How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

[Ace Rimmer]

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it or not.

By far the book’s longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Church’s alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church’s role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.

It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits

had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.

The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the sun’s apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler’s position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.

I’ve tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.

Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the late Scholastics – mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians – in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954). "[I]t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to having been the ‘founders’ of scientific economics." In devoting scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century, including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and Alejandro Chafuen.

The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University of Paris described as the "new Athens" – a designation that calls to mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope Innocent IV (1243–54) described the universities as "rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church," and Pope Alexander IV (1254–61) called them "lanterns shining in the house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries; the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the nest whence it took flight."

As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:

[I]t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.

"[S]cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."

Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:

What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.

The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world…though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."

Here, then, are just a few of the topics to be found in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I’ve been asked quite a few times in recent weeks what my next project will be. For now, it’ll be getting some rest.

May 2, 2005

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html[/url]

[Milesian]

Prepare for the storm of controversy, tales of medieval corruption and hilarious quips about a "Jew on a stick" ........

[jcs]

Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it or not.
In the face of the anti-Catholic trend of today, this sort of work is timely; however, it's time is limited to the present.
Western civilization was built by Westerners, which includes the Catholic Church. Insofar as Catholicism was the motivating force for Western culture--and insofar as Western culture, even today, may be considered 'Catholic'--the Church 'built' Western civilization. But the attribution of this 'building' to the Church by some Catholi-phile is dubious. Forget 'timely' popular books; read your Spengler.

[Alfred_Dunhill]

Good one, Grom. :rofl:

[Jimbo Gomez]

Good one, Grom. :rofl:

Oh silence infidel, Grom is a pious Catholic and after both of you pass away he will alleviate your suffering in the eternal fires of hell by pissing on you from in Heaven.

[Alfred_Dunhill]

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/9104/pope19er.jpg

[Jimbo Gomez]

I fully expect you to be struck by lightning soon.

[Alfred_Dunhill]

I fully expect you to be struck by lightning soon.


http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/5707/popie17ky.jpg

[Jimbo Gomez]

That's what will happen yes.

[Alfred_Dunhill]

My suit protects me from electrical discharge.

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/304/buzzwithapron8bx.jpg

[Jimbo Gomez]

It doesn't protect you from his Holyness's sacred Glock semiautomatic...

[Ace Rimmer]

Funny how these heretics don't have problem or challenge Satanism on this same sub-forum. :p


p.s. I think this off-topic spam should be splited in lounge.

[Alfred_Dunhill]

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/2669/nast17fl.jpg

Get back! Back, I say!

[Ace Rimmer]

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/A_002_CrusadesA.jpg

[Alfred_Dunhill]

http://www.wittenberg-academy.de/images/luther.jpg

[Cortes]

http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/karikatur270.gif

http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/karikatur515.gif

[Alfred_Dunhill]

http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/dougkrieger/pope_files/image025.jpg

[Earl_Cerberus]

The author of this work must be delusional.

When the Catholic Church had complete control of Europe it was called The Dark Ages.

Today the world Catholic is more associated with child pedophilia then Western Civilization.

[jcs]

When the Catholic Church had complete control of Europe it was called The Dark Ages.
The Chruch had power during the Middle Ages as well, and the Middle Ages are not the same as the Dark Ages (contrary to what is believed by every fucktard whose knowledge of history comes from a high school world civ class). In fact, the Church and Holy Roman Empire, the two of which one would find difficult to separate, brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

[Kodos]

The Chruch had power during the Middle Ages as well, and the Middle Ages are not the same as the Dark Ages (contrary to what is believed by every fucktard whose knowledge of history comes from a high school world civ class). In fact, the Church and Holy Roman Empire, the two of which one would find difficult to separate, brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

The actual dark ages were one of the catholic churches few positive periods, the middle ages were not as the church sought to maintain its monopoly on intellectual life.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Those are great images of that dog Luther in dealings with the devil...and the other one is the Devil talking through Luther. I just love them...lol...30 year war propaganda :D :D

http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/karikatur270.gif

http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/karikatur515.gif

[Jimbo Gomez]

Ebus is an ally of the real believers I see.

[Lenny]

"Ego Sum Papa" (I am the Pope)
http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery3/macbr90.jpg

[Lenny]

Papist indulgence peddlers in the jaws of Hell. From a satiric Reformation handbill, Germany, late sixteenth century.
http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery5/macbr122.jpg

[Lenny]

The Papal hierarchy as mash in the Devil's vineyard. From a German anti-Papist broadside, sixteenth century.
http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery5/macbr138.jpg

[Lenny]

Demonic anti-Papist caricature. From the title page of Opera Poetica by the reformer Ulrich van Hutten, printed by Henri Petri, Basle, 1538.
http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery5/macbr125.jpg

[Lenny]

The Pope as Satan
un-ban dave777 http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery1/macbr20.jpg

[Felix the Cat]

LOL. From your own personal collection Lenny?

[Boleslaw]

Lenny, get a fucking life and stop spamming my blog!

[Felix the Cat]

Lenny, get a fucking life and stop spamming my blog!
Fight fire with fire brother Belloc

I want to see more of Luther being tortured by demons

[Ace Rimmer]

I want to see more of Luther being tortured by demons

He is not being tortured by them,
they correspond and get along fine, as he is their messenger to the mortal realm.

[Jimbo Gomez]

He is not being tortured by them,
they correspond and get along fine, as he is their messenger to the mortal realm.

hehehehe

*waits for Lenny to storm in with foaming lips*

[Lenny]

they correspond and get along fine, as he is their messenger to the mortal realm.See here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=18078&postcount=23
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=18092&postcount=27

[daisy]

http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/5707/popie17ky.jpg
uh oh he's got white hair. he is probally an albino. i notice the man at the left of him has some white albino hair with some jew gray hair too. so albinos mixed with jews adds a light silver tint to our white albino hair.
the catholic preist do work hard visiting sick people in nursing homes, hospitals, prisons, etc... many hard workers used to tell me it was good that the catholic church service was only 15 or 30 minutes long so they wouldn't be late for work. i do not like the way some catholic preist seem sexist/racist toward women though. well at least if he's an albino he's probally not gay. true albinos are not gay yet it depends on what the albinos mixed with. they maybe could mix an albino with gay genes that could make them gay. it would be a very rare case to see a gay albino.__________

[Boleslaw]

I want to see more of Luther being tortured by demons

Did you know Luther actually blamed his constipation on demons and Satan? So whenever he actually BMed he believed he scored a victory for Christ! What a sicko!

[Petr]

Did you know Luther actually blamed his constipation on demons and Satan? So whenever he actually BMed he believed he scored a victory for Christ! What a sicko!
Exact sources please.

And anyways, what's with this Victorian prudery? I'm pretty sure we could find many even much grosser anecdotes about many medieval Catholic saints.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

Exact sources please.

Well for one, the discovery of Luther's toliet made headlines across the globe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3944549.stm

Luther's lavatory thrills experts

Archaeologists in Germany say they may have found a lavatory where Martin Luther launched the Reformation of the Christian church in the 16th Century.
The stone room is in a newly-unearthed annex to Luther's house in Wittenberg.

Luther is quoted as saying he was "in cloaca", or in the sewer, when he was inspired to argue that salvation is granted because of faith, not deeds.

The scholar suffered from constipation and spent many hours in contemplation on the toilet seat.


'Earthy Christianity'

The lavatory was built in the period 1516-17, according to Dr Martin Treu, a theologian and Luther expert based in Wittenberg.

"What we have found here is something very rare," he told BBC News Online, describing how most buildings preserved from that era tend to have served a grander function.

The toilet is in a niche set inside a room measuring nine by nine metres, which was discovered during the excavation of a garden in the grounds of Luther's house.

Dr Treu said there can be little doubt the toilet was used by Luther, the radical theologian who argued for a more "earthy Christianity", which regarded the entire human body - and not just the soul - as God's creation.

The Reformation, which resulted in Europe's Protestant churches, is usually reckoned to have begun when Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg's Castle Church on 31 October 1517.

The theses attacked papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials, among other things.

Structural concerns

Luther left a candid catalogue of his battle with constipation but despite this wealth of information, certain key details remain obscure - such as what the great reformer may have used in place of toilet paper.

"We still don't know what was used for wiping in those days," says Dr Treu. The paper of the time, he says, would have been too expensive and critically, "too stiff" for the purpose.

And while it is probable that the inspiration that led to Luther's reforms occurred on this toilet, it is impossible to prove it beyond doubt, Dr Treu says.

Future visitors to Wittenberg's Martin Luther museum will be able to view the new find, though structural concerns mean they will not be free to test its qualities as a toilet.

[Petr]

Even if this would be true, it is mere petty childishness for Romish apologists to make such a fuss out of it. Medieval saints like Francis of Assisi pulled off some quite "earthy" stunts as well.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

Even if this would be true, it is mere petty childishness for Romish apologists to make such a fuss out of it.

If you notice, I only bring this up when Protestants bring up stuff about the personal behavior of Catholics.

Besides, when I actually tried to post a thread about this at Catholic Community Forum, they deleted it and I got an angry PM from one of the administrator saying it might offend Protestants.

Further irony is that they allow fuckers like LMM, Adamd, Yarddog, Lavon, and others to spew all sorts of bashing on Catholic traditions. Oh well!

[hERETIC]

Prepare for the storm of controversy, tales of medieval corruption and hilarious quips about a "Jew on a stick" ........

Yep, I'm a Kike on a stick guy.

I simply don't understand how you can worship a dead kike on a stick. Everything about xtianity is Jewish. We simple goys should know better than that?

And that is the one single reason The Jews rule the world through the American empire. These American xtians cannot help them selves lickin Jewass, after all according to their ideology. Jews are Gods people. Who could blame them?

[Jimbo Gomez]

This thread is about how the Holy Roman Church was pivotal in Europe's rise and how it was the pillar of our civilization. Do you have something sensible to say about the topic?

[VAMPIR]

Do you think that Slavic people belong to western civilization?

[Lenny]

This thread is about how the Holy Roman Church was pivotal in Europe's rise and how it was the pillar of our civilization.Wrong again

Europe's success and advancement in the past 500 years is because of the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant victory over Catholicism in the Religious Wars

[Northern_Paladin]

Wrong again

Europe's success and advancement in the past 500 years is because of the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant victory over Catholicism in the Religious Wars

Wrong it was the Holy Catholic Church who built up Europe. The Protestant Reformation was a rebellion led by that pig Martin Luther.:mad:

[Lenny]

Wrong it was the Holy Catholic Church who built up Europe. The Protestant Reformation was a rebellion led by that pig Martin Luther.:mad:
..........http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7388/lutherstriumphoverpapistdeviloy9.jpg
Martin Luther's Triumph over the Papist Devil
From Mattheus Gnidius' Dialogi, a Reform pamphlet against the Papists Murner and Weddel, Germany, 1521.

[anti-climacus]

Wrong again

Europe's success and advancement in the past 500 years is because of the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant victory over Catholicism in the Religious Wars

The last 500 years have not been great from a Christian point of view. I would even go as far to say that if luther and calvin knew what the future held that neither of them would of remained reformers.

[Northern_Paladin]

Without the structures of the Roman Catholic church it would be impossible for Western Europe to be where it is at now.

Protestanism was just an extension of Roman Catholicism. All the leaders of the Protestant revolution where Roman Catholics. With Catholicism European history as we know would have never occured.

[Lenny]

The last 500 years have not been great from a Christian point of view. I would even go as far to say that if luther and calvin knew what the future held that neither of them would of remained reformers.anti-climacus, this is pro-Catholic nonsense. The issue here is the Lie that the Roman Catholic "Church" supposedly having built Western civilization, and being responsible for Europe's success. This is an obvious lie. Europe/North America's explosion of success/power since 1500 or so, is due almost totally to the Reformation and Protestant success in the Religious Wars, one way or another.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/image34.gif

[Northern_Paladin]

..........http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7388/lutherstriumphoverpapistdeviloy9.jpg
Martin Luther's Triumph over the Papist Devil
From Mattheus Gnidius' Dialogi, a Reform pamphlet against the Papists Murner and Weddel, Germany, 1521.

The Pope still Reigns from the Vatican isn't that a testimony of the truth of Catholicism that it weathers all the storms of history?

The Pope isn't the Devil. You've got it all wrong. The Protestant reformation was sparked by a few corrupt clergy in the Catholic Church. A few bad apples. Eventually the Pope got rid of them and cleaned up the Church.

Martin Luther on the other hand was the real devil. He adovocated killing thousands of German peasants who had rebelled against the harsh policies of their Land Lords. He was quoted as saying "let them all die and be scorched by the hottest hell fire".

As a christian I feel Luther should have had more compassion on those peasants.

[Mackie]

catholics are the foundation of christian faith in europe and christian faith has had a pretty strong hand in shaping europe so i suppose no one can really deny the catholic effect on europe. that is all.

[Carolo_II]

Lenny you speak nonsense!

Lets talk about the European protestand judaized reformation.

Even if Luther, the so called "prophet of Christ" was antijewish, his partner the jew Jean Cauvin was not. Amsterdam was the old New York city, full of tollerance with jews and muslims and many more.

Progress with reformation??
Of course! Progress to destroy the entire Western Civilization.....Protestands with their brothers destroyed the order stablished by Christian White Civilization in Europe...

[SlovenianNationalist]

Great thread Gromovnik! Glory to Rome!

[Lenny]

Progress with reformation??
Of course! Progress to destroy the entire Western Civilization.....Protestands with their brothers destroyed the order stablished by Christian White Civilization in Europe...
Let's review the record:

The centuries during which The Roman Catholic Church (http://www.revelationscrolls.com/Mystery_Babylon_web_site_sm.jpg) dominated Europe were marked by the following: Europe's stagnation, backwardsness, poverty, misery, failure, ignorance, feudalism. The Catholic Church strangled out almost everything positive and stamped out attempts by people to be free, to improve things, while also introducing many negative and poisonous elements into society. Centuries of Roman Catholic terror (50 million+ whites murdered by Catholicism) caused Europe to fall into a centuries-long dark age w/ Little or no progress (any progress was offset by losses elsewhere), economies did not grow, and everything was bleak.

Then, when all seemed lost, a Hero named Luther emerged from the forests of Germany, and, just like his ancestor Arminius 1500 years before him, he expelled the alien Roman invader from Germanic Europe forever. After his (and others') triumph over Catholicism (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=156436&postcount=45), the clouds of the dark days of Catholic domination receded, and the Light began shining on Europe again, except for those unfortunate enough to live in countries still wearing the chains of Rome.

As a result of this triumph, Protestant Europe and its extension in North America in the past five centuries (i.e., since the Reformation) have seen unprecedented explosion of success, liberty, power, wealth, standard of living, knowledge, economics, freedom, politics, technology. It was the Protestant countries that led Europe during this period and emerged as the most successful, while the papist countries mostly stagnated and/or rode Protestants' coattails to some success.

So, you got it backwards when you said Catholicism was a good thing for Europe and Protestantism "destroyed Europe". It is definitely the other way around, unless you want us to believe that all these were "coincidences"!


catholics are the foundation of christian faith in europe and christian faith has had a pretty strong hand in shaping europe so i suppose no one can really deny the catholic effect on europe. that is all.Smallpox and the bubonic plague also had "a strong hand" in shaping Europe (lots of people died, so it greatly affected societies), does that mean we should praise them too??

[SlovenianNationalist]

The Roman Catholic Church (http://www.revelationscrolls.com/Mystery_Babylon_web_site_sm.jpg) dominated Europe were marked by the following: Europe's stagnation, backwardsness, poverty, misery, failure, ignorance, feudalism.

BS. You don't know much about European medieval history. Catholic Church built Europe. Period.

Your over-simplified version of 'history' is ridiculous. If Catholicism means backwardsness, stagnation etc., how is it possible that Catholic Spain, France and Holy Roman Empire were so succesfull?

Anyway, you're American -- your opinion on Europe has no value to me.

[Petr]

Let's review the record:

The centuries during which The Roman Catholic Church (http://www.revelationscrolls.com/Mystery_Babylon_web_site_sm.jpg) dominated Europe were marked by the following: Europe's stagnation, backwardsness, poverty, misery, failure, ignorance, feudalism. The Catholic Church strangled out almost everything positive and stamped out attempts by people to be free, to improve things, while also introducing many negative and poisonous elements into society. Centuries of Roman Catholic terror (50 million+ whites murdered by Catholicism) caused Europe to fall into a centuries-long dark age w/ Little or no progress (any progress was offset by losses elsewhere), economies did not grow, and everything was bleak.

Then, when all seemed lost, a Hero named Luther emerged from the forests of Germany, and, just like his ancestor Arminius 1500 years before him, he expelled the alien Roman invader from Germanic Europe forever. After his (and others') triumph over Catholicism (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=156436&postcount=45), the clouds of the dark days of Catholic domination receded, and the Light began shining on Europe again, except for those unfortunate enough to live in countries still wearing the chains of Rome.
I am not myself any friend of the Roman Catholic church, but this is childishly Manichean version of events. I am more or less opposed to cartoonish good-guys vs. bad-guys historical scenarios.

You sound almost like somebody parodying overblown Protestant rhetoric.

And that 50 million figure is bullshit.


Petr

[Carolo_II]

Lenny I will not response your non sense answers....

you are a brave follower of Jack T. Chick (http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0114/0114_allinone.asp)....

[Lenny]

Lenny I will not response your non sense answers....

you are a brave follower of Jack T. Chick (http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0114/0114_allinone.asp)....que maricon eres! you refuse to reply only because you cannot deny my facts that when it was was dominated by Catholicism (pre-1517), Europe was overcast with dark clouds, and that the heroes of the Reformation expelled these clouds, and as a result in the past 500 years Europe/North America pulled away from the rest of the world and became the best.


Catholic Church built Europe. Period.If Catholicism "built" Europe, then malaria "built" the Panama Canal!


I am not myself any friend of the Roman Catholic church, but this is childishly Manichean version of events. I am more or less opposed to cartoonish good-guys vs. bad-guys historical scenarios.

You sound almost like somebody parodying overblown Protestant rhetoric.

And that 50 million figure is bullshit.Old Pete Longstreet, For an alleged Protestant you sure love to make apologisms for the Roman Catholic Church :argue:
Why dont you go post some more of your pro-Catholic theories that freemasons are trying to control theworld, :snore:

And that 50 million figure is bullshit."From the birth of popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians that more then 50 millions of the human family have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than 40,000 religious martyrs for every year of the existence of popery" -from History of Romanism by John Dowling (http://famousamericans.net/johndowling)

[Petr]

Why dont you go post some more of your pro-Catholic theories that freemasons are trying to control theworld, :snore:
You are using devil to drive out devil when you ally with Freemasons against Roman Catholics.

