church Fathers end at 150 AD. 

The Post- Nicene Fathers like Augustine and Clement were after more than the natural philosophy. 
It was political stature and power under Imperial rule that fostered Clement's use of allegorical interpretation used to make more difficult passages from the Bible, palatable. Clement was tired of being among the uneducated lower classes, being jeered at by libertines and pagans and tired of arguing with Jews.

I don't find any religious scientific advance until the 6th century. I suppose an undefined timeline could make anyone's imagination run wild. After 313 Rome is love with Christianity and this as the ultimate purpose in pursuit of philosophy, to take the Jewish books for Jasus. Jerome was appalled and Augustine changed his mind about premillennialism near his death.

You do not site a single scientific advance in the age of the Post-Nicene Fathers. Your experts say ..they did nothing to stop it...alchemy, precursor to chemistry- disagreed with their allegorical, arbitrary interpretations (Faith before reason!). Augustine sees the state as divinely endowed and he was hot to root out heresy. This praise for doing "nothing to stop " what exactly? Alchemy? 
And they did destroy it in Alexandria, 296.
http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Alchemy" rel="nofollow - http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Alchemy


"The marginalization of the premillennialism of the Bible and the early church fathers was so successful that even the reformers dismissed it as a "fable of Jewish dotage."

The premillennial position is that the Bible should be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical and historical meaning in all areas of theology unless contextual or theological reasons make it clear that this was not intended by the writer. Amillenarians use the literal method in theology as a whole but spiritualize Scripture whenever its literal meaning would lead to the premillennial viewpoint. 

Not until mid 19th century was premillennialism an accepted form of interpretation of the Bible.

However, the development of Christianity in the Empire brought a contrary line of thinking, stemming from Augustine (354-430 CE), ... who wrote of his beliefs shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire. In essence, he felt that reason and faith could be used to understand God, but experimental philosophy was evil: "There is also present in the soul, by means of these same bodily sense, a kind of empty longing and curiosity which aims not at taking pleasure in the flesh but at acquiring experience through the flesh, and this empty curiosity is dignified by the names of learning and science." (Augustine, p. 245)

Augustinian ideas were decidedly anti-experimental, yet when Aristotelian experimental techniques were made available to the West they were not shunned. Still, Augustinian thought was well ingrained in medieval society and was used to show alchemy as being un-Godly. Ultimately, by the high middle ages, this line of thought created a permanent rift separating alchemy from the very religion that had fostered its birth.

(same link as above)
So I am not impressed with church fathers who didn't try to stop natural sciences. It simply means they didn't have enough power to do it, yet.
*correction-Christians destroy alchemical texts 391 by order of Theodosus and Ambrose. Can we assume Augustine was all in on that?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 02:30
I don't think very much about your source, Vanuatu.  
From what I imperfectly remember about Paracelsus
was that he rejected Galen as not being Christian, 
and therefore offered an alternative to the four elements.

But of course, with many new age sources, it is important to
paint Christianity in a bad light.  The problem is that doing
so falsifies things and does not give credit to human
complexity.

Christianity offered an alternative to Galen and Aristotle,
just as "Pythagoreanism" (Copernicus) offered an alternative
to Ptolemy and scholastic Aristotelianism.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 03:01
What about the information is wrong? I mean in reference to the topic.
Are you saying Theodosius and Ambrose didn't order the burning of alchemical books? Lots of sources cite that event.
 


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 04:37

The Pillar of Celestial Fire: And the Lost Science of the Ancient Seers

By Robert Cox



http://books.google.com/books?id=ykEN2zHvCpQC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=did+christians+destroy+alchemical+texts+in+alexandria&source=bl&ots=SBFC6AsXUB&sig=L7TCgj6TB7T9RzgC2Xfr5TZJBw4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRpobw-rHSAhXp7IMKHTlzDqEQ6AEISjAJ#v=onepage&q=did%20christians%20destroy%20alchemical%20texts%20in%20alexandria&f=false" rel="nofollow - http://books.google.com/books?id=ykEN2zHvCpQC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=did+christians+destroy+alchemical+texts+in+alexandria&source=bl&ots=SBFC6AsXUB&sig=L7TCgj6TB7T9RzgC2Xfr5TZJBw4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRpobw-rHSAhXp7IMKHTlzDqEQ6AEISjAJ#v=onepage&q=did%20christians%20destroy%20alchemical%20texts%20in%20alexandria&f=false



The Invention of Science: Why History of Science Matters for the Classroom

By Catherine Milne




http://books.google.com/books?id=p0x_1Rb_hn8C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=did+christians+destroy+alchemical+texts+in+alexandria&source=bl&ots=GD-0o465RW&sig=uBNvKTgJccLSbMnpRqSm9iWqt64&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRpobw-rHSAhXp7IMKHTlzDqEQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=did%20christians%20destroy%20alchemical%20texts%20in%20alexandria&f=false" rel="nofollow - http: http://books.google.com/books?id=p0x_1Rb_hn8C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=did+christians+destroy+alchemical+texts+in+alexandria&source=bl&ots=GD-0o465RW&sig=uBNvKTgJccLSbMnpRqSm9iWqt64&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRpobw-rHSAhXp7IMKHTlzDqEQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=did%20christians%20destroy%20alchemical%20texts%20in%20alexandria&f=false" rel="nofollow - //books.google.com/books?id=p0x_1Rb_hn8C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=did+christians+destroy+alchemical+texts+in+alexandria&source=bl&ots=GD-0o465RW&sig=uBNvKTgJccLSbMnpRqSm9iWqt64&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRpobw-rHSAhXp7IMKHTlzDqEQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=did%20christians%20destroy%20alchemical%20texts%20in%20alexandria&f=false

-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 12:40
Dictionary of World Mythology by Arthur Cotterel
391 Bishop Theophilus and militant congregation attack the Serapeum at Alexandria. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=ExuhmHX4dUEC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=312+christian+zealots+attack+Serapeum&source=bl&ots=ELarXFWOTT&sig=jgp6ouGC8xBwiXvy6-rgVo93HV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigyfnf5rLSAhVH5YMKHUw7CkwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=312%20christian%20zealots%20attack%20Serapeum&f=false" rel="nofollow - http://books.google.com/books?id=ExuhmHX4dUEC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=312+christian+zealots+attack+Serapeum&source=bl&ots=ELarXFWOTT&sig=jgp6ouGC8xBwiXvy6-rgVo93HV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigyfnf5rLSAhVH5YMKHUw7CkwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=312%20christian%20zealots%20attack%20Serapeum&f=false

-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 14:19
St. Augustine (354-430) fitted into this anti-rationalistic tradition. Although early in his career he seem to have held that reason was an important element in the search for truth, things soon changed. Upon becoming bishop of Hippo, he started to deride all forms of secular learning and education. He abused Greek philosophy and called Plato "a fool". He labeled philosophers as "arrogant" and, in line with the New Testament, he taught that "it is the ignorant who enter heaven." Augustine believed that the Fall (of Adam and Eve) corrupted humankind to the extend where they are incapable of using their independent reason to discover the truth. To Augustine, if God wanted to let humankind know something about the world he would have revealed it unambiguously through his word; if God has chosen not to reveal something, then it means that he does not intend humankind to know.  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#10" rel="nofollow - [10]

-So when the Bishop is telling his faithful, if God wanted you to know this he'd have laid an egg in your brain, he not suppressing the advance of natural science?-

Origen (c185-254) continued along this line. In his polemical work Contra Celsum this is what he had to say about reason, faith and the multitude of ordinary Christians:

As this matter of faith...we accept it as useful for the multitude, and that we admittedly teach those who cannot abandon everything and pursue a study of rational argument to believe without thinking out their arguments.  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#5" rel="nofollow - [5]

-But Origen wanted to be free to interpret the "Word" on the fly.-

In other words, since the multitudes do not have the time, the inclination nor the aptitude to understand, Origen recommended that they simply believe what is being fed to them from the pulpit!