"Freemasonry has always been anti-Roman Catholic. Many Protestants, and not a few Anabaptists, agreed with their opposition to the sacrementalism of the Romanists. Therefore, they did not recognize that the Lodge's opposition to "sectarianism", while cleverly disguised as anti-Catholic, was really anti- revealed religion and therefore anti-Christianity. "

http://freemasonrywatch.org/holly.html#VII

"From the birth of popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians that more then 50 millions of the human family have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than 40,000 religious martyrs for every year of the existence of popery" -from History of Romanism by John Dowling (http://famousamericans.net/johndowling)
Bullshit figures are bullshit figures, no matter what some early 19th-century polemicist might have said. All modern academic genocide scholars would laugh this stuff out of the hall.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Old Pete Longstreet, For an alleged Protestant you sure love to make apologisms for the Roman Catholic Church :argue:
Why dont you go post some more of your pro-Catholic theories that freemasons are trying to control theworld, :snore:

LOL . . . Illusions agrees.

[il ragno]

Good grief...there's a "Freemasonry Watch"?!?

I've seen everything now.

[Fade the Butcher]

The centuries during which The Roman Catholic Church (http://www.revelationscrolls.com/Mystery_Babylon_web_site_sm.jpg) dominated Europe were marked by the following: Europe's stagnation, backwardsness, poverty, misery, failure, ignorance, feudalism. The Catholic Church strangled out almost everything positive and stamped out attempts by people to be free, to improve things, while also introducing many negative and poisonous elements into society.

You forgot to mention Hypatia (murdered in the streets of Alexandria by fanatical monks), the Neoplatonists (Diogenes, Hermias, Eulalius, Priscian, Damascius, Isidore, and Simplicius driven into exile in Zoroastrian Persia under Justinian), Abélard (condemned as a heretic, books burned, died of stress), Roger Bacon (attacked as a sorcerer, magician, and Averroist, condemned "on account of certain suspicious novelties," thrown in prison for fourteen years), Copernicus (lived in fear of heresy, published his book on his deathbed), Giordano Bruno (Hermetic magician, convicted of heresy, burned at the stake), Lucilio Vanini (condemned as an atheist, tongue cut out, strangled and burned at the stake), Galileo (condemned as a heretic for teaching the Copernican system, forced to recant heliocentrism, books banned, gagged and confined to his estate), Descartes (pioneer of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century, books banned by the church, silenced), Johannes Kepler (books banned, mother burned as a witch), and Buffon (asserted in his Historie naturelle that the earth is tens of thousands of years old, forced to recant by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne, "I abandon everything in my book respecting the formation of the earth, and generally all which may be contradictory to the narrative of Moses," books banned and burned. Such has been the reaction of the Catholic Church to human progress.

[Fade the Butcher]

Oh, unless there is any confusion, I am not suggesting that Protestantism is any better. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon were even more emphatic in their rejection of heliocentrism than the Catholic Church. The Church only required that Galileo advocate heliocentrism as a hypothesis. The Protestants and Catholics alike also insisted on executing Michael Servetus.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

The Catholic Church rocks. Praise God that I was born into a Catholic family and grew up with pious and pure living nuns. May God cherish the souls of Sister Mary Cresence, gentle mother to the young innocents, Sister Rose, and Sister Michael Agnes -- pure monastic women of a greater age. And thank you Jesus Christ, most of all.

Happy New Year to all Christians.

It's 2007 Anno Domini. That means: "2007, The Year of the Lord."

May God protect Pope Benedict, Lion of Dharma.

I call upon the Saints! Kick out the perverts!

May all Catholics become imbued with the firely spirit of penance from the Saints, pure living, and genuine religious devotion, with Christ as their polestar and Guru. May all schisms and rifts be dissolved, and the unqualified jettisoned. May the Catholic Church attract new streams of virile young priests and pious young nuns.

Long live the regenerated Catholic Church, a true hope for the world and mother lode of culture.

May the White Race be preserved as well.

[Fade the Butcher]

Did you know Luther actually blamed his constipation on demons and Satan? So whenever he actually BMed he believed he scored a victory for Christ! What a sicko!

Luther also believed, pace Augustine, that flies were intelligently designed by Satan to vex him while reading. This nonsense is hardly more ridiculous or harmful than stuff Catholics subscribed to. Gregory the Great, for example, believed the liberal arts were useless in the fight against demons and were therefore of no importance. Jerome was convinced that the number two is evil because God doesn't say in Genesis that the second day is good.

[Ahknaton]

Jerome was convinced that the number two is evil
Perhaps that explains Luther's constipation.

[Fade the Butcher]

Insofar as Catholicism was the motivating force for Western culture--and insofar as Western culture, even today, may be considered 'Catholic'--the Church 'built' Western civilization. But the attribution of this 'building' to the Church by some Catholi-phile is dubious. Forget 'timely' popular books; read your Spengler.

Civilization is based upon urbanization, surplus wealth, division of labor, and trade. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the emergence of civilization in Northern Europe. The Church was hostile to worldly concerns like commerce and held itself aloof from such matters. The merchants of the city-states of Northern Italy more often than not were engaged in lucrative trade with infidels and heretics in spite of the Church.

[Petr]

The merchants of the city-states of Northern Italy more often than not were engaged in lucrative trade with infidels and heretics in spite of the Church.
Says a person who is supposed to hate free-trade traitors. Flippity-flop.

Yeah, and we can thank such Venetian schemers for things like the vicious sack of Constantinople in 1204.

Fade is again bored and regurgitating his crap, selectively citing sources. We have already seen his unreliability on these kind of issues:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=71362#post71362


Can Martin Luther and John Calvin be counted amongst those fallen men?
Fade has uncritically put forward an anti-Christian urban legend - "Lufkin Daily News" is not the best possible place to learn about science history... :p


"The difficulty begins with the fact that Bertrand Russell quoted Calvin as saying "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"[14] However, this quote does not actually appear in Calvin's work. Edward Rosen[15] has shown that this quote can be traced back from Russell through Andrew Dickson White's Warfare of Science with Theology and finally to Frederic William Farrar's History of Interpretation. Farrar fails to state from where in Calvin's work he took this quote. In fact, it appears that this quote does not appear in any of Calvin's work. Further, Rosen even quotes Farrar and Farrar's son as saying that Farrar often quoted from memory, and that he did not have the time to catch all errors which may have crept into his work.[16]

Rosen has done a good job of demonstrating that the above quotation did not come from Calvin. In the same article, however, Rosen goes on to conclude that "Never having heard of him, Calvin had no attitude toward Copernicus."[17]"

http://www.nd.edu/~mdowd1/postings/CalvinAstroRev.html


And as for Luther, he had far from philistine approach to the development of science in his days - he even connected it to his own Reformation:


"Luther believed that the world was beginning a new age, which would bring not only a reform of religion but a new appreciation of nature. In his informal "Table Talk" he said,

We are at the dawn of a new era, for we are beginning to recover the knowledge of the external world that was lost through the fall of Adam. We now observe creatures properly .... But by the grace of God we already recognize in the most delicate flower the wonders of divine goodness and omnipotence [4].

In the last part of this statement, Luther paraphrased the words of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans (Rom. 1:20)."

http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html


Of course, they were both fallible men.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Says a person who is supposed to hate free-trade traitors. Flippity-flop.

A straw man. My criticism of laissez-faire economics in no way implies a delusional Luddite rejection of trade on religious grounds. The reopening of the Mediterranean trade routes with the Islamic world and Constantinople played a major role in the revival of urban life in Italy. That's indisputable. Furthermore, the revival of trade in Europe generally and new technology that made agriculture more productive is what led to the growth of cities, or civilization, not the ridiculous prayers of worthless monks who sucked capital out of the productive economy and popes who launched frivilous wars like the Crusades. The emergence of civilization in Northern Europe occurred in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

Yeah, and we can thank such Venetian schemers for things like the vicious sack of Constantinople in 1204.

You make it sound as if Constantinople was something other than a stagnant backwater theocracy. W.E.H. Lecky summed Byzantium up quite nicely:

"Of that Byzantine Empire the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed . . . There has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destitute of all the forms and elements of greatness . . . Its vices were the vices of men who had ceased to be brave without learning to be virtuous . . . Slaves, and willing slaves, in both their actions and their throughts, immersed in sensuality and in the most frivilous pleasures, the people only emerged from their listlissness when some theological subtlety, or some chivalry in the chariot races, stimulated them to frantic riots . . . The history of the Empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides."

^^ Insofar as the history of science is concerned, Byzantium might as well have never existed. The Greek-speaking east, which had been the center of classical science for a thousand years, was plunged into darkness. Venice and the other Italian city-states grew in wealth in spite of Christianity. Usury was prohibited by the Catholic Church.

"In the twelfth century, the Venetians showed no concern about usury; they collected 20 percent on well-secured loans and called it "old Venetian custom." Later, as the Church made its prohibition of usury more specifically applicable to laymen as well as clerics, the Venetians fell in line and passed laws against it. At the same time, they developed their own standard of what was legitimate and what was usury. Their own standard was notably different from the official doctrine of the Church. Theirs might be called a businessman's standard, not very different from that generally accepted today. It approved as non-usurious the payment on commercial investments at a rate of return determined by market conditions."

Frederic Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), p.146

Fade is again bored and regurgitating his crap, selectively citing sources. We have already seen his unreliability on these kind of issues:And as for Luther, he had far from philistine approach to the development of science in his days - he even connected it to his own Reformation:

Both Calvin and Luther denounced Copernicus and rejected heliocentrism.

"Accordingly, the printed version of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus of 1543 followed advice from the Lutheran pastor of Nuremberg Andreas Osiander, who knew of Wittenberg's disapproval: To conciliate Luther and Melanchthon just as much to avoid any Catholic condemnation, the work's prologue (dedicated to Pope Paul II) emphasized that its contents were merely theoretical proposals. After Copernicus's death, John Calvin preached just as bitterly against Copernican theorists ("frantic people who would like to change the order of nature") as he denounced astrology."

Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (London: Viking, 2003), pp.662

The relevant passage from White's The History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter3.html) below:

"Doubtless many will exclaim against the Roman Catholic Church for this; but the simple truth is that Protestantism was no less zealous against the new scientific doctrine. All branches of the Protestant Church--Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican--vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture; and, at a later period, the Puritans showed the same tendency.

Said Martin Luther: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Melanchthon, mild as he was, was not behind Luther in condemning Copernicus. In his treatise on the _Elements of Physics_, published six years after Copernicus's death, he says: "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." Melanchthon then cites the passages in the Psalms and Ecclesiastes, which he declares assert positively and clearly that the earth stands fast and that the sun moves around it, and adds eight other proofs of his proposition that "the earth can be nowhere if not in the centre of the universe." So earnest does this mildest of the Reformers become, that he suggests severe measures to restrain such impious teachings as those of Copernicus.[127]

While Lutheranism was thus condemning the theory of the earth's movement, other branches of the Protestant Church did not remain behind. Calvin took the lead, in his _Commentary on Genesis_, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the ninety-third Psalm, and asked, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Turretin, Calvin's famous successor, even after Kepler and Newton had virtually completed the theory of Copernicus and Galileo, put forth his compendium of theology, in which he proved, from a multitude of scriptural texts, that the heavens, sun, and moon move about the earth, which stands still in the centre.

Of course, they were both fallible men.

That's an understatement. Another hilarious example of Luther's superstitious ignorance. From Warfare (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter11.html):

"Luther, in the other religious camp, supported the superstition even more zealously, asserting at times his belief that the winds themselves are only good or evil spirits, and declaring that a stone thrown into a certain pond in his native region would cause a dreadful storm because of the devils, kept prisoners there."

[Petr]

(yawn) More personal opinions from Fade and citations from outdated junk historians like White or Lecky.

A straw man. My criticism of laissez-faire economics in no way implies a delusional Luddite rejection of trade on religious grounds.
Very few people care about your slippery opinions anymore, flip-flopper.

You make it sound as if Constantinople was something other than a stagnant backwater theocracy. W.E.H. Lecky summed Byzantium up quite nicely:
Is Fade really acting as if the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 was not a huge blow to civilization?

Lecky is widely recognized as to have been a mere typically snobby Victorian belittler of Byzantium.


Petr

[Petr]

Very few people care about your slippery opinions anymore, flip-flopper.
And here's some demonstration of what I'm talking about - last March:

No, I stated that Christianity should be established as the national religion. This merely implies that the religious tolerance of liberalism should be done away with, that is, Christianity should become the official religion of America just as Anglicanism is in the United Kingdom. Also, I don't believe other religions should be tolerated. This would include Judaism and Islam amongst others. I never suggested that church and state should become synonymous. The separation of church and state never implied the elimination of the church.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4972&page=6&highlight=calvin


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

(yawn) More personal opinions from Fade and citations from outdated junk historians like White or Lecky.

White's book contains direct citations of Luther and Melanchton that are easily verifiable.

Very few people care about your slippery opinions anymore, flip-flopper.

Petr regurgitates his straw man. I don't recall ever suggesting anywhere that trade should be restricted on religious grounds or that trade per se is bad.

Is Fade really acting as if the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 was not a huge blow to civilization?

It wasn't.

Lecky is widely recognized as to have been a mere typically snobby Victorian belittler of Byzantium.

Of all civilizations, Byzantium was one of the most loathsome. A gold mine of information was wasting away in its libraries while the Byzantines spent centuries discussing worthless subjects like theology.

Within the Byzantine theocracy, the Orthodox Church proved an obstacle to the study of science and natural philosophy. From the ninth to fifteenth centuries, the church sought more to discourage than to facilitate the study of Greek science and natural philosophy. Indeed, philosophy and science were always regarded as the handmaidens of theology, an idea that was eventually abandoned in the medieval West. The Orthodox Church was hostile to the study of secular disciplines for their own sake. Before the church's deadening influence took hold, Greek scholars in the first three centuries of the Roman Empire made remarkable contributions to science. Some of the greatest names in the history of Greek science flourished in this period. Among these are included the greatest astronomer of antiquity, Claudius Ptolemy (c. A.D. 100-170), and the most renowned physician and medical research of the ancient world, Galen (c. A.D. 129-200). Other lesser but nonetheless important contributors could also be mentioned. Indeed, until the end of the sixth century, important contributions to natural philosophy were made in the Byzantine Empire by a number of commentators on the works of Aristotle, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias (fl. 2nd-3rd century A.D.), Themistius (c. A.D. 317-388), Simplicius, and most important of all, the Christian neo-Platonist John Philoponus, whose ideas were destined to have a large impact on both Islamic and Latin natural philosophy.

But the level of achievement was serious affected in A.D. 529, when, on religious grounds, the emperor Justinian ordered the closing of Plato's Academy in Athens, forcing a number of philosophers to depart the Byzantine Empire and move to the East. After that natural philosophy and science played a minor role in Byzantine intellectual life. This is surprising when we realize that, as compared to their contemporary counterparts in Islam and the Latin West, Byzantine scholars were truly fortunate, because their native language was Greek. They could read, study, and interpret, without problems of translation, all the works available in the Greek language that had accumulated in the Byzantine Empire, especially in Constantinople, since the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. Indeed, most of our Greek manuscripts come from Byzantium. And yet, Byzantine scholars appear not to have taken advantage of this readily available treasure house of science and natural philosophy. Although many of the works of Byzantine scholars lie unread in libraries and archives, especially in Istanbul, it is not likely that discoveries of previously unknown works will alter our overall judgement of their scholarly contributions. The explanation lies in the fact that the attitude of Byzantine scholars was overwhelmingly backward looking, as is evident from a statement by Theodore Metochites, a fourteenth-century student of classical thought, who declared in the preface of his Historical and Philosophical Miscellanies: "The great men of the past have said everything so perfectly that they have left nothing for us to say." (Runciman 1970, 94). This negative attitude may be compared to Islamic and Western Christian scholars, who often went beyond the ancient Greek authorities and regarded it as wholly appropriate to disagree with them and thereby add to the sum total of human knowledge. It is a paradox of history that the civilizations of Islam and Western Europe contributed significantly to the store of human knowledge, using translated works and often lacking important earlier texts, while the Byzantines, who had command of the Greek language and easy access to the manuscript sources of their great Greek predecessors, failed to capitalize on their good fortune.

Despite a generally negative assessment of Byzantine contributions, there were periods during the eleventh century, and especially during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, even s the empire was disintegrating, that Byzantine intellectual life burgeoned forth to such an extent that scholars have labeled these periods "renaissances." In the first half of the fifteenth century, some Byzantine scholars brought knowledge of Greek and Greek manuscripts to Italy, helping to spark what has been called the Italian Renaissance. Although during these "renaissance" periods we find much greater interest in Greek literature and science, no significant work were composed that had any detectable influence.

Constant warfare undoubtedly sapped the intellectual strength of Byzantine intellectual life. But the Orthodox Church also played an inhibiting role. The church sometimes persecuted those scholars whom it viewed as too drawn to pagan, secular thought. The church recognized that it could not stop the study of traditional Greek secular works, from which it itself drew some benefits. But efforts were made, sometimes unconsciously, to keep Hellenism under control. In the ninth century, when the main secular interest favored science, the church preferred to encourage the formal study of language. In the eleventh century, when a secular revolution with a nationalist basis had made the pagan past momentarily popular, the church took over education on a large scale and introduced techniques of study that left the shell of Atticism without its substance. In the fourteenth century, some of the more daring Hellenists were persecuted, and had it not been for the general collapse, the church would no doubt have tried again to get control of the educational system (Bolgar 1954, 89-90)

We saw that in the Latin West theologians embraced Greek science and natural philosophy to such an extent that we can actually speak of a class of theologian-natural philosophers. Because the theologians embraced the study of natural philosophy as essential for theology, the West was able to institutionalize the study of natural philosophy in the universities, so that students all across Europe were routinely exposed to it, as well as to logic. The centuries-long study of natural philosophy by generation after generation of students in Western Europe established the rationalistic approach to nature that was an indispensable prelude to the advent of early modern science. Nothing like this occurred in the Byzantine Empire, where theologians were indifferent or hostile to the study of a secular subject like natural philosophy, which never became a regular subject of study in the schools of Byzantium.

Although they failed to take advantage of their command of the Greek language and advance the legacy they inherited from one thousand years of Greek science and natural philosophy, Byzantium did make a momentous contribution to the ultimate advancement of science: Byzantine scholars preserved the texts of Greek science and natural philosophy. It was from the Byzantine Empire that the manuscripts of Greek scientific texts were transmitted to the emerging civilizations of Islam and Western Europe, where they were eventually translated into Arabic and Latin. This vital contribution more than makes up for the failure of Byzantine scholars to do intellectual justice to the treasures that lay at their disposal for so many centuries.

Edward Grant, Science and Religion, pp.227-230

Huh?

Your article about Calvin is bullshit. I located the relevant passage in a little under two minutes

"For Augustine rightly affirms that injustice is done to God by the Manichaeans, because they demand a cause superior to his will; and he prudently warns his readers not to push their inquiries respecting the infinity of duration, any more than respecting the infinity of space. We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."
- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vi.html)

[Fade the Butcher]

And here's some demonstration of what I'm talking about - last March

Obviously, I have changed my mind. As a rational person, I reserve the right to do that whenever I discover I am mistaken.

[Petr]

Of all civilizations, Byzantium was one of the most loathsome.
Fade only proves his own loathsomeness with comments like this. He is now just spitting bile.

A gold mine of information was wasting away in its libraries while the Byzantines spent centuries discussing worthless subjects like theology.
The Greek knowledge was not that great. Only Christian Westerners brought out its full potential, dealing with it better than Greek pagans themselves ever could.


Petr

[Petr]

As a rational person, I reserve the right to do that whenever I discover I am mistaken.
An ever-handy excuse for situationist ethics.

I noticed that you are now defending tolerance on Occidental Dissent:

There is nothing objectionable about constitutional government or Enlightenment principles like freedom of speech and religion.

http://forum.occidentaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=921&page=5

I still remember when you used to mock such liberalism on Stormfront. :nopity:


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade only proves his own loathsomeness with comments like this. He is now just spitting bile.

Is it not interesting how the great cities of the Roman Empire were destroyed one by one after the adoption of Christianity? Rome, Milan, Alexandria, Carthage, Sirmium, Antioch, and finally Constantinople? If I were a superstitious man, I might attribute this to the wrath of the old pagan gods.

The Greek knowledge was not that great. Only Christian Westerners brought out its full potential, dealing with it better than Greek pagans themselves ever could.

Christianity produces nothing of value on its own. Wherever the Greek tradition has been embraced, science has thrived. Wherever it has been rejected, as in the West during the Dark Ages, Byzantium after the sixth century, and the Islamic world after the twelfth century, science has stagnated and went into decline. The revival and ultimate triumph of science in the West occurred in spite of Christianity.

[Fade the Butcher]

An ever-handy excuse for situationist ethics. I noticed that you are now defending tolerance on Occidental Dissent I still remember when you used to mock such liberalism on Stormfront.

This website has always been about freedom of inquiry. Are you just now figuring that out?

[Fade the Butcher]

I attempted to post this earlier but a computer glitch prevented me from doing so. Some information on the Enlightenment and the rejection of Christianity:

Thus, the eternally revolving heaven, sacred and hierarchial, was no longer the visible metaphor and symbol of the word revolution. Now, the new faith was symbolized by fire. Fire, the sun (now in the center of the world, the midday warmth of early spring beneath its rays - light and flame to burn away the old and mark the path to the new . . . all together formed the new "solar myth" of revolution. Newton was the hero, but the mythological model was Prometheus, who had stolen fire from the gods and given it to men - as Newton had wielded his mathematical-experimental thunderbolt and given nature's secrets to men. And the Moses of the new faith, the classical law-giver, was Pythagoras, whose mathematical harmonies created the foundation for utopia. Ironically, much as occult theories had served as the mortar for Newton's mechanical bricks, so too did occult materials serve to build the revolutionary myth constructed in the eighteenth century. The great seal of the new American nation (significantly enshrined upon the essence of the new capitalist order, its money) was the occult Pythagorean pyramid, on top of which is the all-seeing eye and beneath which are the words Novus Ordo Seculorum - a new secular world.

Progress no longer meant spiritual redemption; the final goal of human understanding was not transcendent truths. The new revolutionary faith was based on material and secular values. Such ideas were not the sole province of either of the new commerical professions, growing in economic power and social awareness, and in numbers - the bourgeoisie. These new ideas had penetrated into the old nobility as well, into the privileged estates of the ancien regime.

And more than the problematic "revolution" of the American colonists, the fire was ignited most brilliantly (and destructively) in France in the spring of 1789. In England the monarchy was limited by Parliament, and a seemingly more rational system had evolved along with the new science. Not so in France. Here prevailed the elitism and stratification of the Middle Ages, the ignorance and superstition of the church, the decadence and financial disasters of an incompetant absolute monarchy. Here was an educational system still mired in the mud of scholasticism. Yet the worldview upon which it was all founded - the scholastic Aristotelian image - had been overturned by scientific reason. Progress in understanding the world had triumphed over the errors and simple stupidity of the past. So why not society? Why not morality? With a rational and empirical knowledge of the truth, we may progress toward a state of happiness in the world and, finally, the moral improvement of human beings.

The revolution that began in France in May of 1789 was the outcome of a vast geneaological tree of causes having much to do with French history itself, its root system deep in the sediments, to the depths of the time of Louis XIV. Yet the revolutionary faith that seized the French nation and propelled it into a more radical and violent conflagration than its American predecessor owed its initial spark to the pens of the eighteenth-century philosophes.

The French called the eighteenth century le siècle des lumières, "the century of light." The term enlightenment was first used by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in 1785, and so the name has come down to us. Reason, the most important word of the Enlightenment, became nearly synonymous with the laws of nature. . . .

Standing at the head of the army of philosophes was Francois Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire. Originally a dramatist and poet, Voltaire knew what it was to experience intolerance, having been beaten and imprisoned in the Bastille on account of his satire. In 1726 he went to England and stayed for three years, studying the English scientists.

Voltaire was the enemy of dogma, mysteries, and superstition, in short, everything that he felt bred fanaticism and intolerance. Revealed religion, he wrote, commands that we believe "a hundred things either manifestly abominable or mathematically impossible" - it is evident, however, not by faith but of reason that a necessary being exists, supreme and intelligent, who constructed the clocklike universe. There are those who have profited from times of ignorance and superstition "to despoil us of our inheritance." For Voltaire "our inheritance" was reason and progress; humans possessed the innate ability to cultivate the earthly garden and profit from the crops of society and government fertilized by natural law. And those who have kept us in ignorance were of course the churchmen and their benighted education. So - ecrasez infame - destroy the infamous thing.

Voltaire had originally been educated by the Jesuits. Now in the wake of Newton, the Jesuits became a symbol of ossification and obstructionism. And yet it may well be that a new rival faith was paying tribute through Voltaire to its parent; that Voltaire and some of the other philosophes were building a new heavenly city on earth, as historian Carl Becker argued so brilliantly in his classic The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers (1932).

There is also here, in this secular garden, the scent of gnosticism. Knowledge is salvation: Man, the rational creature who is able to unlock the secrets of nature is transfigured by this knowledge into a godlike mechanic to whom is given the domination of material existence for the improvement of human life. What is required, then, is not revelation, dogma, or faith, but knowledge, reason, and the intellectual freedom to pursue science wherever it leads - toleration. Salvation was, furthermore, inevitable. Knowledge of the truth was invincible. Thus, Voltaire warned the Monsieur L'Abbe (the Priest), "tremble, lest the day of reason arrive." . . .

In France the Baron d'Holbach bluntly stated that because we can know nothing about supernatural First Causes, they may be regarded as nothing. Persisting in such fruitless quests, humans blunder into unhappiness because of their corresponding ignorance of Nature. Into the fire with all metaphysical systems, with revealed religion; virtue and happiness derive from scientific knowledge of natural law. Most were unwilling to go as far as the good Baron, who became known, not surprisingly, as God's personal enemy. . ..

Although mistrustful of the philosophes' reason in Emile, the Rousseau of The Social Contract has not desire to return to the old Aristotelian universe. The Christian drama of a sinful humanity who is a citizen of two opposing cities has been replaced by "natural man," a citizen of Nature, dressed in the new styles of that citizenship woven from the warp and woof and liberty, equality, and fraternity."

Alioto, pp.270-278

[Petr]

Is it not interesting how the great cities of the Roman Empire were destroyed one by one after the adoption of Christianity? Rome, Milan, Alexandria, Carthage, Sirmium, Antioch, and finally Constantinople? If I were a superstitious man, I might attribute this to the wrath of the old pagan gods.
Don't be shy, Fade - for that is just what you are peddling: anti-Christian superstition behind the facade of pseudo-scholarly rationalism. (And Constantinople didn't even exist until Christian takeover, dumbo.)

Fade is now just like one of those crude hicks at VNN Forum (with only more pretentious behavior) who with studious cherry-picking attitude try to prove that every positive thing about Western culture developed in spite of Christianity, and that every defective trait was due to external influences like Christianity or Jews. Classic scapegoating.


Why did not Byzantium make much progress? For the same reason Christian Spain did not make much progress (compared to France, Germany, or England) in the medieval era - it was a scene for vicious frontier warfare that sucked up its mental energy and resources.

(Also like with Byzantium, Muslims stole the best provinces of Spain and used them to prop up their own civilization.)

Permanently militarized Spartans were also famous for their unbending conservatism and "Luddite" monetary policies, and Plato admired them for it, like he also admired Pharaonic Egypt.


Petr

[Petr]

This website has always been about freedom of inquiry. Are you just now figuring that out?
No-one does that sanctimonious pose quite like you...

You originally started the Occidental Dissent Forum because you grew tired with "freedom of speech":


This is not a place to goof off, vent, fantasize, or discuss irrelevant subjects. This was impossible to do within the boundries of The Phora because it is a free speech board. Keep that in mind.

http://forum.occidentaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11&highlight=phora


Petr

[Petr]

LOL . . . Illusions agrees.
Notice Fade's petty behavior in resurrecting this old thread.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm


Petr

[Petr]

Luther also believed, pace Augustine, that flies were intelligently designed by Satan to vex him while reading. This nonsense is hardly more ridiculous or harmful than stuff Catholics subscribed to. Gregory the Great, for example, believed the liberal arts were useless in the fight against demons and were therefore of no importance. Jerome was convinced that the number two is evil because God doesn't say in Genesis that the second day is good.
Fade is merely performing the cheapest troll-baiting debate technique possible: cherry-picking citations. We could doubtlessly find many inspiring quotes as well from people like Luther or Jerome, but Fade wants to draw all attention to examples like these.

Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. - Martin Luther


I'd also like to see the original version and context of above quotes - Fade is a congenitally unreliable citer of sources, like all gutter atheists.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Don't be shy, Fade - for that is just what you are peddling: anti-Christian superstition behind the facade of pseudo-scholarly rationalism.

I don't subscribe to the idea of providence myself, but I can understand why some (in a religious framework) might see the sack of Rome by the Visigoths and Vandals, Milan by the Huns, Sirmium by the Avars, Alexandria by the Arabs, and Constantinople by the Turks as divine retribution for the infamies Christianity inflicted upon the ancient world.

(And Constantinople didn't even exist until Christian takeover, dumbo.)

Byzantium had existed for a thousand years before Constantine chose it as the site of his new eastern capital.

Fade is now just like one of those crude hicks at VNN Forum (with only more pretentious behavior) who with studious cherry-picking attitude try to prove that every positive thing about Western culture developed in spite of Christianity, and that every defective trait was due to external influences like Christianity or Jews. Classic scapegoating.

Christianity was a retarding force upon Western civilization. Insofar as the history of science is concerned, the first millennium of its existence was unspectacular. During the High Middle Ages, portions of the Greek scientific tradition were recovered, and from that point on Western Christianity existed in an uneasy tension with the classical pagan inheritance. The Late Middle Ages/Renaissance saw a new round of translations: the Platonic corpus, the Neoplatonists, the Hermetic corpus, Epicurus and others. Slowly, the acid of science ate away at the foundations of Western Christianity until its dogmas fell apart one by one. A good example of this which we haven't discussed in much detail is the Hermetic corpus and its influence upon the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci was the epitomy of the VAIN CURIOSITY so despised by the church fathers. How far from the spirit of Augustine we have come by the sixteenth century:

"In the Hermetic cosmos man himself assumes an almost godlike role. Again we hear Hermes saying that man by virtue of his mind is akin to the gods and by pious devotion takes upon himself the attributes of a god, as though he himself were a god . . . with his quick wits he penetrates the elements, passing his mental gaze through the darkest night, the dense earth. For "Man is all things; man is everywhere" . . . and so "Man is a marvel then, Asclepius . . ."

Human beings are part of the material world, yet humans are also given divine creative powers. Casting aside corporeal preoccupations, men and women are able to exercise this creative power over nature. The key is mathematics. The celestial spirit that penetrates everything does so by measure and symbols. To acquire an intimite knowledge of this mathematical harmony not only enobles the mind, as Plato held, but enables people to exercise power and control over nature. In fact, the ability to operate and create, control and manipulate natural forces was the supreme goal of the magus. No longer are we merely contemplating the world.

In the Asclepius we find the Egyptian magi invoking celestial powers and reproducing them in material images. Inert mater is thus infused by human operations with an animating spirit, a force, which mechanizes the statue. In the later addition to the corpus, the Picatrix, the magus uses talismans as a kind of instrument to control external events. Ficino's own philosophy mirrors such ideas. For him there is a real connection between symbols and things. To operate with words and ideas, using the proper formulas, is to operate with real and essential nature. The formulas of mathematics are the great keys to unlock the mysteries of nature's harmony. The keys are not conventional and not imaginary; they are fully real. Nature expresses itself through proportions. Humans, by mastering the formulas of such proportions, can control things. The magician is a kind of spiritual mechanic."

Ibid, pp.173-174

Why did not Byzantium make much progress? For the same reason Christian Spain did not make much progress (compared to France, Germany, or England) in the medieval era - it was a scene for vicious frontier warfare that sucked up its mental energy and resources.

This is laughable. Grant demolishes this argument in several of his books. The most productive years of Byzantium, believe it not, were on its deathbed when it was under constant attack in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Spain did not make much progress because it remained far more under the foot of Catholicism than other European countries. Spain bled its treasure in the ridiculous wars of the Counter-Reformation.

(Also like with Byzantium, Muslims stole the best provinces of Spain and used them to prop up their own civilization.)

The Muslims created a thriving civilization in Spain for several centuries.

Permanently militarized Spartans were also famous for their unbending conservatism and "Luddite" monetary policies, and Plato admired them for it, like he also admired Pharaonic Egypt.

The Neoplatonists were appalled by Christianity and their attacks upon it played a major role in Justinian shutting down the Academy. One can only imagine how Plato himself would have responded to Paul's denunciation of the "wisdom of the wise" and Ambrose's celebration of the ignorant masses. Christianity inverted the classical ideal: faith over reason, ignorance over knowledge, simplicity over curiosity. The result was the Dark Ages.

[Petr]

Fade continues his predictable pick-and-choose intellectual dishonesty by praising magical-animistic Hermeticism, as if it would support his own atheistic position.

(Where was that citation from, anyways?)

This is laughable. Grant demolishes this argument in several of his books.
I am more convinced than ever that you are citing Grant very selectively.

The most productive years of Byzantium, believe it not, were on its deathbed when it was under constant attack in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
"Productive" in what sense? What rubbish.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

No-one does that sanctimonious pose quite like you...You originally started the Occidental Dissent Forum because you grew tired with "freedom of speech":

No, I started it to have a forum specifically about racialism. I was merely pointing out there that the new board would have a focus whereas The Phora does not. friedrich and wintermute can confirm this.

[Petr]

Fade wrote:

Is it not interesting how the great cities of the Roman Empire were destroyed one by one after the adoption of Christianity? Rome, Milan, Alexandria, Carthage, Sirmium, Antioch, and finally Constantinople? If I were a superstitious man, I might attribute this to the wrath of the old pagan gods.

I answered:

(And Constantinople didn't even exist until Christian takeover, dumbo.)

And Fade then says:

Byzantium had existed for a thousand years before Constantine chose it as the site of his new eastern capital.
Another nice example of what sophistic definition-games Fade the Shyster likes to play.


Petr

[Keystone]

Wasn't Byzantium just a Greek town before Constantine moved there?

[Petr]

Spain did not make much progress because it remained far more under the foot of Catholicism than other European countries.


Let's see Fade provide some scholarly proof for this assertion, which he in all likelihood made up on the spot, based on his stereotypical ideas about Spain - and remember, we are now talking about Medieval era, not Counter-Reformation era.

Fade is just trying to obfuscate with stupid hand-waving the obvious fact that the lack of progress in medieval Spain was due to its frontier position.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade continues his predictable pick-and-choose intellectual dishonesty by praising magical-animistic Hermeticism, as if it would support his own atheistic position.

The Hermetic corpus was undoubtedly a major influence upon the development of modern science. It was, above all else, the notion that nature could be mathematized and the harmony behind the apparent change of the world revealed that explains the breakthroughs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Heremiticism was also pregnant with the experimental method. This glorification of mathematics and experimentation is alien to Christianity. The alchemists were violently persecuted by the Catholic Church as sorcerers and witches who practiced black magic. Chemistry was denounced as one of the "seven devilish arts."

I am more convinced than ever that you are citing Grant very selectively.

He discusses Byzantium in Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, Science and Religion, 400 B.C. - A.D. 1550: Aristotle to Copernicus, and God and Reason in the Middle Ages. He specifically addresses the argument that hostility from abroad was the cause of Byzantine stagnation and rejects it. From Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages this time:

"We might readily believe that in a civilization constantly at war, or preparing for war, intellectual activities were easily neglected. Although wars may have disrupted intellectual activities in Byzantium on occasion, such an interpretation, however, would be inaccurate because the Byzantine Empire experienced its greatest intellectual renaissance during the two final, desparate, war-filled centuries of its existence . . .

We saw earlier that the handmaiden concept in the West was gradually ignored and eventually abandoned. Its fate in the East was quite different. Throughout the history of the Byzantine Empire, Church authorities insisted on the handmaiden approach to philosophy and to secular learning in general, showing hostility toward any attempt to study subjects for their own sakes or for the sheer love of knowledge. The Church's theologians were only occasionally natural philosophers."

Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages pp.188-189

"Productive" in what sense? What rubbish.

See above.

[Petr]

"We might readily believe that in a civilization constantly at war, or preparing for war, intellectual activities were easily neglected. Although wars may have disrupted intellectual activities in Byzantium on occasion, such an interpretation, however, would be inaccurate because the Byzantine Empire experienced its greatest intellectual renaissance during the two final, desparate, war-filled centuries of its existence . . .
I would like to believe that Grant is not such a simpleton as this citation would lead one to suspect.

This is a very ivory-tower idea of "intellectual renaissance" that would assume that academia is a world of its own, existing apart from the surrounding society. There might have been some amount of new theorizing (abstract contemplation that Greeks liked to do), but in all other respects it was desperate downhill for Byzantines, in economic, military and political fronts. Their whole infrastructure was shattering away.

Does Grant give any details on this "intellectual renaissance"?