Lactantius (c240-c320 CE), a Christian apologist and tutor to one of Constantine's sons, condemned all forms of secular knowledge and pure science:

What purpose does knowledge serve-for as to natural causes, what blessing is there for me to know where the Nile rises, or whatever else under the heavens the "scientists" rave about?  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#6" rel="nofollow - [6]

-Again, once in authority all speculation is discouraged. Cave dwellers knew more about the natural world than the Early Christians. What possible good would it serve to understand seasonal changes? Neanderthal knew better!-

As we have shown  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/bookburn.html" rel="nofollow - elsewhere , Christians, wherever and whenever they were in a position to do so, attacked and destroyed the repositories of knowledge, namely books and libraries. In 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt. Around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. Then in 391, perhaps the greatest intellectual tragedy of all, the great library of Alexandria (which was reputed to house 700,000 books on all subjects) was destroyed by a group of monks led by Theophilus (d.412), bishop of Alexandria. Pope Gregory The Great (c.540-604) was the person responsible for destroying the last collection of older Roman works in the city. Up to the fifth century many Greco Roman cities had libraries which housed more than 100,000 books. These were all destroyed by the Christians.  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#14" rel="nofollow - [14]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#6" rel="nofollow - http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#6

-Can't wait to hear your spin on Hypatia.-


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 16:21
Originally posted by Quill & Ink HIstory Quill & Ink HIstory wrote:

Hi there! I did not se that people have started to write on the tread again. For your info Im working on new videos at the moment. Im going to try to respond to the comments but Im not going to stay on the tread for a longer discussion.

Franciscosan: Thx for your comments!

Vanuatu: Hi! It´s not clear what point you are trying to make? If you could try to formulate what problems you se with the claims in the video, please do so on the messages and I will try to respond as best as a can.

Toyomotor: Hi again! Ive wrote earlier that I recommend you to read litterature on this subject and still recommend that you do that(since judging by the comment you made, I don´t think you have). Here are some books I would recommend to start with.

"Beginnings of Western science" by David C Lindberg.

"Science and religion 400 B.C - A.D 1550" by Edward Grant.

"God´s philosophers" by James Hannam.

I won´t go into a debate on this forum but if there is any litterature you would recommend on the subject, Il gladly pick it up and read it when I have time.


I won´t go into a debate on this forum but if there is any litterature you would recommend on the subject, Il gladly pick it up and read it when I have time.


[/QUOTE]

Really? you wouldn't even cut and paste a link to a paragraph that I suggested. You don't know why Paul is important? Please, I know your educated but your still wrong and it doesn't take a francisosan to see it.
 
Quill, is this the extent of the defense of your ideas here? Telling people to read the books that YOU agree with? I know why you don't go into debate it's because there is a contrary view that you cannot disprove. 
I hope you didn't pay those experts to sit there looking collegiate saying "They did nothing to stop it." Whoa my head is spinning from the wisdom! 

You don't cite a single source that can't be crushed. Of course you would just say "Not a reliable source." PfttThumbs Down
You are trying to rewrite history. If Augustine as bishop told his faithful to look at the natural world as a mystery to be understood, the world might have been a much better place. Instead he and others like him helped to bury the brilliance of the great Empires and inspired hatred and violence that still plagues us today. 




-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2017 at 23:12
Have you ever gardened?


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 03:08
There may be a prohibition against going off topic here.
Not for 20 years.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 03:54
It's not off topic.

For certain kinds of bushes, you chop them back to a stump in the fall, so that they can grow in the Spring.  When people talk about ancient science, they're pretty much talking about Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greek.  Things are pretty static in the ancient world after the Greeks,  Think about it, how many "scientists" are there after the Greeks?  Galen is derivative from Hippocrates.  Ptolemy?  Archimedes?  Euclid? I know you probably don't think much of them, but Plato and Aristotle.

Ancient science was qualitative, describing the quality of things.  Modern science is more quantitative, experimental, and instrumental.  I think your definition of science, if you think about it, is really talking about just _modern_ science, quantitative, mathematical, experimental in terms of the interrogation of nature.  But _if_ you are talking about science as only scientific progress, you don't see much between the Hellenistic and the Renaissance, that includes Platonists like Boethius, or Augustine, or Aristotelians like Aquinas (oh, but don't forget medieval islam and Judaism. and but also someone like Hypatia, or her father.

Dog's calling, got to go.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 04:13
Oh, you mean they weren't talking about cold fusion in the 3rd century? Thanks for clearing that up.

-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 04:44
franciscosan wrote
Quote Modern science is more quantitative, experimental, and instrumental.  I think your definition of science, if you think about it, is really talking about just _modern_ science, quantitative, mathematical, experimental in terms of the interrogation of nature.

I don't agree with you!

Modern science is also qualitive, with peer reviews and more than one expert in one field working a problem. We read debate and disagreement, we see calls for more proof of what has gone/is going on around us.

As I've written before, todays truth may well be turned upside down tomorrow.

Again, I don't think that Christianity destroyed ancient science, retarded it's progress, channeled it into different directions, certainly.

Please show me examples of how ancient science was destroyed by Christianity.




-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 11:35
The physical destruction of alchemist texts and other scrolls in Alexandria, are outlined and linked in previous posts. In this example several incidents are noted. If you burn all written knowledge of the time on a given subject, the science is effectively destroyed until that science is rediscoverd at a later time. 

You ever wonder why it was 'news' 20 years ago that the Egyptians had a version of battery power? Well, every written source was lost on the subject. Possibly in one these mob attacks. Think of antikythera device. Maybe Cicero mentioned it but where are the technical writings on the subject?
If they ever existed they would have likely been in Ptolemy's library.

As we have shown  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/bookburn.html" rel="nofollow - elsewhere , Christians, wherever and whenever they were in a position to do so, attacked and destroyed the repositories of knowledge, namely books and libraries. In 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt. Around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. Then in 391, perhaps the greatest intellectual tragedy of all, the great library of Alexandria (which was reputed to house 700,000 books on all subjects) was destroyed by a group of monks led by Theophilus (d.412), bishop of Alexandria. Pope Gregory The Great (c.540-604) was the person responsible for destroying the last collection of older Roman works in the city. Up to the fifth century many Greco Roman cities had libraries which housed more than 100,000 books. These were all destroyed by the Christians.  http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#14" rel="nofollow - [14]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#6" rel="nofollow - http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html#6


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 13:15
Further to the last, discouraging and prohibiting scientific inquiry in the form of church doctrine among the common people wasn't conducive to advanced thinking. In fact the theology of Augustine, Clement and some of their contemporaries actively tries to suppress humanity's natural curiosity and interest in the natural world. Possibly even more devastating to scientific development than burning libraries. 

The choice of words here "destroy' is severe and  purposely used to take away the blame that has always been laid at the feet of the church. C'mon, they " did nothing to stop it " right? So I don't agree, and so I say yes in at least two ways they did destroy the scientific development in Alexandria and later in Europe.
Augustine and others broke from the literal translations of the "Word" in favor of their own personal leanings and political aspirations for themselves and the church body.

The reason I mentioned Enoch is because the book suggests a different view of humanity, the heavens and God's relationship to man than was espoused by ante-Nicene fathers. It encourages a higher form of thinking, visualization and the ascent of man. The first church fathers and alchemists treasured this book. It was never made part of the Canon and bc of men like Augustine it was hidden away, saved from destruction. In my view individual spiritual growth was not a virtue to Augustine, Clement and others, if it collided with the political advancement of the church body. Enoch is difficult to explain but wow, does it make you think! I didn't elaborate earlier assuming these things are known to the author of this thread.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 14:42

http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm" rel="nofollow - http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm

Books banned by the Council of Laodicea

Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 20:02
Where do you think the ancient texts that we have, came from?
Half the plays of Euripides were gone by the time that the Library
of Alexandria was founded.  I suggest looking at when Euripides 
was (contemporary with Socrates), and when the library of Alexandria
was. btw from World of Odysseus, by Finley. 
 It's like a lot of the silent films that
were big in that era, have disappeared in less than a hundred years,
every once in awhile something turns up in Argentina or New Zealand
(or maybe, Tasmania??) which was the end of the line for circulation
of movie reels.  If you haven't seen it, I would suggest seeing 
Scorseci's 'Hugo'.  I won't explain why, you can look that up,
if you want.  
 There were mobs that went on rampages destroying 
 pagan culture and there were demagogues who lead those crowds, 
 but most of ancient culture died because of the passage 
 of time and neglect.  There was intermittent, disorganized,
occasional persecution of pagans, after a few _hundred_ years
of persecution of Christians, _because_ Christians would
not recognize the divine authority of the Emperor, and 
the (other) gods upon which the Roman state was founded.
'to forgive is divine,' but payback is a lot more human,
all too human.  And of course, there were conflicts 
between different kinds of Christians.  Yes, Christianity
is not all about sitting around singing 'kumbaya' <grin>.
What power structure doesn't attract opportunists, and
the tyrannical?
I am curious which of the books above have you read,
Vanuatu?  True, some probably no longer exist.  But if
you place some value on them, I would hope that you
would read them, to foil the censors if for no other reason.
I think it is a fair question, considering you brought them up.
For myself I have read the Biblical ones, plus a few others.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 20:54
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Where do you think the ancient texts that we have, came from?
Half the plays of Euripides were gone by the time that the Library
of Alexandria was founded.  I suggest looking at when Euripides 
was (contemporary with Socrates), and when the library of Alexandria
was. btw from World of Odysseus, by Finley. 
 It's like a lot of the silent films that
were big in that era, have disappeared in less than a hundred years,
every once in awhile something turns up in Argentina or New Zealand
(or maybe, Tasmania??) which was the end of the line for circulation
of movie reels.  If you haven't seen it, I would suggest seeing 
Scorseci's 'Hugo'.  I won't explain why, you can look that up,
if you want.  
 There were mobs that went on rampages destroying 
 pagan culture and there were demagogues who lead those crowds, 
 but most of ancient culture died because of the passage 
 of time and neglect.  There was intermittent, disorganized,
occasional persecution of pagans, after a few _hundred_ years
of persecution of Christians, _because_ Christians would
not recognize the divine authority of the Emperor, and 
the (other) gods upon which the Roman state was founded.
'to forgive is divine,' but payback is a lot more human,
all too human.  And of course, there were conflicts 
between different kinds of Christians.  Yes, Christianity
is not all about sitting around singing 'kumbaya' <grin>.
What power structure doesn't attract opportunists, and
the tyrannical?
I am curious which of the books above have you read,
Vanuatu?  True, some probably no longer exist.  But if
you place some value on them, I would hope that you
would read them, to foil the censors if for no other reason.
I think it is a fair question, considering you brought them up.
For myself I have read the Biblical ones, plus a few others.

I think that people were able to hide books or preserve them however it pleases you. The Alchemical text the Leyden Papyrus was hidden with an Egyptian alchemist in his tomb. When people fled Constantinople they took the Hermetica with them and they were basically carrying the only things of great value to them.  

I do not say every text was destroyed and like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contained parts of the book of Enoch, they were hidden for a reason.
The Ptolemy Library was not the only one in Alexandria there were many. Is it a radical idea that people would have hidden books??? 
The Bishop Augustine did recognize the divinity of the state. And the words used to indict Augustine, Clement, Origen -are their own.

I don't disagree that the power structure we are discussing was tyrannical.

The list was included to prove that Enoch, which I have read was banned. And yes do ask:
Apostles Creed
Parts of Clement 1&2 that were of interest to me.
Ephesians
Mary
Philippians
Romans
Psalms of Solomon

Now, are you going to assert that because I have not read all these books from cover to cover that it changes any part of this discussion? Just curious.



-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 22:36
No, I was just curious about what you read.  The list does concern censorship, it is relevant in that way, but does not really concern ancient science, (except if you count theology, perhaps, or not). 

That is about what I've read of the list.  Maybe a few others.  The best stuff got into the Old Testament and New Testament, a lot of the extra-Canonical stuff is not so memorable.  Gospel of Thomas is good.

Of course, things get hidden, but except for a few things from the Egyptian and Palestinian desert, their survival depended on copying.  Deterioration of manuscripts and things falling apart in the passage of time is what destroyed most, except for what monks copied and, yes, preserved.  And some of those things that monks preserved are, frankly, pornographic.  I am talking about love poetry and literature, and don't be confused by the fact that it is poetry, it is not noble or enlightened.  I have not sought out the 'hardcore' stuff, but I know it exists (and scholars tend not to translate it, because if
you don't know Latin or Greek enough, then they think that you don't have business reading it).  

I wouldn't so much describe the Leyden Papyrus as being 'hidden' as it is grave goods, placed with its owner (maker?) in his burial for the "next" life.  The Nag Hammadi texts were hidden, put in earthen jars and buried under a rock, so were Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Derveni Papyrus (Orphic, 'Europe's oldest book) was grave goods, which by a fluke was preserved in Greece.  The Zagreb 'manuscript' (Etruscan) was mummy wrappings.  The Archimedes palimpsest, well if you don't know what a palimpsest is, look it up.  Point is there are a lot of ways that ancient books come down through time.  Some of these books may have been hidden at some point, but at the same time, the monks (particularly the Irish monks) were not necessarily that particular about what they copied.  If it was Latin and they could get their hands on it, it got copied.  



Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 23:06
I had read somewhere that the Leyden Papyrus was hidden bc of Justinian banning alchemy but I am not sure.
Think of the first Bishops, the apostles. They were given a power (belief of the faithful, not hard science) to lay hands on the next Bishop to impart the power of the Holy Spirit. All religions seem to be about the transformation of the individual to be worthy of trans-formative power of God. 

The Gnostics of pre-Christian era and alchemists of Middle Ages alike were after this spiritual 'gold.' Yet it seems all of that was tossed by these ante-Nicene Church Fathers for the greater glory of the state, political power and personal status. That trans-formative state is THE best thing about religion but they denied it to common people. Before you say that they were too dim to understand, think of the what Alexandria was like during 3rd century.
It was a hub of ideas and learning and had the potential for amazing growth. Shedding the Apostolic Fathers and the Hebrew traditions for an Empire friendly treatise is so base and deceptive! It wouldn't be the last time either. So if they could deny the faithful this spiritual transformation, what qualms would they have about extending the ignorance to observable natural phenomenon that would eventually lead to experimentation?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 23:15
LOL. Isn't the brain the highest sexual organ? Tantra, the sacred sex? Solomon would agree. 

-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 23:27
Toyomotor, I think you are disagreeing with me without understanding what I am saying, or trying to say.  Which is partially my fault.  But understand it is like being in orbit looking down, "bird's eye view."  One can look down upon a city, but explaining what one is seeing is a different story, both because of the complexity of the object, but also because it is on the edge of one's power of vision (so small) because of the distance, and also maybe because of 'atmospheric' distortions (clouds).

Galileo said that mathematics is the language of nature.  Before that, mathematics wasn't so much used to describe the world.  It was a model for beauty, but primarily human made beauty, except for the heavens.

I have read a lot on ancient science, not that you should take my word for it.  I don't expect you to agree, but I don't really expect you to disagree either.  Just try to see what I am saying, and look up a few things.
Some places to look are Heath, Lloyd, Sarton.  I have read Euclid, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, the fragments of the Presocratics.  Pythagoras and his school, About ancient mathematics, geography, astronomy, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Egyptian math, Babylonian math, Hypatia, Pythias of Massalia, other stuff I am more vague on, I've looked at Archimedes, haven't looked at Ptolemy.  But what I am saying is that I have a breadth of knowledge about antiquity, and in areas some depth.  I don't want you to trust me on things, but please understand, my opinions on it don't come out of just nowhere, I have looked to some extent.

If you look at the great names of ancient science, they tend to be Greek and they tend to be Hellenistic era or earlier (Hellenistic period begins with Alexander of Macedon conquering Persia), Galen is Roman, but I seem to remember he is derivative of Hippocrates.  Ancient science becomes pretty static in the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, until the renaissance.  The problem with ancient science was not repression but stagnation, and this not only applied to science, but also to literature.  There is a story about a poetry contest, which a sophist (intellectual) was invited to be one of the judges, a group of 'poets' read their work, and this scholar voted for one of the candidates that all the other judges voted for last.  When asked why he voted for that guy, he said that that poet's work was the only stuff that was original, and all the rest where just ripping off Homer or other poets of the past.  There was an assumption in antiquity, that as time progressed, things got worse, which meant there was a fascination for the past when there was a golden age, (down to silver, bronze, iron, etc.).  Can you imagine living
in a time where everybody thinks everything has been done?  That is what late antiquity was like, or at least late Pagan antiquity.  The Christians shook everything up.  Classical antiquity was in a rut, and Christianity got it out of its rut.  Unlimited advancement of science was not an option in any case.  This idea that science could have gone on "progressing," throughout the Middle Ages ignores the fact that science hadn't been progressing very much since the Hellenistic era (before Cleopatra). 