Petr

[Petr]

The Hermetic corpus was undoubtedly a major influence upon the development of modern science. It was, above all else, the notion that nature could be mathematized and the harmony behind the apparent change of the world revealed that explains the breakthroughs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Fade is wildly handing out credit for the rise of science to everything and everyone else - warmer weather, Venetians, Hermeticism, Aristotle, Epicurus, anyone! - except to Christianity. He's throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing if anything sticks, like a cheap propagandist he is.

The alchemists were violently persecuted by the Catholic Church as sorcerers and witches who practiced black magic.
Which is precisely what many of them were. Christianity did a great service to the development of real science by its opposition to astrology alone.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Copernicus the Pythagorean:

"Born in 1473 on the banks of the Vistula, Copernicus attended the university of Cracow and in 1496 traveled to Italy to study church law. He also studied medicine and astronomy, learning Greek in its scientific context as it had been instituted at the medical school in Padua. Here he probably became acquainted with the humanist revival of classical Greek sources and may have encountered, if only indirectly, Florentine Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and perhaps the Hermetic corpus. Meanwhile, his uncle, a bishop, secured his appointment as canon of the cathedral of Frauenberg, a position he held until his death. Although he did not earn his living by astronomy, he undoubtedly continued his study of the subject, and when Pope Leo X invited astronomers to the Latern Council of 1514 to reform the calendar, Copernicus was asked for assistance. The request came too soon for Copernicus; it was probably a decade later, when he was in his fifites, that he wrote De Revolutionibus a book in which he hoped to establish the mathematical harmony and truth of the world machine.

This emphasis upon harmony ought to remind us of the ancient Pythagoreans. It did Copernicus, for he mentions them, and Aristarchus, in an earlier manuscript. Had not some of the Pythagoreans placed the earth in motion around a central fire? Copernicus abhored novelty for its own sake, wrote his pupil Georg Joachim Rheticus; he had really returned to a more ancient cosmological doctrine. We might very well view Ptolemy in the same way that Luther at first viewed the Church: Ptolemy's complicated system had seriously distrubted the pristine harmony of the ancient philosophers. So, like the early Luther, Copernicus did not want to overthrow Ptolemy; rather, he desired to purify the system by returning to its ancient wellspring. He was a revolutionary in the sixteenth-century sense of the word." . . .

Copernicus has indeed presented us with a profound harmony, and this harmony is possible only when the earth is placed in motion about the sun. The Pythagoreans would have been proud. So would Plato. The search for harmony, exemplified by mathematical constructions, had demonstrated that the apparent disunity of the phenomena as observed by the senses was illusionary. And now there were only six moving spheres in the universe. Six, as Rheticus pointed out, was a divine Pythagorean number.

Alioto, pp.180-182

Kepler the Pythagorean:

Kepler was even more of a Pythagorean than Copernicus. Mathematics sewed together the matieral fabric of nature, and its patterns presented spiritual ideas woven into the cloth by the Divine Mind.

As a student at the University of Tubingen Kepler was inspired by the writings of Cusa and also came into contact with Copernicus. He was converted to Copernican astronomy for mathematical reasons, for its ability to describe those harmonious connections, and for its appeal to his aesthetic sense of mathematical unity. Then there was the nobility of the sun - a doctrine to be found in both Pythagoras and Hermes. . . .

Kepler, however, was a true Pythagorean, and his search for harmony could not be complete until he found a pure numerical law that bound the planets. According to the Pythagoreans, numerical harmonies were to be found in the musical intervals. There must be, thought Kepler, such a musical harmony of the planets, dependent upon some pure numerical relationship. In the course of searching for this "music of the spheres," Kepler decided that the interval must depend in some way upon its relationship between the mean revolution of the planet and its mean distance from the sun. In 1619 he published The Harmony of the World, which contained this musical score (the music is intellectual, of course, not sensate). In the process of his search for this musical harmony Kepler discovered his Third Law. . . .

The Pythagorean vision had finally been realized. God was the archetypal architect whose immense worldly castle embodied the beautiful mathematical simplicity of the Divine Mind. Beneath apparent chaos existed a divine order and regularlity that could be grasped by the human mind, a mind that thought in the same patterns as the Creator.

Ibid., pp.188-192

Galileo the Platonist:

The most important proponent of Galileo's Platonism was Alexandre Koyre. Aristotle sought to explain motion and change as we experience these things here on earth by rationalizing the evidence of common-sense perception. . . . For him, as for Plato, matter is only an approximation of eternal geometrical forms. Galileo's moving bodies are not physical, said Koyre; they are ideal bodies moving in mathematical Euclidean space. Free fall in a vacuum, perfectly smooth inclined planes, compound motion of bodies on the earth - we can only imagine these things in the abstract. Science is a series of ideal statements about the world, yet such statements in the language of mathematics have an ontological veracity that overshadows common sense. Galileo signifies the triumph of Plato over Aristotle - "Plato's revenge." . . .

The Aristotelian Simplicio gives in. Although he would have liked to be present at the demonstrations, he is still satisfied and accepts their validity. What is it that persuades him? Most likely Galileo did perfect his experiments and found that the results roughly agreed with the ratios he sought. Surely they were also idealized. Yet in the Discourses Simplicio is made to say, "If I were again beginning my studies, I should follow the advice of Plato and start with mathematics."

Ibid, pp. 209-220

[Petr]

Also, any comments to this claim by Woods, Fade?

The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

Petr

[Petr]

The Pythagorean vision had finally been realized. God was the archetypal architect whose immense worldly castle embodied the beautiful mathematical simplicity of the Divine Mind. Beneath apparent chaos existed a divine order and regularlity that could be grasped by the human mind, a mind that thought in the same patterns as the Creator.


This doesn't sound very atheistic. Could Epicurus or his followers have ever come up with this?

In any case:


A historical example can be found in the work of Johannes Kepler. Since the Greeks regarded the heavens as perfect, and the circle as the perfect shape, they concluded that the planets must move in circular orbits, and this remained the orthodox view for nearly two millennia. But Kepler had difficulty with the planet Mars. The most accurate circle he could construct still left a small error of eight arc minutes. Had he retained the Greek mentality, Kepler would have shrugged off such a minor difference, regarding nature as only an approximation to the ideal forms. (In this case, Greek thought was a science-stopper.) As a Lutheran, however, Kepler was convinced that if God wanted something to be a circle, it would be exactly a circle. And if it was not exactly a circle, it must be exactly something else, and not mere capricious variation. This conviction sustained Kepler through six years of intellectual struggle, and thousands of pages of calculations, until he finally came up with the idea of ellipses. Historian R. G. Collingwood goes so far as to say, "The very possibility of applied mathematics is an expression . . . of the Christian belief that nature is the creation of an omnipotent God."[18]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=246773&postcount=1


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Wasn't Byzantium just a Greek town before Constantine moved there?

Yes. It was a town that had existed for a thousand years.

[Fade the Butcher]

Also, any comments to this claim by Woods, Fade?

It's nonsense. The universities were bastions of orthodox scholasticism. Modern science was pioneered by men who were generally outsiders. The strongholds of modern science were the informal discussion groups that evolved into the first scientific societies. The university was certainly a positive development, but modern science only became institutionalized in them much later. Oxford and Cambridge were strongholds of theology into the late nineteenth century.

[Fade the Butcher]

This doesn't sound very atheistic. Could Epicurus or his followers have ever come up with this?

The mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century goes back to Epicurus whose work was rediscovered in the Renaissance. Your quote is either malicious of misinformed. Proclus and Iamblichus advocated the mathematization of the natural world. The late Neoplatonists had already set themselves to the task of reconciling Plato with Aristotle. The notion that "applied mathematics" is some kind of expression of Christianity is absurd. Nothing of the sort ever came out of the mouth of Jesus or Paul. Mathematics was demonized by Christians for centuries due to its association with Pythagorean numerology. It was widely associated with paganism and the occult. Christians showed little interest in mathematics for thirteen hundred years until Fibonacci and Jordanus. Albertus Magnus referred the quantitative sciences the "Pythagorean" approach. The great mathematicians known to Medieval Christians were the ancient Greeks, Arabs, and Hindus.

[Fade the Butcher]

I would like to believe that Grant is not such a simpleton as this citation would lead one to suspect.

He makes the same argument in two different books. I have cited both of them and have transcribed relevant passages for your benefit.

This is a very ivory-tower idea of "intellectual renaissance" that would assume that academia is a world of its own, existing apart from the surrounding society. There might have been some amount of new theorizing (abstract contemplation that Greeks liked to do), but in all other respects it was desperate downhill for Byzantines, in economic, military and political fronts. Their whole infrastructure was shattering away.

As Grant points out, Petr's argument is absurd. The most productive period in Byzantium's history was the final two centuries when it was collapsing. Kepler lived during the Thirty Years War. Newton lived through the English Civil War. Oresme and Buridan lived through the Hundred Years War.

Does Grant give any details on this "intellectual renaissance"?

Yes. It would be a pointless waste of my time to transcribe the passage since you will either dismiss or ignore it anyway.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade is wildly handing out credit for the rise of science to everything and everyone else - warmer weather, Venetians

This refers to emergence of civilization in Northern Europe, not the rise of modern science. I don't see why Petr disputes this point. I'm not aware of any mainstream scholar who denies that 1.) the warmer climate and 2.) the introduction of new technology was responsible for the expansion of the population and emergence of the first towns and cities in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Hermeticism, Aristotle, Epicurus, anyone! - except to Christianity. He's throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing if anything sticks, like a cheap propagandist he is.

What role did Christianity play in the rise of modern science? When Copernicus announced to the world that the earth orbits the sun, all the factions of Christendom - Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, the Papacy - rose up not to embrace him, but to denounce his work. When Galileo advocated the Copernican theory, he was silenced. When Descartes introduced the mechanistic philosophy, his work was banned. When Kepler advocated the new astronomy, he was denounced and his book was banned. When Roger Bacon introduced the experimental method to Europe, he was denounced as a sorcerer, magician, and Averroist. He was thrown in prison for fourteen years. When Abélard advocated the use of reason to reconcile conflicting authorities, he was branded a heretic. When Buffon argued that the world was tens of thousands of years old, he was forced to recant. When Darwin announced to the world that man had evolved through natural selection, he was subjected to the most scathing denunciations.

Which is precisely what many of them were. Christianity did a great service to the development of real science by its opposition to astrology alone.

I will deal with this below.

[Fade the Butcher]

Daedalus: The alchemists were violently persecuted by the Catholic Church as sorcerers and witches who practiced black magic.

Petr: Which is precisely what many of them were. Christianity did a great service to the development of real science by its opposition to astrology alone.

^^ I promised to deal with this above. Andrew Dickson White does such a brilliant job explaining the destructive role of Christianity in this regard that I cannot possibly add anything to this. From the History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter12.html):

I. The Supremacy of Magic.

IN all the earliest developments of human thought we find a strong tendency to ascribe mysterious powers over Nature to men and women especially gifted or skilled. Survivals of this view are found to this day among savages and barbarians left behind in the evolution of civilization, and especially is this the case among the tribes of Australia, Africa, and the Pacific coast of America. Even in the most enlightened nations still appear popular beliefs, observances, or sayings, drawn from this earlier phase of thought.
Between the prehistoric savage developing this theory, and therefore endeavouring to deal with the powers of Nature by magic, and the modern man who has outgrown it, appears a long line of nations struggling upward through it. As the hieroglyphs, cuneiform inscriptions, and various other records of antiquity are read, the development of this belief can be studied in Egypt, India, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, and Phoenicia. From these civilizations it came into the early thought of Greece and Rome, but especially into the Jewish and Christian sacred books. Both in the Old Testament and in the New we find magic, witchcraft, and soothsaying constantly referred to as realities.[373]

[b]The first distinct impulse toward a higher view of research into natural laws was given by the philosophers of Greece. [/b]It is true that philosophical opposition to physical research was at times strong, and that even a great thinker like Socrates considered certain physical investigations as an impious intrusion into the work of the gods. It is also true that Plato and Aristotle, while bringing their thoughts to bear upon the world with great beauty and force, did much to draw mankind away from those methods which in modern times have produced the best results.

Plato developed a world in which the physical sciences had little if any real reason for existing; Aristotle, a world in which the same sciences were developed largely indeed by observation of what is, but still more by speculation on what ought to be. From the former of these two great men came into Christian theology many germs of medieval magic, and from the latter sundry modes of reasoning which aided in the evolution of these; [b]yet the impulse to human thought given by these great masters was of inestimable value to our race, and one legacy from them was especially precious--[u]the idea that a science of Nature is possible, and that the highest occupation of man is the discovery of its laws. Still another gift from them was greatest of all, for they gave scientific freedom. They laid no interdict upon new paths; they interposed no barriers to the extension of knowledge; they threatened no doom in this life or in the next against investigators on new lines; they left the world free to seek any new methods and to follow any new paths which thinking men could find. [/u][/b]

This legacy of belief in science, of respect for scientific pursuits, and of freedom in scientific research, was especially received by the school of Alexandria, and above all by Archimedes, who began, just before the Christian era, to open new paths through the great field of the inductive sciences by observation, comparison, and experiment.[375]

[b][size=4]The establishment of Christianity, beginning a new evolution of theology, arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for over fifteen hundred years.[/size] The cause of this arrest was twofold: First, there was created an atmosphere in which the germs of physical science could hardly grow--an atmosphere in which all seeking in Nature for truth as truth was regarded as futile. The general belief derived from the New Testament Scriptures was, that the end of the world was at hand; that the last judgment was approaching; that all existing physical nature was soon to be destroyed: hence, the greatest thinkers in the Church generally poured contempt upon all investigators into a science of Nature, and insisted that everything except the saving of souls was folly. [/b]

This belief appears frequently through the entire period of the Middle Ages; but during the first thousand years it is clearly dominant. From Lactantius and Eusebius, in the third century, pouring contempt, as we have seen, over studies in astronomy, to Peter Damian, the noted chancellor of Pope Gregory VII, in the eleventh century, declaring all worldly sciences to be "absurdities" and "fooleries," it becomes a very important element in the atmosphere of thought.[376]

Then, too, there was established a standard to which all science which did struggle up through this atmosphere must be made to conform--[b]a standard which favoured magic rather than science, for it was a standard of rigid dogmatism obtained from literal readings in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. The most careful inductions from ascertained facts were regarded as wretchedly fallible when compared with any view of nature whatever given or even hinted at in any poem, chronicle, code, apologue, myth, legend, allegory, letter, or discourse of any sort [/b]which had happened to be preserved in the literature which had come to be held as sacred.

[b][size=4]For twelve centuries, then, the physical sciences were thus discouraged or perverted by the dominant orthodoxy. Whoever studied nature studied it either openly to find illustrations of the sacred text, useful in the "saving of souls," or secretly to gain the aid of occult powers, useful in securing personal advantage. [/b][/size]Great men like Bede, Isidore of Seville, and Rabanus Maurus, accepted the scriptural standard of science and used it as a means of Christian edification. The views of Bede and Isidore on kindred subjects have been shown in former chapters; and typical of the view taken by Rabanus is the fact that in his great work on the _Universe_ there are only two chapters which seem directly or indirectly to recognise even the beginnings of a real philosophy of nature. A multitude of less-known men found warrant in Scripture for magic applied to less worthy purposes.[376b]

[b]But after the thousand years had passed to which various thinkers in the Church, upon supposed scriptural warrant, had lengthened out the term of the earth's existence, "the end of all things" seemed further off than ever; and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, owing to causes which need not be dwelt upon here, came a great revival of thought, so that the forces of theology and of science seemed arrayed for a contest. On one side came a revival of religious fervour, and to this day the works of the cathedral builders mark its depth and strength; on the other side came a new spirit of inquiry incarnate in a line of powerful thinkers. [/b]

First among these was Albert of Bollstadt, [b]better known as Albert the Great, the most renowned scholar of his time.[/b] Fettered though he was by the methods sanctioned in the Church, dark as was all about him, he had conceived better methods and aims; his eye pierced the mists of scholasticism. he saw the light, and sought to draw the world toward it. [b]He stands among the great pioneers of physical and natural science; he aided in giving foundations to botany and chemistry; he rose above his time, and struck a heavy blow at those who opposed the possibility of human life on opposite sides of the earth; he noted the influence of mountains, seas, and forests upon races and products, so that Humboldt justly finds in his works the germs of physical geography as a comprehensive science.

But the old system of deducing scientific truth from scriptural texts was renewed in the development of scholastic theology, and ecclesiastical power, acting through thousands of subtle channels, was made to aid this development. The old idea of the futility of physical science and of the vast superiority of theology was revived. Though Albert's main effort was to Christianize science, he was dealt with by the authorities of the Dominican order, subjected to suspicion and indignity, and only escaped persecution for sorcery by yielding to the ecclesiastical spirit of the time, and working finally in theological channels by, scholastic methods.

It was a vast loss to the earth; and certainly, of all organizations that have reason to lament the pressure of ecclesiasticism which turned Albert the Great from natural philosophy to theology, foremost of all in regret should be the Christian Church, and especially the Roman branch of it.[u] Had there been evolved in the Church during the thirteenth century a faith strong enough to accept the truths in natural science which Albert and his compeers could have given, and to have encouraged their growth, this faith and this encouragement would to this day have formed the greatest argument for proving the Church directly under Divine guidance; they would have been among the brightest jewels in her crown.[/u][/b] The loss to the Church by this want of faith and courage has proved in the long run even greater than the loss to science.[378]

The next great man of that age whom the theological and ecclesiastical forces of the time turned from the right path was Vincent of Beauvais. During the first half of the twelfth century he devoted himself to the study of Nature in several of her most interesting fields. To astronomy, botany, and zoology he gave special attention, but in a larger way he made a general study of the universe, and in a series of treatises undertook to reveal the whole field of science. But his work simply became a vast commentary on the account of creation given in the book of Genesis. Beginning with the work of the Trinity at the creation, he goes on to detail the work of angels in all their fields, and makes excursions into every part of creation, visible and invisible, but always with the most complete subordination of his thought to the literal statements of Scripture. Could he have taken the path of experimental research, the world would have been enriched with most precious discoveries; but the force which had given wrong direction to Albert of Bollstadt, backed as it was by the whole ecclesiastical power of his time, was too strong, and in all the life labour of Vincent nothing appears of any permanent value. He reared a structure which the adaptation of facts to literal interpretations of Scripture and the application of theological subtleties to nature combine to make one of the most striking monuments of human error.[379]

But the theological spirit of the thirteenth century gained its greatest victory in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. In him was the theological spirit of his age incarnate. Although he yielded somewhat at one period to love of natural science, it was he who finally made that great treaty or compromise which for ages subjected science entirely to theology. He it was who reared the most enduring barrier against those who in that age and in succeeding ages laboured to open for science the path by its own methods toward its own ends.

He had been the pupil of Albert the Great, and had gained much from him. Through the earlier systems of philosophy, as they were then known, and through the earlier theologic thought, he had gone with great labour and vigour; and all his mighty powers, thus disciplined and cultured, he brought to bear in making a truce which was to give theology permanent supremacy over science.

The experimental method had already been practically initiated: Albert of Bollstadt and Roger Bacon had begun their work in accordance with its methods; but St. Thomas gave all his thoughts to bringing science again under the sway of theological methods and ecclesiastical control. In his commentary on Aristotle's treatise upon _Heaven and Earth_ he gave to the world a striking example of what his method could produce, illustrating all the evils which arise in combining theological reasoning and literal interpretation of Scripture with scientific facts; and this work remains to this day a monument of scientific genius perverted by theology.[380]

The ecclesiastical power of the time hailed him as a deliverer, it was claimed that miracles were vouchsafed, proving that the blessing of Heaven rested upon his labours, and among the legends embodying this claim is that given by the Bollandists and immortalized by a renowned painter. The great philosopher and saint is represented in the habit of his order, with book and pen in hand, kneeling before the image of Christ crucified, and as he kneels the image thus addresses him: "Thomas, thou hast written well concerning me; what price wilt thou receive for thy labour?" The myth-making faculty of the people at large was also brought into play. According to a widespread and circumstantial legend, Albert, by magical means, created an android--an artificial man, living, speaking, and answering all questions with such subtlety that St. Thomas, unable to answer its reasoning, broke it to pieces with his staff.

Historians of the Roman Church like Rohrbacher, and historians of science like Pouchet, have found it convenient to propitiate the Church by dilating upon the glories of St. Thomas Aquinas in thus making an alliance between religious and scientific thought, and laying the foundations for a "sanctified science"; but the unprejudiced historian can not indulge in this enthusiastic view: the results both for the Church and for science have been most unfortunate. It was a wretched delay in the evolution of fruitful thought, for the first result of this great man's great compromise was to close for ages that path in science which above all others leads to discoveries of value--the experimental method--and to reopen that old path of mixed theology and science which, as Hallam declares, "after three or four hundred years had not untied a single knot or added one unequivocal truth to the domain of philosophy"--the path which, as all modern history proves, has ever since led only to delusion and evil.[380b]

[b]The theological path thus opened by these strong men became the main path for science during ages, and it led the world ever further and further from any fruitful fact or useful method. Roger Bacon's investigations already begun were discredited: worthless mixtures of scriptural legends with imperfectly authenticated physical facts took their place. Thus it was that for twelve hundred years the minds in control of Europe regarded all real science as _futile_, and diverted the great current of earnest thought into theology. [/b]

The next stage in this evolution was [b][size=4]the development of an idea which acted with great force throughout the Middle Ages--the idea that science is [i]dangerous[/i].[/size][/b] This belief was also of very ancient origin. From the time when the Egyptian magicians made their tremendous threat that unless their demands were granted they would reach out to the four corners of the earth, pull down the pillars of heaven, wreck the abodes of the gods above and crush those of men below, fear of these representatives of science is evident in the ancient world.

But differences in the character of magic were recognised, some sorts being considered useful and some baleful. Of the former was magic used in curing diseases, in determining times auspicious for enterprises, and even in contributing to amusement; of the latter was magic used to bring disease and death on men and animals or tempests upon the growing crops. Hence gradually arose a general distinction between white magic, which dealt openly with the more beneficent means of nature, and black magic, which dealt secretly with occult, malignant powers.

[b]Down to the Christian era the fear of magic rarely led to any persecution very systematic or very cruel. [/b]While in Greece and Rome laws were at times enacted against magicians, they were only occasionally enforced with rigour, and finally, toward the end of the pagan empire, the feeling against them seemed dying out altogether. As to its more kindly phases, men like Marcus Aurelius and Julian did not hesitate to consult those who claimed to foretell the future. As to black magic, it seemed hardly worth while to enact severe laws, when charms, amulets, and even gestures could thwart its worst machinations.

Moreover, under the old empire a real science was coming in, and thought was progressing. Both the theory and practice of magic were more and more held up to ridicule. Even as early a writer as Ennius ridiculed the idea that magicians, who were generally poor and hungry themselves, could bestow wealth on others; Pliny, in his [i]Natural Philosophy[/i], showed at great length their absurdities and cheatery; others followed in the same line of thought, and the whole theory, except among the very lowest classes, seemed dying out.

[b][u][size=4]But with the development of Christian theology came a change. The idea of the active interference of Satan in magic, which had come into the Hebrew mind with especial force from Persia during the captivity of Israel, had passed from the Hebrew Scriptures into Christianity, and had been made still stronger by various statements in the New Testament. [/u][/b][/size]Theologians laid stress especially upon the famous utterances of the Psalmist that "all the gods of the heathen are devils," and of St. Paul that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils"; and it was widely held that these devils were naturally indignant at their dethronement and anxious to wreak vengeance upon Christianity. [b]Magicians were held to be active agents of these dethroned gods, and this persuasion was strengthened by sundry old practitioners in the art of magic--impostors who pretended to supernatural powers, and who made use of old rites and phrases inherited from paganism.

Hence it was that as soon as Christianity came into power it more than renewed the old severities against the forbidden art, and one of the first acts of the Emperor Constantine after his conversion was to enact a most severe law against magic and magicians, under which the main offender might be burned alive.[/b] But here, too, it should be noted that a distinction between the two sorts of magic was recognised, for Constantine shortly afterward found it necessary to issue a proclamation stating that his intention was only to prohibit deadly and malignant magic; that he had no intention of prohibiting magic used to cure diseases and to protect the crops from hail and tempests. But as new emperors came to the throne who had not in them that old leaven of paganism which to the last influenced Constantine, and as theology obtained a firmer hold, severity against magic increased. Toleration of it, even in its milder forms, was more and more denied. Black magic and white were classed together.

[b]This severity went on increasing and threatened the simplest efforts in physics and chemistry; even the science of mathematics was looked upon with dread. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the older theology having arrived at the climax of its development in Europe, terror of magic and witchcraft took complete possession of the popular mind. In sculpture, painting, and literature it appeared in forms ever more and more striking. The lives of saints were filled with it.[/b] The cathedral sculpture embodied it in every part. The storied windows made it all the more impressive. The missal painters wrought it not only into prayer books, but, despite the fact that hardly a trace of the belief appears in the Psalms, they illustrated it in the great illuminated psalters from which the noblest part of the service was sung before the high altar. The service books showed every form of agonizing petition for delivery from this dire influence, and every form of exorcism for thwarting it.

[b]All the great theologians of the Church entered into this belief and aided to develop it. The fathers of the early Church were full and explicit, and the medieval doctors became more and more minute in describing the operations of the black art and in denouncing them.[u] It was argued that, as the devil afflicted Job, so he and his minions continue to cause diseases; that, as Satan is the Prince of the power of the air, he and his minions cause tempests; that the cases of Nebuchadnezzar and Lot's wife prove that sorcerers can transform human beings into animals or even lifeless matter; that, as the devils of Gadara were cast into swine, all animals could be afflicted in the same manner; and that, as Christ himself had been transported through the air by the power of Satan,[/u][/b] so any human being might be thus transported to "an exceeding high mountain."

[b]Thus the horror of magic and witchcraft increased on every hand, and in 1317 Pope John XXII issued his bull [i]Spondent pariter[/i], levelled at the alchemists, but really dealing a terrible blow at the beginnings of chemical science. That many alchemists were knavish is no doubt true, but no infallibility in separating the evil from the good was shown by the papacy in this matter. In this and in sundry other bulls and briefs we find Pope John, by virtue of his infallibility as the world's instructor in all that pertains to faith and morals, condemning real science and pseudo-science alike. In two of these documents, supposed to be inspired by wisdom from on high, he complains that both he and his flock are in danger of their lives by the arts of the sorcerers; he declares that such sorcerers can send devils into mirrors and finger rings, and kill men and women by a magic word; that they had tried to kill him by piercing a waxen image of him with needles in the name of the devil. [u][size=4]He therefore called on all rulers, secular and ecclesiastical, to hunt down the miscreants who thus afflicted the faithful, and he especially increased the powers of inquisitors in various parts of Europe for this purpose. [/b][/size][/u]

The impulse thus given to childish fear and hatred against the investigation of nature was felt for centuries; [size=4][b][u]more and more chemistry came to be known as one of the "seven devilish arts." [/u][/b][/size]

Thus began a long series of demonstrations against magic from the centre of Christendom. [b]In 1437, and again in 1445, Pope Eugene IV issued bulls exhorting inquisitors to be more diligent in searching out and delivering over to punishment magicians and witches who produced bad weather, the result being that persecution received a fearful impulse. [u][size=4]But the worst came forty years later still, when, in 1484, there came the yet more terrible bull of Pope Innocent VIII, known as [i]Summis Desiderantes[/i], which let inquisitors loose upon Germany, with Sprenger at their head, armed with the [i]Witch-Hammer[/i], the fearful manual [i]Malleus Maleficarum[/i], to torture and destroy men and women by tens of thousands for sorcery and magic. Similar bulls were issued in 1504 by Julius II, and in 1523 by Adrian VI. [/u][/b][/size]

The system of repression thus begun lasted for hundreds of years. The Reformation did little to change it, and in Germany, where Catholics and Protestants vied with each other in proving their orthodoxy, it was at its worst. On German soil more than one hundred thousand victims are believed to have been sacrificed to it between the middle of the fifteenth and the middle of the sixteenth centuries.

[b]Thus it was that from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas, from Aquinas to Luther, and from Luther to Wesley, theologians of both branches of the Church, with hardly an exception, enforced the belief in magic and witchcraft, and, as far as they had power, carried out the injunction, [u]"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." [/u][/b]

How this was ended by the progress of scientific modes of thought I shall endeavour to show elsewhere: here we are only concerned with the effect of this widespread terrorism on the germs and early growth of the physical sciences.

Of course, the atmosphere created by this persecution of magicians was deadly to any open beginnings of experimental science. The conscience of the time, acting in obedience to the highest authorities of the Church, and, as was supposed, in defence of religion, [b]now brought out a missile which it hurled against scientific investigators with deadly effect. The medieval battlefields of thought were strewn with various forms of it. This missile was the charge of unlawful compact with Satan, and it was most effective. We find it used against every great investigator of nature in those times and for ages after. The list of great men in those centuries charged with magic, as given by Naude, is astounding; it includes every man of real mark, and in the midst of them stands one of the most thoughtful popes, Sylvester II (Gerbert), and the foremost of mediaeval thinkers on natural science, Albert the Great. It came to be the accepted idea that, as soon as a man conceived a wish to study the works of God, his first step must be a league with the devil. [/b]

It was entirely natural, then, that [b][size=4]in 1163 Pope Alexander III, in connection with the Council of Tours, forbade the study of physics to all ecclesiastics, which, of course, in that age meant prohibition of all such scientific studies to the only persons likely to make them. What the Pope then expressly forbade was, in the words of the papal bull, "the study of physics or the laws of the world," and it was added that any person violating this rule "shall be avoided by all and excommunicated."[386] [/b][/size]

The first great thinker who, in spite of some stumbling into theologic pitfalls, [b]persevered in a truly scientific path, was Roger Bacon. His life and works seem until recently to have been generally misunderstood: he was formerly ranked as a superstitious alchemist who happened upon some inventions, but more recent investigation has shown him to be one of the great masters in the evolution of human thought. [/b]The advance of sound historical judgment seems likely to bring the fame of the two who bear the name of Bacon nearly to equality. Bacon of the chancellorship and of the [i]Novum Organum[/i] may not wane, but Bacon of the prison cell and the [i]Opus Majus[/i] steadily approaches him in brightness.

[b][u][size=4]More than three centuries before Francis Bacon advocated the experimental method, Roger Bacon practised it, and the results as now revealed are wonderful. He wrought with power in many sciences, and his knowledge was sound and exact. By him, more than by any other man of the Middle Ages, was the world brought into the more fruitful paths of scientific thought[/u][/b][/size]--the paths which have led to the most precious inventions; and among these are clocks, lenses, and burning specula, which were given by him to the world, directly or indirectly. In his writings are found formulae for extracting phosphorus, manganese, and bismuth. It is even claimed, with much appearance of justice, that he investigated the power of steam, and he seems to have very nearly reached some of the principal doctrines of modern chemistry. [b]But it should be borne in mind that his [i]method[/i] of investigation was even greater than its [i]results[/i]. In an age when theological subtilizing was alone thought to give the title of scholar, he insisted on [i]real[/i] reasoning and the aid of natural science by mathematics; in an age when experimenting was sure to cost a man his reputation, and was likely to cost him his life, he insisted on experimenting, and braved all its risks. Few greater men have lived.[/b] As we follow Bacon's process of reasoning regarding the refraction of light, we see that he was divinely inspired.

[b]On this man came the brunt of the battle. The most conscientious men of his time thought it their duty to fight him, and they fought him steadily and bitterly. His sin was not disbelief in Christianity,[/b] not want of fidelity to the Church, not even dissent from the main lines of orthodoxy; on the contrary, he showed in all his writings a desire to strengthen Christianity, to build up the Church, and to develop orthodoxy.[b][u] He was attacked and condemned mainly because he did not believe that philosophy had become complete, and that nothing more was to be learned; he was condemned, as his opponents expressly declared, "on account of certain suspicious novelties"--"[i]propter quasdam novitates suspectas[/i]." [/u][/b]

Upon his return to Oxford, about 1250, [b]the forces of unreason beset him on all sides. Greatest of all his enemies was Bonaventura. This enemy was the theologic idol of the period:[/b] the learned world knew him as the "seraphic Doctor"; Dante gave him an honoured place in the great poem of the Middle Ages; the Church finally enrolled him among the saints. By force of great ability in theology he had become, in the middle of the thirteenth century, general of the Franciscan order: thus, as Bacon's master, his hands were laid heavily on the new teaching,[b] so that in 1257 the troublesome monk was forbidden to lecture; all men were solemnly warned not to listen to his teaching, and he was ordered to Paris, to be kept under surveillance by the monastic authorities. Herein was exhibited another of the myriad examples showing the care exercised over scientific teaching by the Church. The reasons for thus dealing with Bacon were evident: First, he had dared attempt scientific explanations of natural phenomena, which under the mystic theology of the Middle Ages had been referred simply to supernatural causes. [u]Typical was his explanation of the causes and character of the rainbow. It was clear, cogent, a great step in the right direction as regards physical science: but there, in the book of Genesis, stood the legend regarding the origin of the rainbow, supposed to have been dictated immediately by the Holy Spirit; and, according to that, the "bow in the cloud" was not the result of natural laws, but a "sign" arbitrarily placed in the heavens for the simple purpose of assuring mankind that there was not to be another universal deluge. [/u][/b]

But this was not the worst: [b]another theological idea was arrayed against him--the idea of Satanic intervention in science; hence he was attacked with that goodly missile which with the epithets "infidel" and "atheist" has decided the fate of so many battles--the charge of magic and compact with Satan.

He defended himself with a most unfortunate weapon--a weapon which exploded in his hands and injured him more than the enemy; for he argued against the idea of compacts with Satan, and showed that much which is ascribed to demons results from natural means. This added fuel to the flame. [/b]To limit the power of Satan was deemed hardly less impious than to limit the power of God.

The most powerful protectors availed him little. His friend Guy of Foulques, having in 1265 been made Pope under the name of Clement IV, shielded him for a time; but the fury of the enemy was too strong, [b]and when he made ready to perform a few experiments before a small audience, we are told that all Oxford was in an uproar. It was believed that Satan was about to be let loose. [u][size=4]Everywhere priests, monks, fellows, and students rushed about, their garments streaming in the wind, and everywhere rose the cry, "Down with the magician!" and this cry, "Down with the magician!" resounded from cell to cell and from hall to hall. [/size][/u][/b]

Another weapon was also used upon the battlefields of science in that time with much effect. The Arabs had made many noble discoveries in science, and Averroes had, in the opinion of many, divided the honours with St. Thomas Aquinas;[b] these facts gave the new missile--it was the epithet "Mohammedan"; this, too, was flung with effect at Bacon.

The attack now began to take its final shape. The two great religious orders, Franciscan and Dominican, then in all the vigour of their youth, vied with each other in fighting the new thought in chemistry and physics. [u]St. Dominic solemnly condemned research by experiment and observation; the general of the Franciscan order took similar ground. In 1243 the Dominicans interdicted every member of their order from the study of medicine and natural philosophy, and in 1287 this interdiction was extended to the study of chemistry. [/u][/b]

In 1278 the authorities of the Franciscan order assembled at Paris, [size=4][b]solemnly condemned Bacon's teaching, and the general of the Franciscans, Jerome of Ascoli, afterward Pope, threw him into prison, where he remained for fourteen years, [/b][/size]Though Pope Clement IV had protected him, Popes Nicholas III and IV, by virtue of their infallibility, decided that he was too dangerous to be at large, and he was only released at the age of eighty--but a year or two before death placed him beyond the reach of his enemies. [b]How deeply the struggle had racked his mind may be gathered from that last affecting declaration of his, [u]"Would that I had not given myself so much trouble for the love of science!" [/u][/b]

The attempt has been made by sundry champions of the Church to show that some of Bacon's utterances against ecclesiastical and other corruptions in his time were the main cause of the severity which the Church authorities exercised against him. This helps the Church but little, even if it be well based; but it is not well based. That some of his utterances of this sort made him enemies is doubtless true, but the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, [b]were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery. [/b]

[size=4][b]Sad is it to think of what this great man might have given to the world had ecclesiasticism allowed the gift. He held the key of treasures which would have freed mankind from ages of error and misery. With his discoveries as a basis, with his method as a guide, what might not the world have gained! Nor was the wrong done to that age alone; it was done to this age also. The nineteenth century was robbed at the same time with the thirteenth. But for that interference with science the nineteenth century would be enjoying discoveries which will not be reached before the twentieth century, and even later. Thousands of precious lives shall be lost, tens of thousands shall suffer discomfort, privation, sickness, poverty, ignorance, for lack of discoveries and methods which, but for this mistaken dealing with Roger Bacon and his compeers, would now be blessing the earth. [/b][/size]

In two recent years sixty thousand children died in England and in Wales of scarlet fever; probably quite as many died in the United States. [b]Had not Bacon been hindered, we should have had in our hands, by this time, the means to save two thirds of these victims; and the same is true of typhoid, typhus, cholera, and that great class of diseases of whose physical causes science is just beginning to get an inkling.[size=4] Put together all the efforts of all the atheists who have ever lived, and they have not done so much harm to Christianity and the world as has been done by the narrow-minded, conscientious men who persecuted Roger Bacon, and closed the path which he gave his life to open. [/size][/b]

But despite the persecution of Bacon and the defection of those who ought to have followed him, champions of the experimental method rose from time to time during the succeeding centuries. We know little of them personally; our main knowledge of their efforts is derived from the endeavours of their persecutors.