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2017 at 23:38
There is a difference between science and technology, although people often confuse them.  I seem to remember it is Lynn White who wrote about how the technology of the Middle Ages lead to the scientific revolution.  The codex is late antiquity, but it should be mentioned.  The stirrup, the clock, the water wheel, lens were in antiquity, but really didn't come into there own, until glasses, the telescope and the microscope.  I think a new kind of plow was introduced.  Metallurgy was important in the Middle Ages, all those knights in shining armor and long swords.  Point is, there were a lot of things happening in the Middle Ages that paved the way for the imagination of a new world.  Standardization of time, because of clocks.  Freeing of labor by water wheels and windmills.  New worlds through the telescope and the microscope.  Oh, don't forget Gutenberg and the printing press, before that it took a couple years to produce _a_ book.  Woodcuts also, for printing illustrations.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2017 at 02:17
I may have over exaggerated the absence of 'scientists' in later antiquity.  But, really science was an appreciation of nature (natural philosophy), and the main reason for appreciating nature (creation) was so that one might appreciate the creator's handwork.  One could do this in paganism, but really only to a limited extent, because if you think about it, even if Zeus is more powerful than the rest, combined.  There are still a variety of "creators."  Again, it is _appreciation_ of nature, the idea that science and technology go hand in hand, is foreign to the ancient world.  It is not until Francis Bacon, or Machiavelli that one gets the idea of Nature as something that needs to be interrogated, with torture, in order to reveal her secrets.  That is not completely true, there are different models of nature from the ancient world, the Promethean which is modern science, man stealing fire and crafts from the gods.  The Orphic, man charming and enticing nature through the arts to give up her secrets.  And Isis, where underneath the veil of nature, there is another veil, and so forth.  (Pierre Hadot).  But modern science is pretty much Promethean, man doing violence to nature to get her secrets.  Under that view of "science," ancient science is deficient.  Ancient science is primarily Orphic (Timaeus), basking in the glory of the heavens, without too much of a preoccupation with mathematical fine points.

Vanuatu, I imagine that some scholar said that about the Leyden Papyrus, it is what Plato would call "a likely story" (a myth).  It could be true, but it is probably beyond our knowledge.  It sounds like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."  A logical fallacy meaning "after this, therefore because of this."  It is something that sounds like it might make a good story in a video, and ultimately we don't know that is wrong."  Of course, there may be evidence in the find that points to that (but I don't know what it is), therefore one might ask if the expert is someone careful about their assertions, and can back up what they say.

One thing about the Gnostics, is that they believed this world was made by an "evil" demiurge who separated us from the 'good' God.  Humans were alienated by the demiurge from their true origin.  This world which we were in, was _bad_, a veil of tears and pain, and confusion.  Orthodox Christian doctrine recognizes _this_ world as "fallen," but that is not the same thing as bad.  God declared all of creation to be good, and it still is good for Orthodox Christians, it is just that world and man's relationship with it, are a little screwed up.  Now I am sure that you know the stories in Genesis.  It is not a question of whether these stories are fair, they describe how Jews, and thus Christians should see the world.  For Christians, Nature is not bad, not evil, it is fallen.  It is proper for humanity to study nature for the appreciation of God's handiwork.  In fact, the power of Adam to name things, is interpreted as an injunction to study nature, and thus science.
I think that you can see where this goes, the Gnostics typically have a rejection of the world, and thus nature, and thus science as bad.  The Orthodox and the Catholics look upon this world as "fallen," but not as bad and therefore, promoted a 'certain' view of science.  Man is supposed to be the custodian of nature according to Genesis.  Alchemy is something different.
But if you want to Vanuatu, let's start up a thread on Gnosticism, either you can start it, or if you don't I will. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2017 at 05:07
franciscosan:

Mate, how many topics are you going to address in a single post?

Quote But if you want to Vanuatu, let's start up a thread on Gnosticism, either you can start it, or if you don't I will.

I don't really see the alignment of Gnosticism and Christian destruction of ancient science.

Schisms  developed in the Christian Church, which led to the Reformation etc. Various religeous movements, at various times during the past two millenia outlawed verious scientific trains of though because they were contrary to the teaching of the church, but did they really destroy the science, or merely retard its progress?



 


-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2017 at 18:05
Hi! I don´t always leave an old forum tread hanging for a few days but when I do it seems like people go crazy in it. Vanatu I said earlier that I would not go into a debate on the subject since I have a loot to do in my studies and because Im working at new videos.

To respond to the swamp-texting you have done In the tread would include getting back the library books I used in the video and writing an esseay in the tread and that would take several hours and judging by the posts you have made it seems pretty useless since you have outright dismissed the scholarly litterature that I have referred to while blindly accepting any internett page true as long as it sais things you want to hear.


"Quill, is this the extent of the defense of your ideas here? Telling people to read the books that YOU agree with? I know why you don't go into debate it's because there is a contrary view that you cannot disprove.
I hope you didn't pay those experts to sit there looking collegiate saying "They did nothing to stop it." Whoa my head is spinning from the wisdom!

You don't cite a single source that can't be crushed. Of course you would just say "Not a reliable source."

You are trying to rewrite history. If Augustine as bishop told his faithful to look at the natural world as a mystery to be understood, the world might have been a much better place. Instead he and others like him helped to bury the brilliance of the great Empires and inspired hatred and violence that still plagues us today.".

Did I hit a soft spott or something? I am not recommending certain litterature because I "agree" with it. I recommend the litterature because it written by leading schoolars in the field and If there is any scholarly litterature arguing for the opposite I make sure I pick it up, read it and take it into account. You seem also to be equating crushing sources with dismissing them. And no Im am not trying to rewrite history, the claims that I argue for in the video is well established among church historians and historians of science. If you don´t believe me I recommend you visit a university and check for yourself.

I have said why I wont go into a debate on the subject. It would take to long time and would probably be pretty meaningless. If there is any schollarship or litterature that you would recommend me to read to try to convince you of you position, please let me know.

Whishing you all a good weekend.

Quill & Ink History.

-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2017 at 22:24
Well, we'll look forward to your next youtube video, let us know when that is done.  It may have gone beyond your purposes, but thank you for starting this thread, definitely gives food for thought.  "Mann ist was er Isst."  Toyomotor, Vanuatu brought up Gnosticism earlier, and Gnosticism is relevant indirectly because it is contemporary, because it is sometimes thought as alternative to Orthodox Christianity, and because it tends to have a very hostile attitude towards the world and nature.  Orthodoxy is more friendly to nature in that respect.  So in contrast with what else was there at the time, Orthodoxy is friendlier to nature, and thus to what we would call ancient science.  We understand the world in comparison and contrast, and if you understand something about Gnosticism, you would have a better understanding of ancient views of nature and science.  But as far as effort is concerned, it is more efficient to look just at ancient science and religion directly.  So, I suggested that if Vanuatu would like, I would be up for starting another thread on Gnosticism.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2017 at 22:57
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

franciscosan:

Mate, how many topics are you going to address in a single post?

Quote But if you want to Vanuatu, let's start up a thread on Gnosticism, either you can start it, or if you don't I will.

I don't really see the alignment of Gnosticism and Christian destruction of ancient science.

Schisms  developed in the Christian Church, which led to the Reformation etc. Various religeous movements, at various times during the past two millenia outlawed verious scientific trains of though because they were contrary to the teaching of the church, but did they really destroy the science, or merely retard its progress?



 

Well I didn't choose the title but it differs slightly from the video. If Christiany destroyed science we wouldn't be having the debate. I felt the assertion was that not only did Christianity not retard scientific experimentation but Christians actually were the first scientists.

There are Scholars such as Albert S. Lyons who say that Science existed before Christianity and persevered throughout the Dark Ages in spite of Christianity. 100 years after Theodosius in Italy, medicine and law are dispensed with, alliances by blood line are diminished and submission to the Papacy becomes the norm in matters of intellectually driven work.

I say it significantly disrupted the progress of Scientific Inquiry.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2017 at 23:15
Originally posted by Quill & Ink HIstory Quill & Ink HIstory wrote:

Hi! I don´t always leave an old forum tread hanging for a few days but when I do it seems like people go crazy in it. Vanatu I said earlier that I would not go into a debate on the subject since I have a loot to do in my studies and because Im working at new videos.

To respond to the swamp-texting you have done In the tread would include getting back the library books I used in the video and writing an esseay in the tread and that would take several hours and judging by the posts you have made it seems pretty useless since you have outright dismissed the scholarly litterature that I have referred to while blindly accepting any internett page true as long as it sais things you want to hear.


"Quill, is this the extent of the defense of your ideas here? Telling people to read the books that YOU agree with? I know why you don't go into debate it's because there is a contrary view that you cannot disprove.
I hope you didn't pay those experts to sit there looking collegiate saying "They did nothing to stop it." Whoa my head is spinning from the wisdom!

You don't cite a single source that can't be crushed. Of course you would just say "Not a reliable source."

You are trying to rewrite history. If Augustine as bishop told his faithful to look at the natural world as a mystery to be understood, the world might have been a much better place. Instead he and others like him helped to bury the brilliance of the great Empires and inspired hatred and violence that still plagues us today.".

Did I hit a soft spott or something? I am not recommending certain litterature because I "agree" with it. I recommend the litterature because it written by leading schoolars in the field and If there is any scholarly litterature arguing for the opposite I make sure I pick it up, read it and take it into account. You seem also to be equating crushing sources with dismissing them. And no Im am not trying to rewrite history, the claims that I argue for in the video is well established among church historians and historians of science. If you don´t believe me I recommend you visit a university and check for yourself.

I have said why I wont go into a debate on the subject. It would take to long time and would probably be pretty meaningless. If there is any schollarship or litterature that you would recommend me to read to try to convince you of you position, please let me know.

Whishing you all a good weekend.

Quill & Ink History.

Well you should be glad to have people looking at your video. Right? Swamp texting?
Of course there are scholars, non Christians scholars who have an alternate view. You ask if you hit a soft spot? You mean sore spot that's ok I understand. It's the bull **** meter that you hit Quill.

http://The%20Myth%20of%20Christianity%20Founding%20Modern%20Science%20and%20Medicine%20%28And%20the%20Hole%20Left%20by%20the%20Christian%20Dark%20Ages*%29%20%20Commentary%20by%20Jim%20Walker" rel="nofollow - http://The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine (And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages*) Commentary by Jim Walker  

Your sources are promoting a narrative which is fine everyone does this. It does make the opinion biased, because who else is looking to prove that Christianity isn't backwards other than Christians?

I don't have to visit a university there are scholarly sources online. If you don't want to check the link Richard Carrier, Kenneth Clarke, Ruth Hurmence Green, John Romer, John Kelly, Barbara Tuchman-all historians who disagree with your experts, many more exist.

That was your claim right? No historians/scholars hold these views? It's just bogus internet sources? 

Which historians of science other than those Christians in your video, are promoting this view?
You don't have to debate it would be a waste of your time. It's all in black and white. 

Have a good weekend yourself. 


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2017 at 00:22
Vanuatu wrote 
Quote I say it significantly disrupted the progress of Scientific Inquiry.

And I agree.

To agree with the OP, would mean that progress in the sciences only re-commenced one or two hundred years ago, which, of course would be nonsense.

Non-intervention in the sciences would probably have meant far more progress in things like health, physics geology and so on.

As the self declared font of all knowledge, the medievil Christian Church was blind to what the result of scientific learning, in most areas, would bring.(IMHO)


-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2017 at 21:56
Ancient science was pretty much tapped out in late antiquity.
An idea of continuous, constant progress was not really feasible.
Christianity cleared the ground and let a new crop be planted,
so to speak.  You have technological advance during the "dark ages,"
that paved the way for the new science.

The battle between Galileo and the church is really about one set
of scientists vs. another.  The Jesuits were pushing for an Aristotelian/Ptolemiac
model, and Galileo and his friends, (including some priests) were
advocating a "Pythagorean"/Copernican model.  Yes, the Pope and
the inquisition were involved, but that is because Galileo had insulted
the Pope by putting the Pope's argument in the words of the simpleton
of the dialogue.


Posted By: Quill & Ink HIstory
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2017 at 16:26
Vanatu, I recommend you to actually check with the references of the sources and people you refer to rather then just blindly accepting what they say as facs. You know you are cherry picking your sources when your only refrense is Richard Carrier(since the other people sighted don´t make any claims on the subject). It´s true Carrier has a Phd in history but he is not a scholar and makes a living on writing sensational books which thesises is rejected by pretty much every scholar in the field. So yes it is just bogus internett sources that has nothing to do with scholarship in the subject.

"Your sources are promoting a narrative which is fine everyone does this. It does make the opinion biased, because who else is looking to prove that Christianity isn't backwards other than Christians?".

Well that´s an odd claim since the most of the scholars I sight are not Christians at all. Ronald Numbers is an agnostic and David Lindberg and Edward Grant are not Christians to any of my knowledge and these are the scholars that I refer to the most.

As for Hypatia I recomend you pick up Maria Dzielskas biography of Hypatia, it will explain several of the missunderstanding concerning Hypatia and Bishop Cyril.




-------------
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 09:05
Q&IH

Apart from lambasting Vanuatu, did you have anything to add to this conversation?

It might be good if you were to read Vanuatu's and Franciscosan's posts for some facts.

While it is clear that, in some early cases, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, did in fact ban some scientific thesis as being heretic, my personal opinion is, as I've written earlier, that the Church didn't destroy ancient science so much as retard it's progress.

Franciscosan has provided some individual cases where various early scientists were proscribed not only by the Church, but also other scholars.

 


-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 11:52
The sources I listed are historians and they do provide evidence of the church in antiquity, regarding religion and black plague, religion and education, religion and heresy and on...it is an actual argument using independent sources to support the claim that religion did not advance science in fact it stifles science. 




-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 16:15
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I may have over exaggerated the absence of 'scientists' in later antiquity.  
Yes because that really goes against the argument that Christianity produced scientists. They happened to be Christians, just the only existing power structure and only road to education.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

But, really science was an appreciation of nature (natural philosophy), and the main reason for appreciating nature (creation) was so that one might appreciate the creator's handwork.  One could do this in paganism, but really only to a limited extent, because if you think about it, even if Zeus is more powerful than the rest, combined.  There are still a variety of "creators."

Yes like the pagan Egyptians

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Again, it is _appreciation_ of nature, the idea that science and technology go hand in hand, is foreign to the ancient world.
Appreciation of nature was foreign to the ancient world? There is no reason to accept that as verifiable in historical sources or even in speculative terms. 

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is not until Francis Bacon, or Machiavelli that one gets the idea of Nature as something that needs to be interrogated, with torture, in order to reveal her secrets.  That is not completely true, there are different models of nature from the ancient world, the Promethean which is modern science, man stealing fire and crafts from the gods.

Got that lesson, Bacon just dogmatized science the way Newton dogmatized the heavens. The way Rome dogmatized everything related to life on earth.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The Orphic, man charming and enticing nature through the arts to give up her secrets.  And Isis, where underneath the veil of nature, there is another veil, and so forth.  (Pierre Hadot).  But modern science is pretty much Promethean, man doing violence to nature to get her secrets.  Under that view of "science," ancient science is deficient.  Ancient science is primarily Orphic (Timaeus), basking in the glory of the heavens, without too much of a preoccupation with mathematical fine points.
Newton hid his Hermetica, the new science was church proof that's how smart he was and Bacon was begging to be a Newton. The church wanted things formalized and it helped the advance of the scientific method. Science has also been stubbornly stupid, plate tectonics, population of the Americas, leeching..

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Vanuatu, I imagine that some scholar said that about the Leyden Papyrus, it is what Plato would call "a likely story" (a myth).  It could be true, but it is probably beyond our knowledge.  It sounds like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."  A logical fallacy meaning "after this, therefore because of this."  It is something that sounds like it might make a good story in a video, and ultimately we don't know that is wrong."  Of course, there may be evidence in the find that points to that (but I don't know what it is), therefore one might ask if the expert is someone careful about their assertions, and can back up what they say.