[b]Under such guidance the secular rulers were naturally vigorous. In France Charles V forbade, in 1380, the possession of furnaces and apparatus necessary for chemical processes; under this law the chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison, and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved. In England Henry IV, in 1404, issued a similar decree. In Italy the Republic of Venice, in 1418, followed these examples. The judicial torture and murder of Antonio de Dominis were not simply for heresy his investigations in the phenomena of light were an additional crime. In Spain everything like scientific research was crushed out among Christians.[/b] Some earnest efforts were afterward made by Jews and Moors, but these were finally ended by persecution; and to this hour the Spanish race, in some respects the most gifted in Europe, which began its career with everything in its favour and with every form of noble achievement, remains in intellectual development behind every other in Christendom.

To question the theological view of physical science was, even long after the close of the Middle Ages, exceedingly perilous. [b]We have seen how one of Roger Bacon's unpardonable offences was his argument against the efficacy of magic, and how, centuries afterward, Cornelius Agrippa, Weyer, Flade, Loos, Bekker, and a multitude of other investigators and thinkers, suffered confiscation of property, loss of position, and even torture and death, for similar views.[391] [/b]

The theological atmosphere, which in consequence settled down about the great universities and colleges, seemed likely to stifle all scientific effort in every part of Europe, and it is one of the great wonders in human history that in spite of this deadly atmosphere a considerable body of thinking men, under such protection as they could secure, still persisted in devoting themselves to the physical sciences.

In Italy, in the latter half of the sixteenth century, came a striking example of the difficulties which science still encountered even after the Renaissance had undermined the old beliefs.[b] At that time John Baptist Porta was conducting his investigations, and, despite a considerable mixture of pseudo-science, they were fruitful. His was not "black magic," claiming the aid of Satan, but "white magic," bringing into service the laws of nature--the precursor of applied science. His book on meteorology was the first in which sound ideas were broached on this subject; his researches in optics gave the world the camera obscura, and possibly the telescope; in chemistry he seems to have been the first to show how to reduce the metallic oxides, and thus to have laid the foundation of several important industries. He did much to change natural philosophy from a black art to a vigorous open science. He encountered the old ecclesiastical policy. The society founded by him for physical research, "I Secreti," was broken up, and he was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul III and forbidden to continue his investigations.

So, too, in France. In 1624, some young chemists at Paris having taught the experimental method and cut loose from Aristotle, the faculty of theology beset the Parliament of Paris, and the Parliament prohibited these new chemical researches under the severest penalties. [/b]

The same war continued in Italy. [b]Even after the belief in magic had been seriously weakened, the old theological fear and dislike of physical science continued. In 1657 occurred the first sitting of the Accademia del Cimento at Florence, under the presidency of Prince Leopold de' Medici This academy promised great things for science; it was open to all talent; its only fundamental law was "the repudiation of any favourite system or sect of philosophy, and the obligation to investigate Nature by the pure light of experiment"; it entered into scientific investigations with energy. Borelli in mathematics, Redi in natural history, and many others, enlarged the boundaries of knowledge. Heat, light, magnetism, electricity, projectiles, digestion, and the incompressibility of water were studied by the right method and with results that enriched the world.

[u]The academy was a fortress of science, and siege was soon laid to it.[/u] The votaries of scholastic learning denounced it as irreligious, quarrels were fomented, Leopold was bribed with a cardinal's hat and drawn away to Rome, and, after ten years of beleaguering, the fortress fell: [u]Borelli was left a beggar; Oliva killed himself in despair. [/u][/b]

So, too, the noted Academy of the Lincei at times incurred the ill will of the papacy by the very fact that it included thoughtful investigators. It was [b]"patronized" by Pope Urban VIII in such manner as to paralyze it, and it was afterward vexed by Pope Gregory XVI.[/b] Even in our own time sessions of scientific associations were discouraged and thwarted by as kindly a pontiff as Pius IX.[394]

A hostility similar in kind, though less in degree, was shown in Protestant countries.

Even after Thomasius in Germany and Voltaire in France and Beccaria in Italy had given final blows to the belief in magic and witchcraft throughout Christendom, the traditional orthodox distrust of the physical sciences continued for a long time.

In England a marked dislike was shown among various leading ecclesiastics and theologians towards the Royal Society, and later toward the Association for the Advancement of Science; and this dislike, as will hereafter be seen, sometimes took shape in serious opposition.

As a rule, both in Protestant and Catholic countries instruction in chemistry and physics was for a long time discouraged by Church authorities; and, when its suppression was no longer possible, great pains were taken to subordinate it to instruction supposed to be more fully in accordance with the older methods of theological reasoning.

[Petr]

^^ I promised to deal with this above. Andrew Dickson White does such a brilliant job explaining the destructive role of Christianity in this regard that I cannot possibly add anything to this.
It tells a lot about your own intellectual impotence that you "cannot possibly add anything" to White's blather.

No one is impressed when you spam-spam more rubbish from outdated 19th-century propagandist White with lots of screaming boldening and underlining.


"Secondly, history of science can demythologize popular paradigms that are seriously deficient. Correcting errors like those just mentioned may seem to be simply a matter of putting the record straight. Sometimes it is, but, apart from a certain lurid media-appeal, the survival of these flawed stories is due in large part to their conformity to popular paradigms as to what the "science and religion" relationship should be. The classic case is the conflict model enshrined in those most notorious pieces of pseudo-history by J. Draper4 and A. D. White.5 My first encounter as a young scientist with White's book led to deep suspicion; the book did not describe any scientific attitude I had ever met and its thesis seemed inherently improbable. Only later was a measure of historical understanding able to suggest not only where White was wrong but also why he had been able to promote such a bizarre view of science and religion."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Russell.html

(Fade has given lip-service to Lindbergian moderation, but his insincerity shows as he is always ready to return drooling to White's antiquated bigotry.)


Petr

[Petr]

As Grant points out, Petr's argument is absurd. The most productive period in Byzantium's history was the final two centuries when it was collapsing. Kepler lived during the Thirty Years War. Newton lived through the English Civil War. Oresme and Buridan lived through the Hundred Years War.
Apples and oranges. None of these societies were threatened by total collapse by barbarian invasions from outside (like Carolingian empire was). The fundamental civilization-building had already been done by the time of 30-years war, and could not be seriously shaken anymore.

Yes. It would be a pointless waste of my time to transcribe the passage since you will either dismiss or ignore it anyway.
EVASION & BLUFFING. You're such a coward, ever ready to transcribe crap from White.


Petr

[Petr]

The mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century goes back to Epicurus whose work was rediscovered in the Renaissance. Your quote is either malicious of misinformed.
Fade the arrogant egomaniac thinks that if some conclusion or argument personally displeases him, it cannot be true.

(Fade has been hopelessly pampered, not enough people have dared to say "no" to him during his lifetime.)


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

No one is impressed when you spam-spam more rubbish from outdated 19th-century propagandist White with lots of screaming boldening and underlining.

White's book is full of gems and verifiable facts which are simply ignored in other sources. No wonder it was the Chinese, not West, that discovered gunpowder. No wonder experimental science took root in the Islamic world, not the West. Alchemy was demonized in the Christian West as a demonic science and alchemists were ruthlessly hunted down and burned at the stake by the butchers of Inquisition. This explains the mysterious disappearance of experimental science in the West for centuries between the lives of Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon.

(Fade has given lip-service to Lindbergian moderation, but his insincerity shows as he is always ready to return drooling to White's antiquated bigotry.)

I'm familiar with Lindberg. He either glosses over or ignores many of the facts brought up by White.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade the arrogant egomaniac thinks that if some conclusion or argument personally displeases him, it cannot be true.

Its claims are demonstrably false.

[Petr]

White's book is full of gems and verifiable facts which are simply ignored in other sources. No wonder it was the Chinese, not West, that discovered gunpowder.
Christianity provided much more fertile growing-ground for rational science than Greek folk-religion, Chinese folk-religion or Hinduism ever did.

Fade's irrational hatred of Christianity shows when he refuses to acknowledge this widely recognized fact.


Petr

[Petr]

I'm familiar with Lindberg. He either glosses over or ignores many of the facts brought up by White.
Fade is coming out of closet with his admiration for outdated bullshit-monger and proven liar White.


Petr

[Petr]

No wonder experimental science took root in the Islamic world, not the West.
Experimental science is strongly connected to the idea of contingency of this world, which both Muslims and Christians believe in.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Apples and oranges. None of these societies were threatened by total collapse by barbarian invasions from outside (like Carolingian empire was). The fundamental civilization-building had already been done by the time of 30-years war, and could not be seriously shaken anymore.

See, Petr simply ignores Grant's demolition of his pet theory. The most fruitful period in Byzantium's intellectual history was its final two centuries when it was rapidly disintegrating. Germany was wrecked by the Thirty Years War which killed off almost a quarter of its population. The notion that Germany was not "seriously shaken" by this is absurd. The Early Modern Era was extremely violent.

[quote]EVASION & BLUFFING. You're such a coward, ever ready to transcribe crap from White.

White makes many great points that are excellent topics for further investigation. His claims about the persecution of the alchemists (and how this retarded the science of chemistry for hundred of years) are consonant with what I have read in other sources.

[Petr]

See, Petr simply ignores Grant's demolition of his pet theory.
What "demolition"? All I saw was few throwaway sentences.

The most fruitful period in Byzantium's intellectual history was its final two centuries when it was rapidly disintegrating.
Fruitful in what way?


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade is coming out of closet with his admiration for outdated bullshit-monger and proven liar White.

White meticulously cites his sources. It shouldn't be a problem to verify his claims. What are you disputing in the article? You just said yourself a few hours ago that the alchemists were persecuted as sorcerers and magicians!

Experimental science is strongly connected to the idea of contingency of this world, which both Muslims and Christians believe in.

Virtually all primitive tribes whatsoever believe the natural world is contigent upon the will of their pet deities.

Christianity provided much more fertile growing-ground for science than Greek folk-religion, Chinese folk-religion or Hinduism ever did.

I would say White blasted away that theory of yours in the article above. If the Christian West was such a fertile growing ground for science, and theology was indispensible in this development, why was Roger Bacon denounced by the most influential theologians of his times as a magician and thrown in prison?

Fade's irrational hatred of Christianity shows when he refuses to acknowledge this widely recognized fact.

Christianity suppressed the science of chemistry for almost a thousand years. White raises another interesting point in his article: the association of mathematics with the occult by Christians.

[Petr]

White makes many great points that are excellent topics for further investigation. His claims about the persecution of the alchemists (and how this retarded the science of chemistry for hundred of years) are consonant with what I have read in other sources.
Just like with you, everything White claims must be considered unreliable unless proven otherwise.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

What "demolition"? All I saw was few throwaway sentences.

Your claim that it was attacks from the outside that was responsible for Byzantine stagnation.

Fruitful in what way?

"Nevertheless, as we have seen, it is ironical that in the last two centuries of Byzantium's existence, Byzantine learning and scholarship underwent a renaissance, evne as the empire was descending into destruction. "If there is any meaning in the concept of decadence," wrote Sir Steven Runciman, a distinguished Byzantinist, "there are few polities in history that better deserve to be called decadent than the East Christian Empire, the once great Roman Empire, during the last two centuries of its existence." And yet, even as the state was crumbling, it experienced a great surge of interest in philosophy and sciencce and in learning in general. Most of the significant names of this renaissance, who wrote on philosophy and science - scholars such as Gregory Choniades, George Chrysococces, George Acropolites, the emperor Theodore II, Geogre Pachymer, and Maximus Planudes - are unknown to historians of science and philosophy. Two scholars who not only wrote on these subjects but were also wealthy patrons of other scholars were Nicephorus Chumnes and Theodore Metochites. Perhaps the best-known name among these scholars is that of George Gemistus Plethon, who lectured on Plato in Florence, where had been sent as a delegate to the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439). Indeed, Plethon found more honor in Italy than in Greece, as did his most distinguished student, Cardinal Bessarion, who abandoned his Orthodox faith to become a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church."

Grant, p.189

[Kodos]

Daedalus: The alchemists were violently persecuted by the Catholic Church as sorcerers and witches who practiced black magic.

I'd like to see a source on this... the penalty for trying to turn base metals into gold was death... everywhere. But actual enforcement varied by locality...

[Petr]

"Nevertheless, as we have seen, it is ironical that in the last two centuries of Byzantium's existence, Byzantine learning and scholarship underwent a renaissance, evne as the empire was descending into destruction. "If there is any meaning in the concept of decadence," wrote Sir Steven Runciman, a distinguished Byzantinist, "there are few polities in history that better deserve to be called decadent than the East Christian Empire, the once great Roman Empire, during the last two centuries of its existence." And yet, even as the state was crumbling, it experienced a great surge of interest in philosophy and sciencce and in learning in general. Most of the significant names of this renaissance, who wrote on philosophy and science - scholars such as Gregory Choniades, George Chrysococces, George Acropolites, the emperor Theodore II, Geogre Pachymer, and Maximus Planudes - are unknown to historians of science and philosophy. Two scholars who not only wrote on these subjects but were also wealthy patrons of other scholars were Nicephorus Chumnes and Theodore Metochites. Perhaps the best-known name among these scholars is that of George Gemistus Plethon, who lectured on Plato in Florence, where had been sent as a delegate to the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439). Indeed, Plethon found more honor in Italy than in Greece, as did his most distinguished student, Cardinal Bessarion, who abandoned his Orthodox faith to become a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church."

Grant, p.189
There is no end to Fade's spinning two-faced hypocrisy. He was just recently calling these Byzantines as rather meaningless thinkers:


You are grossly inflating his importance, as you are doing with Bede above and the so-called Byzantine philosophers.

Once again, Cyprian is grossly exaggerating the importance of this individual. The transmission of the Platonic corpus to the West was indeed important, but whether or not Plethon is a significant figure in the history of philosophy in his own right is another matter altogether.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=264809&postcount=257


These late developments were also (to a great extent) inspired by Western Scholastic progress.


Petr

[Kodos]

Wasn't Byzantium just a Greek town before Constantine moved there?

It was a big city, then it took sides against Septimus Severus in a Roman civil war. Severus punished it severely and razed the city walls.

So it was a town after that until Constantine moved there (in virtually his only good decision as Emperor).

[Keystone]

It was a big city, then it took sides against Septimus Severus in a Roman civil war. Severus punished it severely and razed the city walls.

So it was a town after that until Constantine moved there (in virtually his only good decision as Emperor).
So it was hardly an "empire" a thousand years before Connie, as Fade said.

Fucking Romans were strict.

[Fade the Butcher]

The second half of White's article here:

Yet, injurious as all this was to the evolution of science, there was developed something in many respects more destructive; and this was the influence of mystic theology, penetrating, permeating, vitiating, sterilizing nearly every branch of science for hundreds of years. Among the forms taken by this development in the earlier Middle Ages we find a mixture of physical science with a pseudo-science obtained from texts of Scripture. In compounding this mixture, Jews and Christians vied with each other. In this process the sacred books were used as a fetich; every word, every letter, being considered to have a divine and hidden meaning. By combining various scriptural letters in various abstruse ways, new words of prodigious significance in magic were obtained, and among them the great word embracing the seventy-two mystical names of God--the mighty word "Schemhamphoras." Why should men seek knowledge by observation and experiment in the book of Nature, when the book of Revelation, interpreted by the Kabbalah, opened such treasures to the ingenious believer?

So, too, we have ancient mystical theories of number which the theological spirit had made Christian, usurping an enormous place in medieval science. The sacred power of the number three was seen in the Trinity; in the three main divisions of the universe--the empyrean, the heavens, and the earth; in the three angelic hierarchies; in the three choirs of seraphim, cherubim, and thrones; in the three of dominions, virtues, and powers; in the three of principalities, archangels, and angels; in the three orders in the Church--bishops, priests, and deacons; in the three classes--the baptized, the communicants, and the monks; in the three degrees of attainment--light, purity, and knowledge; in the three theological virtues--faith, hope, and charity--and in much else. All this was brought into a theologico-scientific relation, then and afterward, with the three dimensions of space; with the three divisions of time--past, present, and future; with the three realms of the visible world--sky, earth, and sea; with the three constituents of man--body, soul, and spirit; with the threefold enemies of man--the world, the flesh, and the devil; with the three kingdoms in nature--mineral, vegetable, and animal; with "the three colours"--red, yellow, and blue; with "the three eyes of the honey-bee"--and with a multitude of other analogues equally precious. The sacred power of the number seven was seen in the seven golden candlesticks and the seven churches in the Apocalypse; in the seven cardinal virtues and the seven deadly sins; in the seven liberal arts and the seven devilish arts, and, above all, in the seven sacraments. And as this proved in astrology that there could be only seven planets, so it proved in alchemy that there must be exactly seven metals. The twelve apostles were connected with the twelve signs in the zodiac, and with much in physical science. The seventy-two disciples, the seventy-two interpreters of the Old Testament, the seventy-two mystical names of God, were connected with the alleged fact in anatomy that there were seventy-two joints in the human frame.

Then, also, there were revived such theologic and metaphysical substitutes for scientific thought as the declaration that the perfect line is a circle, and hence that the planets must move in absolute circles--a statement which led astronomy astray even when the great truths of the Copernican theory were well in sight; also, the declaration that nature abhors a vacuum--a statement which led physics astray until Torricelli made his experiments; also, the declaration that we see the lightning before we hear the thunder because "sight is nobler than hearing."

In chemistry we have the same theologic tendency to magic, and, as a result, a muddle of science and theology, which from one point of view seems blasphemous and from another idiotic, but which none the less sterilized physical investigation for ages. That debased Platonism which had been such an important factor in the evolution of Christian theology from the earliest days of the Church continued its work. As everything in inorganic nature was supposed to have spiritual significance, the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation were turned into an argument in behalf of the philosopher's stone; arguments for the scheme of redemption and for transubstantiation suggested others of similar construction to prove the transmutation of metals; the doctrine of the resurrection of the human body was by similar mystic jugglery connected with the processes of distillation and sublimation. Even after the Middle Ages were past, strong men seemed unable to break away from such reasoning as this--among them such leaders as Basil Valentine in the fifteenth century, Agricola in the sixteenth, and Van Helmont in the seventeenth.

The greatest theologians contributed to the welter of unreason from which this pseudo-science was developed. One question largely discussed was, whether at the Redemption it was necessary for God to take the human form. Thomas Aquinas answered that it was necessary, but William Occam and Duns Scotus answered that it was not; that God might have taken the form of a stone, or of a log, or of a beast. The possibilities opened to wild substitutes for science by this sort of reasoning were infinite. Men have often asked how it was that the Arabians accomplished so much in scientific discovery as compared with Christian investigators; but the answer is easy: the Arabians were comparatively free from these theologic allurements which in Christian Europe flickered in the air on all sides, luring men into paths which led no-whither.

Strong investigators, like Arnold of Villanova, Raymond Lully, Basil Valentine, Paracelsus, and their compeers, were thus drawn far out of the only paths which led to fruitful truths. In a work generally ascribed to the first of these, the student is told that in mixing his chemicals he must repeat the psalm Exsurge Domine, and that on certain chemical vessels must be placed the last words of Jesus on the cross. Vincent of Beauvais insisted that, as the Bible declares that Noah, when five hundred years old, had children born to him, he must have possessed alchemical means of preserving life; and much later Dickinson insisted that the patriarchs generally must have owed their long lives to such means. It was loudly declared that the reality of the philosopher's stone was proved by the words of St. John in the Revelation. "To him that overcometh I will give a white stone." The reasonableness of seeking to develop gold out of the baser metals was for many generations based upon the doctrine of the resurrection of the physical body, which, though explicitly denied by St. Paul, had become a part of the creed of the Church. Martin Luther was especially drawn to believe in the alchemistic doctrine of transmutation by this analogy. The Bible was everywhere used, both among Protestants and Catholics, in support of these mystic adulterations of science, and one writer, as late as 1751, based his alchemistic arguments on more than a hundred passages of Scripture. As an example of this sort of reasoning, we have a proof that the elect will preserve the philosopher's stone until the last judgment, drawn from a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels."

The greatest thinkers devoted themselves to adding new ingredients to this strange mixture of scientific and theologic thought. The Catholic philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the Protestant mysticism of Jacob Boehme, and the alchemistic reveries of Basil Valentine were all cast into this seething mass.

And when alchemy in its old form had been discredited, we find scriptural arguments no less perverse, and even comical, used on the other side. As an example of this, just before the great discoveries by Stahl, we find the valuable scientific efforts of Becher opposed with the following syllogism: "King Solomon, according to the Scriptures, possessed the united wisdom of heaven and earth; but King Solomon knew nothing about alchemy [or chemistry in the form it then took], and sent his vessels to Ophir to seek gold, and levied taxes upon his subjects; [i]ergo[/i] alchemy [or chemistry] has no reality or truth." And we find that Becher is absolutely turned away from his labours, and obliged to devote himself to proving that Solomon used more money than he possibly could have obtained from Ophir or his subjects, and therefore that he must have possessed a knowledge of chemical methods and the philosopher's stone as the result of them.[399]

Of the general reasoning enforced by theology regarding physical science, every age has shown examples; yet out of them all I will select but two, and these are given because they show how this mixture of theological with scientific ideas took hold upon the strongest supporters of better reasoning even after the power of medieval theology seemed broken.

The first of these examples is Melanchthon. He was the scholar of the Reformation, and justly won the title "Preceptor of Germany." His mind was singularly open, his sympathies broad, and his usual freedom from bigotry [u]drew down upon him that wrath of Protestant heresy-hunters which embittered the last years of his life and tortured him upon his deathbed. [/u]During his career at the University of Wittenberg he gave a course of lectures on physics, and in these he dwelt upon scriptural texts as affording scientific proofs, accepted the interference of the devil in physical phenomena as in other things, and applied the medieval method throughout his whole work.[400]

Yet far more remarkable was the example, a century later, of the man who more than any other led the world out of the path opened by Aquinas, and into that through which modern thought has advanced to its greatest conquests. Strange as it may at first seem, Francis Bacon, whose keenness of sight revealed the delusions of the old path and the promises of the new, and whose boldness did so much to turn the world from the old path into the new, presents in his own writings one of the most striking examples of the evil he did so much to destroy.

The Novum Organon, considering the time when it came from his pen, is doubtless one of the greatest exhibitions of genius in the history of human thought. It showed the modern world the way out of the scholastic method and reverence for dogma into the experimental method and reverence for fact. In it occur many passages which show that the great philosopher was fully alive to the danger both to religion and to science arising from their mixture. He declares that the[u] "corruption of philosophy from superstition and theology introduced the greatest amount of evil both into whole systems of philosophy and into their parts."[/u] He denounces those who "have endeavoured to found a natural philosophy on the books of Genesis and Job and other sacred Scriptures, so `seeking the dead among the living.'" He speaks of the result as "an unwholesome mixture of things human and divine; not merely fantastic philosophy, but heretical religion." He refers to the opposition of the fathers to the doctrine of the rotundity of the earth, and says that, "thanks to some of them, you may find the approach to any kind of philosophy, however improved, entirely closed up." He charges that some of these divines are "afraid lest perhaps a deeper inquiry into nature should, penetrate beyond the allowed limits of sobriety"; and finally speaks of theologians as sometimes craftily conjecturing that, if science be little understood, "each single thing can be referred more easily to the hand and rod of God," and says, "_This is nothing more or less than wishing to please God by a lie_."

No man who has reflected much upon the annals of his race can, without a feeling of awe, come into the presence of such clearness of insight and boldness of utterance, and the first thought of the reader is that, of all men, Francis Bacon is the most free from the unfortunate bias he condemns; that he, certainly, can not be deluded into the old path. But as we go on through his main work we are surprised to find that the strong arm of Aquinas has been stretched over the intervening ages, and has laid hold upon this master-thinker of the seventeenth century; for only a few chapters beyond those containing the citations already made we find Bacon alluding to the recent voyage of Columbus, and speaking of the prophecy of Daniel regarding the latter days, that "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge be increased," as clearly signifying "that... the circumnavigation of the world and the increase of science should happen in the same age."[401]

In his great work on the [i]Advancement of Learning[/i] the firm grasp which the methods he condemned held upon him is shown yet more clearly. In the first book of it he asserts that "that excellent book of Job, if it be revolved with diligence, will be found pregnant and swelling with natural philosophy," and he endeavours to show that in it the "roundness of the earth," the "fixing of the stars, ever standing at equal distances," the "depression of the southern pole," the "matter of generation," and "matter of minerals" are "with great elegancy noted." But, curiously enough, he uses to support some of these truths the very texts which the fathers of the Church used to destroy them, and those for which he finds Scripture warrant most clearly are such as science has since disproved. So, too, he says that Solomon was enabled in his Proverbs, "by donation of God, to compile a natural history of all verdure."[402]

Such was the struggle of the physical sciences in general. Let us now look briefly at one special example out of many, which reveals, as well as any, one of the main theories which prompted theological interference with them.

[b]It will doubtless seem amazing to many that for ages the weight of theological thought in Christendom was thrown against the idea of the suffocating properties of certain gases, and especially of carbonic acid. [/b]Although in antiquity we see men forming a right theory of gases in mines, we find that, early in the history of the Church, [b]St. Clement of Alexandria put forth the theory that these gases are manifestations of diabolic action, and that, throughout Christendom, suffocation in caverns, wells, and cellars was attributed to the direct action of evil spirits. Evidences of this view abound through the medieval period, and during the Reformation period a great authority, Agricola, one of the most earnest and truthful of investigators, still adhered to the belief that these gases in mines were manifestations of devils, and he specified two classes--one of malignant imps, who blow out the miners' lamps, and the other of friendly imps, who simply tease the workmen in various ways. He went so far as to say that one of these spirits in the Saxon mine of Annaberg destroyed twelve workmen at once by the power of his breath. [/b]

At the end of the sixteenth century we find a writer on mineralogy complaining that the mines in France and Germany had been in large part abandoned on account of the "evil spirits of metals which had taken possession of them."

[b]Even as late as the seventeenth century, Van Helmont, after he had broken away from alchemy and opened one of the great paths to chemistry--even after he had announced to the world the existence of various gases and the mode of their generation--was not strong enough to free himself from theologic bias; he still inclined to believe that the gases he had discovered, were in some sense living spirits, beneficent or diabolical. [/b]

But at various. periods glimpses of the truth had been gained. The ancient view had not been entirely forgotten; and as far back as the first part of the thirteenth century [b]Albert the Great suggested a natural cause in the possibility of exhalations from minerals causing a "corruption of the air"; but he, as we have seen, was driven or dragged off into, theological studies, and the world relapsed into the theological view. [/b]

Toward the end of the fifteenth century there had come a great genius laden with important truths in chemistry, but for whom the world was not ready--Basil Valentine. His discoveries anticipated much that has brought fame and fortune to chemists since, yet so fearful of danger was he that his work was carefully concealed.[b] Not until after his death was his treatise on alchemy found, and even then it was for a long time not known where and when he lived. The papal bull, [i]Spondent pariter[/i], and the various prohibitions it bred, forcing other alchemists to conceal their laboratories, led him to let himself be known during his life at Erfurt simply as an apothecary, and to wait until after his death to make a revelation of truth which during his lifetime might have cost him dear. [/b]Among the legacies of this greatest of the alchemists was the doctrine that the air which asphyxiates workers in mines is similar to that which is produced by fermentation of malt, and a recommendation that, in order to drive away the evil and to prevent serious accidents, fires be lighted and jets of steam used to ventilate the mines--stress being especially laid upon the idea that the danger in the mines is produced by "exhalations of metals."

[b]Thanks to men like Valentine, this idea of the interference of Satan and his minions with the mining industry was gradually weakened, and the working of the deserted mines was resumed; yet even at a comparatively recent period we find it still lingering, and among leading divines in the very heart ofProtestant Germany. In 1715 a cellar-digger having been stifled at Jena, the medical faculty of the university decided that the cause was not the direct action of the devil, but a deadly gas. [/b]Thereupon Prof. Loescher, of the University of Wittenberg, entered a solemn protest, declaring that the decision of the medical faculty was "only a proof of the lamentable license which has so taken possession of us, and which, if we are not earnestly on our guard, will finally turn away from us the blessing of God."[404] [b]But denunciations of this kind could not hold back the little army of science; in spite of adverse influences, the evolution of physics and chemistry went on. More and more there rose men bold enough to break away from theological methods and strong enough to resist ecclesiastical bribes and threats. As alchemy in its first form, seeking for the philosopher's stone and the transmutation of metals, had given way to alchemy in its second form, seeking for the elixir of life and remedies more or less magical for disease, so now the latter yielded to the search for truth as truth. More and more the "solemnly constituted impostors" were resisted in every field. A great line of physicists and chemists began to appear.[404b] [/b]


II. The Triumph of Chemistry and Physics.

Just at the middle of the seventeenth century, and at the very centre of opposition to physical science, [b]Robert Boyle began the new epoch in chemistry. Strongly influenced by the writings of Bacon and the discoveries of Galileo, he devoted himself to scientific research, establishing at Oxford a laboratory and putting into it a chemist from Strasburg. [u]For this he was at once bitterly attacked. In spite of his high position, his blameless life, his liberal gifts to charity and learning, the Oxford pulpit was especially severe against him, declaring that his researches were destroying religion and his experiments undermining the university. Public orators denounced him, the wits ridiculed him, and his associates in the peerage were indignant that he should condescend to pursuits so unworthy. [/u][/b]But Boyle pressed on. His discoveries opened new paths in various directions and gave an impulse to a succession of vigorous investigators. Thus began the long series of discoveries culminating those of Black, Bergmann, Cavendish, Priestley, and Lavoisier, who ushered in the chemical science of the nineteenth century.
Yet not even then without a sore struggle against unreason. And it must here be noticed that this unreason was not all theological. The unreasoning heterodox when intrusted with irresponsible power can be as short-sighted and cruel as the unreasoning orthodox. Lavoisier, one of the best of our race, not only a great chemist but a true man, was sent to the scaffold by the Parisian mob, led by bigoted "liberals" and atheists, with the sneer that the republic had no need of savants. [b]As to Priestley, who had devoted his life to science and to every good work among his fellow-men, the Birmingham mob, favoured by the Anglican clergymen who harangued them as "fellow-churchmen," wrecked his house, destroyed his library, philosophical instruments, and papers containing the results of long years of scientific research, drove him into exile, and would have murdered him if they could have laid their hands upon him. Nor was it entirely his devotion to rational liberty, nor even his disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity, which brought on this catastrophe. That there was a deep distrust of his scientific pursuits, was evident when the leaders of the mob took pains to use his electrical apparatus to set fire to his papers. [/b]

Still, [b]though theological modes of thought continued to sterilize much effort in chemistry, the old influence was more and more thrown off, and truth sought more and more for truth's sake. [u]"Black magic" with its Satanic machinery vanished, only reappearing occasionally among marvel-mongers and belated theologians.[/u][/b] "White magic" became legerdemain.

In the early years of the nineteenth century, physical research, though it went on with ever-increasing vigour, felt in various ways the reaction which followed the French Revolution. It was not merely under the Bourbons and Hapsburgs that resistance was offered; even in England the old spirit lingered long. As late as 1832, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science first visited Oxford, no less amiable a man than John Keble--at that time a power in the university--condemned indignantly the conferring of honorary degrees upon the leading men thus brought together. In a letter of that date to Dr. Pusey he complained bitterly, to use his own words, that "the Oxford doctors have truckled sadly to the spirit of the times in receiving the hotchpotch of philosophers as they did." It is interesting to know that among the men thus contemptuously characterized were Brewster, Faraday, and Dalton.

Nor was this a mere isolated exhibition of feeling; it lasted many years, and was especially shown on both sides of the Atlantic in all higher institutions of learning where theology was dominant. [b]Down to a period within the memory of men still in active life, students in the sciences, not only at Oxford and Cambridge but at Harvard and Yale, were considered a doubtful if not a distinctly inferior class, intellectually and socially--to be relegated to different instructors and buildings, and to receive their degrees on a different occasion and with different ceremonies from those appointed for students in literature.[/b] To the State University of Michigan, among the greater American institutions of learning which have never possessed or been possessed by a theological seminary, belongs the honour of first breaking down this wall of separation.

But from the middle years of the century chemical science progressed with ever-accelerating force, and the work of Bunsen, Kirchhoff, Dalton, and Faraday has, in the last years of the century, led up to the establishment of Mendeleef's law, by which chemistry has become predictive, as astronomy had become predictive by the calculations of Newton, and biology by the discoveries of Darwin.

While one succession of strong men were thus developing chemistry out of one form of magic, another succession were developing physics out of another form.

First in this latter succession may be mentioned that line of thinkers who divined and reasoned out great physical laws--a line extending from Galileo and Kepler and Newton to Ohm and Faraday and Joule and Helmholtz. These, by revealing more and more clearly the reign of law, steadily undermined the older theological view of arbitrary influence in nature. Next should be mentioned the line of profound observers, from Galileo and Torricelli to Kelvin. These have as thoroughly undermined the old theologic substitution of phrases for facts. When Galileo dropped the differing weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, he began the end of Aristotelian authority in physics. When Torricelli balanced a column of mercury against a column of water and each of these against a column of air, he ended the theologic phrase that "nature abhors a vacuum." When Newton approximately determined the velocity of sound, he ended the theologic argument that we see the flash before we hear the roar because "sight is nobler than hearing." When Franklin showed that lightning is caused by electricity, and Ohm and Faraday proved that electricity obeys ascertained laws, they ended the theological idea of a divinity seated above the clouds and casting thunderbolts.

Resulting from the labour of both these branches of physical science, we have the establishment of the great laws of the indestructibility of matter, the correlation of forces, and chemical affinity. Thereby is ended, with various other sacred traditions, the theological theory of a visible universe created out of nothing, so firmly imbedded in the theological thought of the Middle Ages and in the Westminster Catechism.[408]

[b]In our own time some attempt has been made to renew this war against the physical sciences. Joseph de Maistre, uttering his hatred of them, declaring that mankind has paid too dearly for them, asserting that they must be subjected to theology, likening them to fire--good when confined and dangerous when scattered about--has been one of the main leaders among those who can not relinquish the idea that our body of sacred literature should be kept a controlling text-book of science. The only effect of such teachings has been to weaken the legitimate hold of religion upon men.

In Catholic countries exertion has of late years been mainly confined to excluding science or diluting it in university teachings. Early in the present century a great effort was made by Ferdinand VII of Spain. He simply dismissed the scientific professors from the University of Salamanca, and until a recent period there has been general exclusion from Spanish universities of professors holding to the Newtonian physics. So, too, the contemporary Emperor of Austria attempted indirectly something of the same sort; and at a still later period Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX discouraged, if they did not forbid, the meetings of scientific associations in Italy. In France, war between theology and science, which had long been smouldering, came in the years 1867 and 1868 to an outbreak. Toward the end of the last century, after the Church had held possession of advanced instruction for more than a thousand years, and had, [u]so far as it was able, kept experimental science in servitude--after it had humiliated Buffon in natural science, thrown its weight against Newton in the physical sciences, and wrecked Turgot's noble plans for a system of public instruction--the French nation decreed the establishment of the most thorough and complete system of higher instruction in science ever known. It was kept under lay control and became one of the glories of France; but, emboldened by the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, the Church began to undermine this hated system, and in 1868 had made such progress that all was ready for the final assault. [/u][/b]

Foremost among the leaders of the besieging party was the Bishop of Orleans, Dupanloup, a man of many winning characteristics and of great oratorical power. [b]In various ways, and especially in an open letter, he had fought the "materialism" of science at Paris, and especially were his attacks levelled at Profs. Vulpian and See and the Minister of Public instruction, Duruy, a man of great merit, whose only crime was devotion to the improvement of education and to the promotion of the highest research in science.[409]

The main attack was made rather upon biological science than upon physics and chemistry, yet it was clear that all were involved together. [/b]

The first onslaught was made in the French Senate, and the storming party in that body was led by a venerable and conscientious prelate, Cardinal de Bonnechose, Archbishop of Rouen.[b] It was charged by him and his party that the tendencies of the higher scientific teaching at Paris were fatal to religion and morality. Heavy missiles were hurled--such phrases as "sapping the foundations," "breaking down the bulwarks," and the like; and, withal, a new missile was used with much effect--the epithet "materialist." [/b]

The results can be easily guessed: crowds came to the lecture-rooms of the attacked professors, and the lecture-room of Prof. See, the chief offender, was crowded to suffocation.

A siege was begun in due form. A young physician was sent by the cardinal's party into the heterodox camp as a spy. Having heard one lecture of Prof. See, he returned with information that seemed to promise easy victory to the besieging party: he brought a terrible statement--one that seemed enough to overwhelm See, Vulpian, Duruy, and the whole hated system of public instruction in France--the statement that See had denied the existence of the human soul.