It was in a lecture by Adrian Gilbert, I'll rate his knowledge of the Hermetica above yours for now at least.




-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 17:19
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is not until Francis Bacon, or Machiavelli that one gets the idea of Nature as something that needs to be interrogated, with torture, in order to reveal her secrets.  

The idea of nature having secrets to give comes from alchemy, the idea of torturing nature to get to those secrets is Bacon. He was known as an alchemist and as a Christian. Wouldn't you say that alchemy can be studied from more than one discipline?

 
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Alchemy is something different.


Science is as science does, the early apparatus for distillation are basically still in use today that is real science. The trouble is the aspect of experience in alchemy as with most heresies. The church is jealous of the individual's experience with god and always wants to dictate what form communion takes. This keeps the church indispensable to the lives of people baptized into a protection agreement from the pope.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 20:34
To what Toyomotor was saying, Q&IH started this thread, I think he was just sticking to his original purpose of wanting feedback on his video.  The Maria Dzielskas biography that Q&IH recommended is interesting, I believe that is the one I read, besides some ancient short biographies in _Alexandria_.

I don't know what you mean as a "discipline" in this context.  Vanuatu, If you mean that it can be studied from more than one angle, or more than one religious background, then sure.  By Bacon, I mean Francis Bacon, which means that the Prometheus model (or one might say Faustian?) of nature and her secrets does not come into dominance until after the Middle Ages.

Maybe you mean how metals and planets/astrological/astronomical symbols, and the elements and animal/vegetable/mineral, strife/love are all united alchemy.

I wonder if the idea of nature having secrets is older than alchemy, or at least the known history of alchemy.

I may have over exaggerated the absence of "scientists" in late antiquity, _however_, I suggest trying to name a "scientist" from late antiquity, (besides Hypatia whom I have already mentioned).  They are there, but most of the new ideas are Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic in origin.  Most late antiquity scientists require some kind of specialized knowledge to know of them, not general knowledge.  I'll have to go back and watch Q&IHs video again.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 00:13
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

To what Toyomotor was saying, Q&IH started this thread, I think he was just sticking to his original purpose of wanting feedback on his video.  The Maria Dzielskas biography that Q&IH recommended is interesting, I believe that is the one I read, besides some ancient short biographies in _Alexandria_.
Quill asked for feedback, it happens that he didn't like it. Does that invalidate opinions on the claims he makes in his video?

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Don't know what you mean as a "discipline" in this context.  Vanuatu, If you mean that it can be studied from more than one angle, or more than one religious background, then sure.  By Bacon, I mean Francis Bacon, which means that the Prometheus model (or one might say Faustian?) of nature and her secrets does not come into dominance until after the Middle Ages.

I mean what it has always meant, franciscosan studied from more than one perspective. You didn't mean Kevin Bacon? Wink

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

you mean how metals and planets/astrological/astronomical symbols, and the elements and animal/vegetable/mineral, strife/love are all united alchemy.

I wonder if the idea of nature having secrets is older than alchemy, or at least the known history of alchemy.

I may have over exaggerated the absence of "scientists" in late antiquity, _however_, I suggest trying to name a "scientist" from late antiquity, (besides Hypatia whom I have already mentioned).  They are there, but most of the new ideas are Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic in origin.  Most late antiquity scientists require some kind of specialized knowledge to know of them, not general knowledge.  I'll have to go back and watch Q&IHs video again.

Don't really know who all the early scientists were, do we? Can't name them since their names would have been recorded, probably in writing, probably in a book of some kind....and then the  christians had a red hot book sale!


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 06:37
Vanuatu Kevin Bacon? Kevin Bloody BACON?

He was a Labor politician in Tasmania, ptshooey!!! YUK!!

And I don't eat pork ham or any other product of pig.


-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 23:04
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu Kevin Bacon? Kevin Bloody BACON?

He was a Labor politician in Tasmania, ptshooey!!! YUK!!

And I don't eat pork ham or any other product of pig.

Oh my, my, my, you gave me THE LAUGH OF THE DECADE.
Kevin Bacon is an american actor there is a pseudo theory about him as the center of the universe but a Labor politician in Tasmania named Kevin Bacon is the funniest Kevin Bacon joke EVER. ClapPig
 
Theory that by six or less degrees of separation, every actor is connected to Kevin Bacon, possibly making him the center of the universe. A cult trivia game among movie fans, players choose one actor and create links by naming movies in which they worked with someone, who in turn is related to someone else, and so on, until the final person is directly connected to Kevin Bacon. Created by Craig Fass, Brian Turtle and Mike Ginelli and made famous in 1994 when Jon Stewart invited them to play on his show.
Kevin Costner is one link: Both were in JFK. Julia Louis-Dreyfus of TV's Seinfeld takes all six degrees of Kevin Bacon: She was in Christmas Vacation with Randy Quaid, who was in Major League II with Tom Berenger, who was in Shattered with Greta Scacchi, who was in Presumed Innocent with Harrison Ford, who was in Raiders of the Lost Ark with Karen Allen, who was in Animal House with Kevin Bacon.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=six%20degrees%20of%20kevin%20bacon" rel="nofollow - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=six%20degrees%20of%20kevin%20bacon


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 23:23
Well, in intellectual history, there is Francis Bacon, and before him is Roger Bacon.  and then there is Kevin Bacon, and then there is Vanuatu who is a natural ham.Wink

Our modern definition of science formed really in the 1400's and 1500's and since.  Before that it was natural philosophy, even Isaac Newton, held a 'chair' in "natural philosophy" at the University.  Until Julian Huxley in the 1800s, most of natural science was not professional science at the university, but pastors and hobbyists doing field observations.  Huxley _chose_ to make evolution an issue, because he could use it to argue for the professionalization of science.  Darwin's "bulldog" went after the naturalists, because he believed in evolution (survival of the fittest is, I believe, is phrase), but he also did it to support his own vested interests.  And frankly, look where it has gotten us, Socio-Darwinism and eugenics.  When I think of atheistic societies, I think of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union.  Sure, you had the inquisition and the crusades in "Christendom," the Thirty-years War.  As far as numbers, and percentage of the population murdered, I think that Hitler and Stalin were much worse.  Of course, I have not studied it in depth, and I may be biased towards thinking modern atrocities outdo "early modern" ones. 
But my original point was that the problem is not necessarily that we don't records of pre-modern "scientists," but rather, by our modern definition we don't consider them "scientists."  For example, if you look at Johannes Kepler's writings, they're very mystical, reflecting his "Pythagoreanism".  We remember him for his 'three laws of planetary motion,' but we just take his conclusions (that orbits are elliptical), and leave the rest.  Kepler's main gig was as a fortuneteller for the Holy Roman Emperor, who protected him.  Just think, Galileo had Kepler's book, but was mad at him for supporting his (Kepler's) mentor, Tycho Brahe, and so didn't read it.  If he had, Galileo would have known about the elliptical orbits, and maybe, maybe he would have developed calculus.  Makes a good alternate history story.

And for the important stuff, I have heard the biggest difficulty in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is relating silent movie stars to someone in talkies, I assume both because people don't know silent movie stars, but also because silent movie stars often didn't make the transition to talkies. 


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 00:11
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Well, in intellectual history, there is Francis Bacon, and before him is Roger Bacon.  and then there is Kevin Bacon, and then there is Vanuatu who is a natural ham.Wink

Our modern definition of science formed really in the 1400's and 1500's and since.  Before that it was natural philosophy, even Isaac Newton, held a 'chair' in "natural philosophy" at the University.  Until Julian Huxley in the 1800s, most of natural science was not professional science at the university, but pastors and hobbyists doing field observations.  Huxley _chose_ to make evolution an issue, because he could use it to argue for the professionalization of science.  Darwin's "bulldog" went after the naturalists, because he believed in evolution (survival of the fittest is, I believe, is phrase), but he also did it to support his own vested interests.  And frankly, look where it has gotten us, Socio-Darwinism and eugenics.  When I think of atheistic societies, I think of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union.  Sure, you had the inquisition and the crusades in "Christendom," the Thirty-years War.  As far as numbers, and percentage of the population murdered, I think that Hitler and Stalin were much worse.  Of course, I have not studied it in depth, and I may be biased towards thinking modern atrocities outdo "early modern" ones. 
But my original point was that the problem is not necessarily that we don't records of pre-modern "scientists," but rather, by our modern definition we don't consider them "scientists."  For example, if you look at Johannes Kepler's writings, they're very mystical, reflecting his "Pythagoreanism".  We remember him for his 'three laws of planetary motion,' but we just take his conclusions (that orbits are elliptical), and leave the rest.  Kepler's main gig was as a fortuneteller for the Holy Roman Emperor, who protected him.  Just think, Galileo had Kepler's book, but was mad at him for supporting his (Kepler's) mentor, Tycho Brahe, and so didn't read it.  If he had, Galileo would have known about the elliptical orbits, and maybe, maybe he would have developed calculus.  Makes a good alternate history story.

And for the important stuff, I have heard the biggest difficulty in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is relating silent movie stars to someone in talkies, I assume both because people don't know silent movie stars, but also because silent movie stars often didn't make the transition to talkies. 
 Alright you are a brilliant guy, - just do not see where you are going with the Nazis. Don't we ( by we I mean democrats) auto shut down people who introduce nazis into the conversation?

No need to prove whether the christian church was worse than nazis, its clear the church was much worse because they they did it all under the guise of christian love. and truly abused the Christ personage. Whether historical or allegorical Christ did not advocate stifling ideas.

I realize your point was not about records. My point was about records. You can't accept the churches' history of science, not when as the only power structure in existence they could erase any one from existence.

Yes an alternate Galileo history would be astonishing.

Yep Talkies were trouble for Mary Pickford.



-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 01:06
Actually I think I made a mistake, and I thought you would catch it.
I think Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest," Huxley came up with "law of tooth and claw."

My point is that Nazis and Communists are atheists, although a lot of German Christians went along (and a lot didn't.  Christians may have outnumbered Jews in the camps, but not been identified as such).

How long did the 1000 year reich last?  How long did communism last?  not just Stalin, but Mao, Pol Pot.  
Christianity has lasted 2000+ years, sure there are a few bumps in the road, but not like the 80 year window of communism, nor the 15 year window of national socialism.  Until Constantine, Christians were on the receiving end of the persecution from the pagans.  It is unfortunate, but payback and abuse of power are very human.

Have you read "Name of the Rose"? or seen the movie?  It is pertinent because censorship in the Middle Ages was not as pervasive as you seem to think.  "Totalitarianism is a modern concept, and even today, it is a misnomer, there is no such thing as total oppression, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as the total absence of oppression.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 02:09
Darwin said survival of the fittest. If I know that I'm sure you do too. And I'm not looking to pick apart little errors like that when I know that you know-better. 

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206" rel="nofollow - http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

The attitudes and actions of German Catholics and Protestants during the Nazi era were shaped not only by their religious beliefs, but by other  https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005202" rel="nofollow - factors  as well, including:

Backlash against the  https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008222" rel="nofollow - Weimar Republic  and the political, economic, and social changes in Germany that occurred during the 1920s

Anti-Communism

Nationalism

Resentment toward the international community in the wake of  https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007429" rel="nofollow - World War I , which Germany lost and for which it was forced to pay heavy reparations

These were some of the reasons why most Christians in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They were also persuaded by the statement on “positive Christianity” in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, which read:

"We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good."

Despite the open antisemitism of this statement and its linkage between confessional "freedom" and a nationalistic, racialized understanding of morality, many Christians in Germany at the time read this as an affirmation of Christian values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml

Sounds familiar. This is not so different from the break in Clement's time, the Pentateuch is no longer about Jews, Moses and Abraham. Clement and his contemporaries believed themselves to be living in the Mystery Form of the Kingdom of Christendom -Jews had no part to play, their arguments were inconvenient. Just as the Nazis saw themselves as the National Reich Church and cast off the bible for Mein Kampf .



-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 02:42
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

 

How long did the 1000 year reich last?  How long did communism last?  not just Stalin, but Mao, Pol Pot.  
Christianity has lasted 2000+ years, sure there are a few bumps in the road, but not like the 80 year window of communism, nor the 15 year window of national socialism.  Until Constantine, Christians were on the receiving end of the persecution from the pagans.  It is unfortunate, but payback and abuse of power are very human.

How long has religious persecution lasted? Where did it start? Can't possibly know for certain. At any rate, the fact that the church linked to the Empire and rooted itself as a power structure for 2 thousand years only affirms the ruthless control over the minds and lives of human beings, it does not prove that humans achieved further evolutionary superiority because of religious belief systems. 

Didn't you say something about the world not changing on a grand scale but merely continuing on in equal states of ups and downs? Nothing makes your point more sharply than the alternating terror/compassion of the christian church. 


Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Have you read "Name of the Rose"? or seen the movie?  It is pertinent because censorship in the Middle Ages was not as pervasive as you seem to think.  "Totalitarianism is a modern concept, and even today, it is a misnomer, there is no such thing as total oppression, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as the total absence of oppression.
I guess I saw a different movie called Name of the Rose starring Sean Connery. The film I saw was about monks hiding forbidden books and poisoning the pages so that anyone who read the books would die. The book was written in the 1980's and just as you and I are speculating, so was the author. 

If there is no total oppression it may be because the spirituality of some of us has forced humans to be what we are in the face of the hypocrisy of the church. And this is a discussion of history right? We are not talking about the 700 club. In that case you are speculating as much as anyone. 
Does it matter who does the oppressing? I think it does when it's an enormous power structure pretending to be Christ-like.
It's not like we have to go very far into the past to witness, without speculation, the manipulative and deceptive power of the church used to maintain appearances. We also have real time proof that human suffering was accepted in the United States in order to protect that power structure. Now this scrambling to tidy it all up, like the democrats say- move on.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 04:22
Quote Does it matter who does the oppressing? I think it does when it's an enormous power structure pretending to be Christ-like.

It's not like we have to go very far into the past to witness, without speculation, the manipulative and deceptive power of the church used to maintain appearances. We also have real time proof that human suffering was accepted in the United States in order to protect that power structure. Now this scrambling to tidy it all up, like the democrats say- move on.

I agree entirely. Just think for a minute on the world wide scandal which has enveloped the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but other organisations as well. The sexual abuse of young boys was covered up by those in authority for decades, and now there's much gnashing of teeth, beating of chests to the chant of "mea culpa, mea culpa".

Far too many of the perpetrators of these crimes have escaped punishment by cleverly dying before their sins were revealed. But too many also still exist, including those who did the covering up.




-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 23:19
And how many people did the Nazis kill in their short time? and how many people did the communists kill in their short time?  There has always been someone using power to beat others down, but not on the scale and thoroughness of Nazism and Communism, which are basically atheistic.  Religion has developed moralities over time, which hinder the oppressor.  Atheism, as far as being a state-actor, has not yet developed a moral compass.  So atheism such as Nazism and Communism has all the excesses and abuses, but none of the moral compass.  I am not saying that people always pay attention to 'their' moral compass, I am just saying it is there, unless you are someone like Hitler or Stalin.

And what about science under the Nazis and communists?  Kinda twisted.  I mean Germany was probably the most advanced nation before Nazism, and they kinda took a big step _down_ when they embraced National Socialism.

Of course, national socialism didn't get along with communism (international socialism), they were too close to each other, siblings quarreling.  I see Nazism as a phenomenon on the left, as is Baathism, not the right so much.  

Yes, that 'Name of the Rose" with Sean Connery.  The book is better and one of the plays off the name is Rose window, the stained glass window above the entrance to the Church.  The characters in the book are a mix of vibrant colors, different from each other and put together they make up the rose window.  They all play a part in making up the beauty of this ancient monastery, which of course, never existed (as such), but which makes up the Middle Ages.  But they had their own kind of knowledge and science.  Science in the middle ages was Aristotelian and descriptive.  When Copernicus came along, he used Pythagoreanism as an alternative, but it still was explained in terms of antiquity.  The monks and others who opposed Galileo were Aristotelians who opposed him based on their Aristotelianism.  Galileo and his mathematization of science were not the cutting edge of science, he was the bleeding edge of science, and they were a little, just a little behind the curve.



Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 00:10
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

And how many people did the Nazis kill in their short time? and how many people did the communists kill in their short time?  There has always been someone using power to beat others down, but not on the scale and thoroughness of Nazism and Communism, which are basically atheistic.  Religion has developed moralities over time, which hinder the oppressor.  Atheism, as far as being a state-actor, has not yet developed a moral compass.  So atheism such as Nazism and Communism has all the excesses and abuses, but none of the moral compass.  I am not saying that people always pay attention to 'their' moral compass, I am just saying it is there, unless you are someone like Hitler or Stalin.

And what about science under the Nazis and communists?  Kinda twisted.  I mean Germany was probably the most advanced nation before Nazism, and they kinda took a big step _down_ when they embraced National Socialism.

Of course, national socialism didn't get along with communism (international socialism), they were too close to each other, siblings quarreling.  I see Nazism as a phenomenon on the left, as is Baathism, not the right so much.  


franciscosan-But what has all of this got to do with Christianity destroying ancient science.

Communism and Nazism are modern constructs, each with a slightly different view on the sciences.

While they may have had a hand in suppressing science in some ways, they're certainly not Christian in their ideology in any way, shape, matter or form.

I think perhaps this conversation has run it's course.




-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 00:28
No, that my point, you have to choose your 'poison,' your passion.  The modern alternative to Christianity, is atheism which politically means in the West, either Nazism or Communism.  Individuals may be able to 'throw off' Christianity, but when a society does so as a whole, you have Nazism or Communism.  Both Nazism and Communism were abusive through science.  Christianity in contrast, has a rather 'benign neglect' of science.  The creationism is a rather new phenomenon and a reaction to eugenics, socio-darwinism, and the total exclusion of any teaching of the Bible in school.  (If creationism is a "science," then you have to teach bible in schools, which considering how culturally important the bible is, should be taught anyways.)

Christianity is part of liberal democracy, get rid of it, I am not sure you will have liberal democracy anymore, of course some people might not mind, I would.

You missed what I added to my last post. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 01:06
Quote  Individuals may be able to 'throw off' Christianity,but when a society does so as a whole, you have Nazism or Communism

Really???

I think a lot of Japanese people, for example, would disagree, and so would the citizens of other countries whose predominant religeon is not Christianity.


-------------
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 01:21
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

No, that my point, you have to choose your 'poison,' your passion.  The modern alternative to Christianity, is atheism which politically means in the West, either Nazism or Communism.  Individuals may be able to 'throw off' Christianity, but when a society does so as a whole, you have Nazism or Communism.  Both Nazism and Communism were abusive through science.  Christianity in contrast, has a rather 'benign neglect' of science.  The creationism is a rather new phenomenon and a reaction to eugenics, socio-darwinism, and the total exclusion of any teaching of the Bible in school.  (If creationism is a "science," then you have to teach bible in schools, which considering how culturally important the bible is, should be taught anyways.)

Christianity is part of liberal democracy, get rid of it, I am not sure you will have liberal democracy anymore, of course some people might not mind, I would.

You missed what I added to my last post. 

The new Christianity is the Liberal screaming - "your a racist! your homophobic! your xenophobic! your a Trump lovin Nazi! your misogynist! 
But me? I'm a good person bc I'm Liberal and I'm all up on my gay acronyms and willing to cover my face and destroy public property. 


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 22:03
The alternative in the West to theism is atheism, which means nazism or communism.  Other cultures have had hundreds if not thousands of years to evolve other religions, such as Buddhism and to a certain degree, Shintoism in Japan.  Atheism will also evolve a moral code, but if you look at it more immediately, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.  There is a little _problem_ of a 10s of millions of dead through violent ends.  So, yes, India and Japan have different traditions, although Japan had its flirtation with fascism.  But we can't import those whole sale and make them ours.  There can be jubus and the beats can convert to Buddhism, but wholesale, no.  Individuals yes can convert or revert or whatever, and over time political atheism will mellow, but if you want have ethics, dealing with moral traditions in place, no matter how imperfect, is probably best how to deal with them.  Science is probably in the best shape, when it is not overseen by government, or for that matter religion.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 01:16
Wow that's a very good answer. 
Are you saying that the young will repeat each stage of older generations?
Going from everyone matters to only the poor matter, to only those who make the trains run on time matter? 
Not in jest, are you saying that this pattern will just keep repeating?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 01:11
I tend to see the purest philosophy as being the Presocratics, Pythagoras going into Socrates, Plato, and to lesser extent Aristotle, after Plato, you start getting things diluted, which is necessary because philosophy was too powerful for society.  The purest modern science in many ways is the early moderns (Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton) until the 20th century physicists, and Darwin, Mendel and so forth.

I tend to see two threads of thinking introduced in the 20th century, fascism/nazism/communism "totalitarianism" and anarchism, which becomes on the right, libertarianism.  After the Spanish Civil War, anarchism starts getting diluted, communes, free love of the sixties, libertarianism, I kind of consider those in the family of anarchism, 'dirty' hippies, so forth.  "totalitarianism" (which is not total) also becomes diluted.  But it also becomes defuse, the nanny state is a kind of 'totalitarianism' lite, for people's "own" good.  So there is a repetition of things, but on a more defuse, diluted level, if it was more "pure" fascism or whatever, people as a whole would recognize it, but more defuse, and even perhaps, more benign.  There were positive things that the fascists and the nazis did, like in Italy the trains ran on time, in Germany they made the autobahn (which they promptly used in the war and perhaps the extermination business).  But it is good in the nanny state that people wear their seatbelts, it is just bad that they are made to do so.  But, those complaining don't matter, and very scientific social studies (probably) show that people are happier because they wear them.  For those complaining, when does blind obedience become more than just doing what is good, and becomes, well, blind.
But yes, you have echoes, and then echoes of echoes.  Every once in a while you have a Rwanda, or Syria, and people go, "where did that come from?"  or Yugoslavia for that matter.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 17:58
Do the courts today represent the same power to restrict the individual as the Christian church of 3rd century Alexandria? In Your Opinion?

To your point about events like Yugoslavia 2000 appearing to come out of nowhere- there was a resistance to Milosevic. It is accepted generally that the court allowing Milosevic to refuse to concede the election to Vojilsav Kostunica is what finally forced people to the "Bulldozer Revolution." I don't understand why you say; franciscosan-

 "Every once in a while you have a Rwanda, or Syria, and people go, "where did that come from?"  or Yugoslavia for that matter."

It wasn't really out of nowhere. Rwanda wasn't either. As far as Syria, do you mean the latest US/Russian/Assad debacle?


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 22:24
No it doesn't come from nowhere.  But for the 1st world, especially America which tends to be culturally isolated from the rest, all of a sudden Rwanda or Yugoslavia, or Syria appears in the news, every day, and it appears with great tragedy.  To the average mope, it seems like it came out of nowhere and disturbed his beer.  He's probably jealous, and maybe for some cause.  He seems to miss out that he is holding out for a $30 an hour union job, when refugees are much more easy to satisfy with, just about anything.

I don't see the courts today as anything like the Christian church in 3rd century Alexandria.  What you probably had to worry about in 3rd century Alexandria, was the mob, sometimes lead by a firebrand like ?Basil? but all he could do is point the mob, and let it go at it.  In Alexandria and the ancient world, I see very traditional societies run by aeons of custom, of which the Church was the latest twist, advocating reform (ye who is without sin, cast the first stone), but really is for the time, just an icing on the cake.  Over time, Christianity will become the tradition, the custom and will become the knee jerk reaction. but before Constantine, it is too much just reacting to the persecution.  Sometimes that reaction is a coalescing or formation, but a lot of times, it is just dying in the arena, but in doing so, undermining the great and brutal Roman Empire.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2017 at 07:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Over time, Christianity will become the tradition, the custom and will become the knee jerk reaction. but before Constantine, it is too much just reacting to the persecution.  Sometimes that reaction is a coalescing or formation, but a lot of times, it is just dying in the arena, but in doing so, undermining the great and brutal Roman Empire.

After Constantine the Christian Church becomes the Empire, remains great and brutal.


-------------
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net