[b]Cardinal Bonnechose seized the tremendous weapon at once. Rising in his place in the Senate, he launched a most eloquent invective against the Minister of State who could protect such a fortress of impiety as the College of Medicine; and, as a climax, he asserted, on the evidence of his spy fresh from Prof. See's lecture-room, that the professor had declared, in his lecture of the day before, that so long as he had the honour to hold his professorship he would combat the false idea of the existence of the soul. [/b]The weapon seemed resistless and the wound fatal, but M. Duruy rose and asked to be heard.

His statement was simply that he held in his hand documentary proofs that Prof. See never made such a declaration. He held the notes used by Prof. See in his lecture. Prof. See, it appeared, belonged to a school in medical science which combated certain ideas regarding medicine as an _art_. The inflamed imagination of the cardinal's heresy-hunting emissary had, as the lecture-notes proved, led him to mistake the word "_art_" for "ame," and to exhibit Prof. See as treating a theological when he was discussing a purely scientific question. Of the existence of the soul the professor had said nothing.

The forces of the enemy were immediately turned; they retreated in confusion, amid the laughter of all France; and a quiet, dignified statement as to the rights of scientific instructors by Wurtz, dean of the faculty, completed their discomfiture. [b]Thus a well-meant attempt to check science simply ended in bringing ridicule on religion, and in thrusting still deeper into the minds of thousands of men that most mistaken of all mistaken ideas: the conviction that religion and science are enemies.[410] [/b]

But justice forbids raising an outcry against Roman Catholicism for this. In 1864 a number of excellent men in England drew up a declaration to be signed by students in the natural sciences, expressing "sincere regret that researches into scientific truth are perverted by some in our time into occasion for casting doubt upon the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures." Nine tenths of the leading scientific men of England refused to sign it; nor was this all: Sir John Herschel, Sir John Bowring, and Sir W. R. Hamilton administered, through the press, castigations which roused general indignation against the proposers of the circular, and Prof. De Morgan, by a parody, covered memorial and memorialists with ridicule. It was the old mistake, and the old result followed in the minds of multitudes of thoughtful young men.[411]

And in yet another Protestant country this same mistake was made. [b]In 1868 several excellent churchmen in Prussia thought it their duty to meet for the denunciation of "science falsely so called." Two results followed: upon the great majority of these really self-sacrificing men--whose first utterances showed complete ignorance of the theories they attacked--there came quiet and widespread contempt; upon Pastor Knak, who stood forth and proclaimed views of the universe which he thought scriptural, but which most schoolboys knew to be childish, came a burst of good-natured derision from every quarter of the German nation.[411b] [/b]

But in all the greater modern nations warfare of this kind, after the first quarter of the nineteenth century, became more and more futile. While conscientious Roman bishops, and no less conscientious Protestant clergymen in Europe and America continued to insist that advanced education, not only in literature but in science, should be kept under careful control in their own sectarian universities and colleges, wretchedly one-sided in organization and inadequate in equipment; [b]while Catholic clerical authorities in Spain were rejecting all professors holding the Newtonian theory, and in Austria and Italy all holding unsafe views regarding the Immaculate Conception, and while Protestant clerical authorities in Great Britain and America were keeping out of professorships men holding unsatisfactory views regarding the Incarnation, or Infant Baptism, or the Apostolic Succession, or Ordination by Elders, or the Perseverance of the Saints; and while both Catholic and Protestant ecclesiastics were openly or secretly weeding out of university faculties all who showed willingness to consider fairly the ideas of Darwin, a movement was quietly in progress destined to take instruction, and especially instruction in the physical and natural sciences, out of its old subordination to theology and ecclesiasticism.[412] [/b]

The most striking beginnings of this movement had been seen when, in the darkest period of the French Revolution, there was founded at Paris the great Conservatory of Arts and Trades, and when, in the early years of the nineteenth century, scientific and technical education spread quietly upon the Continent. By the middle of the century France and Germany were dotted with well-equipped technical and scientific schools, each having chemical and physical laboratories.

The English-speaking lands lagged behind. [b]In England, Oxford and Cambridge showed few if any signs of this movement, and in the United States, down to 1850, evidences of it were few and feeble. [/b]Very significant is it that, at that period, while Yale College had in its faculty Silliman and Olmsted--the professor of chemistry and the professor of physics most widely known in the United States--it had no physical or chemical laboratory in the modern sense, and confined its instruction in these subjects to examinations upon a text-book and the presentation of a few lectures. At the State University of Michigan, which had even then taken a foremost place in the higher education west of the Great Lakes, there was very meagre instruction in chemistry and virtually none in physics. This being the state of things in the middle of the century in institutions remarkably free from clerical control, it can be imagined what was the position of scientific instruction in smaller colleges and universities where theological considerations were entirely dominant.

[b]But in 1851, with the International Exhibition at London, began in Great Britain and America a movement in favour of scientific education; men of wealth and public spirit began making contributions to them, and thus came the growth of a new system of instruction in which Chemistry and Physics took just rank. [/b]

By far the most marked feature in this movement was seen in America, when, in 1857, Justin S. Morrill, a young member of Congress from Vermont, presented the project of a law endowing from the public lands a broad national system of colleges in which scientific and technical studies should be placed on an equality with studies in classical literature, one such college to be established in every State of the Union. The bill, though opposed mainly by representatives from the Southern States, where doctrinaire politics and orthodox theology were in strong alliance with negro slavery, was passed by both Houses of Congress, but vetoed by President Buchanan, in whom the doctrinaire and orthodox spirit was incarnate. But Morrill persisted and again presented his bill, which was again carried in spite of the opposition of the Southern members, and again vetoed in 1859 by President Buchanan. Then came the civil war; but Morrill and his associates did not despair of the republic. In the midst of all the measures for putting vast armies into the field and for saving the Union from foreign interference as well as from domestic anarchy, they again passed the bill, and in 1862, in the darkest hour of the struggle for national existence, it became a law by the signature of President Lincoln.

And here it should not be unrecorded, that, while the vast majority of the supporters of the measure were laymen, most efficient service was rendered by a clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Amos Brown, born in New Hampshire, but at that time an instructor in a little village of New York. His ideas were embodied in the bill, and his efforts did much for its passage.

Thus was established, in every State of the American Union, at least one institution in which scientific and technical studies were given equal rank with classical, and promoted by laboratories for research in physical and natural science. Of these institutions there are now nearly fifty: all have proved valuable, and some of them, by the addition of splendid gifts from individuals and from the States in which they are situated, have been developed into great universities.

Nor was this all. Many of the older universities and colleges thus received a powerful stimulus in the new direction. The great physical and chemical laboratories founded by gifts from public-spirited individuals, as at Harvard, Yale, and Chicago, or by enlightened State legislators, as in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Kansas, and Nebraska, have also become centres from which radiate influences favouring the unfettered search for truth as truth.

[b]This system has been long enough in operation to enable us to note in some degree its effects on religion, and these are certainly such as to relieve those who have feared that religion was necessarily bound up with the older instruction controlled by theology. While in Europe, by a natural reaction, the colleges under strict ecclesiastical control have sent forth the most powerful foes the Christian Church has ever known, of whom Voltaire and Diderot and Volney and Sainte-Beuve and Renan are types,[/b] no such effects have been noted in these newer institutions. While the theological way of looking at the universe has steadily yielded, there has been no sign of any tendency toward irreligion. On the contrary, it is the testimony of those best acquainted with the American colleges and universities during the last forty-five years that there has been in them a great gain, not only as regards morals, but as regards religion in its highest and best sense. The reason is not far to seek. Under the old American system the whole body of students at a university were confined to a single course, for which the majority cared little and very many cared nothing, and, as a result, widespread idleness and dissipation were inevitable. Under the new system, presenting various courses, and especially courses in various sciences, appealing to different tastes and aims, the great majority of students are interested, and consequently indolence and dissipation have steadily diminished. Moreover, in the majority of American institutions of learning down to the middle of the century, the main reliance for the religious culture of students was in the perfunctory presentation of sectarian theology, and the occasional stirring up of what were called "revivals," which, after a period of unhealthy stimulus, inevitably left the main body of students in a state of religious and moral reaction and collapse. This method is now discredited, and in the more important American universities it has become impossible. Religious truth, to secure the attention of the modern race of students in the better American institutions, is presented, not by "sensation preachers," but by thoughtful, sober-minded scholars. Less and less avail sectarian arguments; more and more impressive becomes the presentation of fundamental religious truths. The result is, that while young men care less and less for the great mass of petty, cut-and-dried sectarian formulas, they approach the deeper questions of religion with increasing reverence.

While striking differences exist between the European universities and those of the United States, this at least may be said, that on both sides of the Atlantic the great majority of the leading institutions of learning are under the sway of enlightened public opinion as voiced mainly by laymen, and that, this being the case, the physical and natural sciences are henceforth likely to be developed normally, and without fear of being sterilized by theology or oppressed by ecclesiasticism.

[Petr]

The second half of White's article here:
You sure are one big, strong alpha male for daring to make spams like that.

Richard Dawkins' recent behavior has been described as "appallingly bitchy" even by his fellow secularist. This describes nicely Fade's recent antics as well; he is behaving like a woman scorned, not interested in balanced approach in the slightest.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

So it was hardly an "empire" a thousand years before Connie, as Fade said.

I said that a city existed there.

[Fade the Butcher]

There is no end to Fade's spinning two-faced hypocrisy. He was just recently calling these Byzantines as rather meaningless thinkers:

The point Grant is making is that they are significant relative to what had been the status quo in Byzantium for centuries.

These late developments were also (to a great extent) inspired by Western Scholastic progress.

Like what? Throwing Roger Bacon in prison and persecuting alchemists for centuries?

[Fade the Butcher]

According to Petr, Christianity played an indispensible role in the rise of modern science. It only took seventeen hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ for science to be successfully "transmuted" by Christian theology, and even then only in the Christian West, not the Christian East. This begs the obvious question: what was going in the seventeen hundred years that elapsed between the lives of Jesus and Newton? Did Christian theology play any significant role in the transformation of any scientific discipline? I beg to differ. Far from inspiring modern science, Christianity launched Europe into the Dark Ages and acted as a retarding influence upon science for centuries afterwards. The rise of Christianity set Western civilization back thousands of years.

At the center of this was the barbaric text known as the Bible. As his opening shot, the Christian God forbids man to eat from the tree of knowledge and curses him with original sin for his disobedience. The message of the Bible is that the word of god is infalliable. It is the absolute truth from the creator of the universe himself whereas the wisdom of the wise is hopelessly inferior, unreliable, and at odds with itself. The rewards of simpleminded faith are tremendous, eternal life in paraside, whereas the knowledge of philosophy is merely speculative and can lead one astray into eternal damnation. We live in a fallen world that is hopelessly corrupt and will soon be destroyed. It is therefore pointless to investigate natural phenomena because this world will be replaced by the new heaven and new earth. The natural world is contigent upon the will of an omnipotent god who can flaunt any natural law whenever it suits his fancy. Turn your mind away from things seen to thing unseen. Worry not about your earthly troubles, but your eternal soul. Blessed are the ignorant who believe without evidence. Don't think for yourself. Surrender your mind to Jesus Christ and his representatives on earth.

"And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
—Genesis 2:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen002.htm)

"And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?"
—Genesis 3:11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm)

"And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work: with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life."
—Genesis 3:17 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm)

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."
—Isaiah 55: 8-9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa055.htm)

"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."
—Jeremiah 17:5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/jer017.htm)

"Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence."
—Proverbs 3:5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/pro003.htm)

"At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones."
—Matthew 11:25 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat011.htm)

"Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."
—Matthew 16:23 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm)

"And I have given my heart to know prudence, and learning, and errors, and folly: and I have perceived that in these also there was labour, and vexation of spirit, Because in much wisdom there is much indignation: and he that addeth knowledge, addeth also labour."
—Ecclesiastes 1:17-18 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/ecc001.htm)

"Therefore if you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth."
—Colossians 3: 1-2 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/col003.htm)

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal: but the things which are not seen, are eternal."
—II Corinthians 4:18 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co004.htm)

]"For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For, seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. . . . For the foolishness of God is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men. . . . But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong."
—Paul, 1 Corinthians 1: 19-27 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co001.htm)

"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ."
—Paul, Colossians 2:8 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm)

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called."
—Paul, I Timothy 6:20 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1ti006.htm)


This sad story continues with the church fathers who, following the exhortations of Paul and John, were convinced that the end of the world was imminent and denounced the physical sciences as a distraction from the imperative of saving souls before the return of Christ. They heaped scorn upon logic and natural philosophy, the "profane sciences" or "wisdom of the wise" as they were called, and emphatically rejected the ancient idea that knowledge of the natural world was valuable for its own sake. This was condemned as "vain curiosity" and the "sin of pride." Faith is superior to reason. Simplicity is superior to curiosity. Fishermen are superior to philosophers. Ignorance is strength.

"To this is added another form of temptation more manifoldly dangerous. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which consisteth in the delight of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves, who go far from Thee, waste and perish, the soul hath, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, not of delighting in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh.. . . From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know."
—Augustine, Confessions, Ch.35 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xi.xxxv.html)

"The knowledge of the stars, again, is not a matter of narration, but of description. Very few of these, however, are mentioned in Scripture. And as the course of the moon, which is regularly employed in reference to celebrating the anniversary of our Lord's passion, is known to most people; so the rising and setting and other movements of the rest of the heavenly bodies are thoroughly known to very few. And this knowledge, although in itself it involves no superstition, renders very little, indeed almost no assistance, in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and by engaging the attention unprofitably is a hindrance rather; and as it is closely related to the very pernicious error of the diviners of the fates, it is more convenient and becoming to neglect it."
—Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Ch.29, 46 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.iv.iii.html[/url)

"And what did it profit me, that all the books I could procure of the so-called liberal arts, I, the vile slave of vile affections, read by myself, and understood? And I delighted in them, but knew not whence came all, that therein was true or certain. For I had my back to the light, and my face to the things enlightened; whence my face, with which I discerned the things enlightened, itself was not enlightened. Whatever was written, either on rhetoric, or logic, geometry, music, and arithmetic, by myself without much difficulty or any instructor, I understood, Thou knowest, O Lord my God; because both quickness of understanding, and acuteness in discerning, is Thy gift: yet did I not thence sacrifice to Thee. So then it served not to my use, but rather to my perdition, since I went about to get so good a portion of my substance into my own keeping; and I kept not my strength for Thee, but wandered from Thee into a far country, to spend it upon harlotries."
—Augustine, Confessions, Ch. XVI (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.v.xvi.html)

"If by calling yourself wise, you become a fool, call yourself a fool, and you will become wise."
—Augustine

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.315]

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
—Augustine

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.315]

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
—Augustine

"It is also frequently [b]asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them.[u] Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial."[/u][/b]
—Augustine, [i]The Literal Meaning of Genesis (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/saintaugustine.htm)[/i]

"This being the case, when that verse of Maro's gives us pleasure, [i]"Happy is he who can understand the causes of things,"[/i] [b]it still does not follow that our felicity depends upon our knowing the causes of the great physical processes in the world, which are hidden in the secret maze of nature,[/b] [i]"Whence earthquakes, whose force swells the sea to flood, so that they burst their bounds and then subside again,"[/i] [b]and other such things as this."[/b]
—Augustine, [i]Enchiridon[/i], Ch.5, 16 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter5.html)

"I think, however, [b]there is nothing useful in the other branches of learning that are found among the heathen,[/b] except information about objects, either past or present, that relate to the bodily senses, in which are included also the experiments and conclusions of the useful mechanical arts, except also the sciences of reasoning and of number."
—Augustine, On [i]Christian Doctrine[/i], Book II, Ch. 39 (http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb2c35-40.html)

"Wherefore, when it is asked what we ought to believe in matters of religion, [u][b]the answer is not to be sought in the exploration of the nature of things, after the manner of those whom the Greeks called "physicists." Nor should we be dismayed if Christians are ignorant about the properties and the number of the basic elements of nature, or about the motion, order, and deviations of the stars, the map of the heavens, the kinds and nature of animals, plants, stones, springs, rivers, and mountains; about the divisions of space and time, about the signs of impending storms, and the myriad other things which these "physicists" have come to understand, or think they have. For even these men, gifted with such superior insight, with their ardor in study and their abundant leisure, exploring some of these matters by human conjecture and others through historical inquiry, have not yet learned everything there is to know.[/u][/b] For that matter, many of the things they are so proud to have discovered are more often matters of opinion than of verified knowledge. [u][b]For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all created things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and the true God."[/u][/b]
—Augustine, [i]Enchiridon[/i], Ch.3, 9 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter3.html)

"Come, Holy Spirit, and help Your prophets, in whom You are wont to dwell, in whom we believe. [b]Shall we believe the wise of this world, if we believe not the prophets? But where is the wise man, where is the scribe? [u]When our peasant planted figs, he found that whereof the philosopher knew nothing, for God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the strong. Are we to believe the Jews?[/b][/u] for God was once known in Jewry. Nay, but they deny that very thing, which is the foundation of our belief, seeing that they know not the Father, who have denied the Son."
—Ambrose, [i]De Fide[/i], Book I, Ch.3, 30 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

"For they store up [u][b]all the strength of their poisons in dialetical disputation,[/u] which by the judgment of philosophers is defined as having no power to establish anything, and aiming only at destruction.[u] But it was not by dialectic that it pleased God to save His people; "for the kingdom of God consists in simplicity of faith, not in wordy contention."[/b][/u]
—Ambrose, [i]De Fide[/i], Book I, Ch.5, 42 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

"It is of the Son, therefore, that we read, your mind understands the reading, let your tongue make confession. [u][b]Away with arguments, where faith is required; now let dialectic hold her peace, even in the midst of her schools. I ask not what it is that philosophers say, but I would know what they do. They sit desolate in their schools. See the victory of faith over argument. They who dispute subtly are forsaken daily by their fellows; they who with simplicity believe are daily increased. Not philosophers but fishermen, not masters of dialectic but tax-gatherers, now find credence. [/u][/b]The one sort, through pleasures and luxuries, have bound the world's burden upon themselves; the other, by fasting and mortification, have cast it off, and so does sorrow now begin to win over more followers than pleasure."
—Ambrose, [i]De Fide[/i], Book I, Ch.13, 84 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

"Let us then run over, if you choose, [b]the opinions of the philosophers, to which they give boastful utterance, respecting the gods; that we may discover philosophy itself, through its conceit making an idol of matter;[/b] although we are able to show, as we proceed, that even while deifying certain demons, it has a dream of the truth."
—Clement of Alexandria, [i]Exhortation to the Heathen[/i], Ch.5, "The Opinions of the Philosophers Respecting God" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/020805.htm)

"Let the philosophers, then, own as their teachers the Persians, or the Sauromatæ, or the Magi, [b]from whom they have learned the impious doctrine of regarding as divine certain first principles, [u]being ignorant of the great First Cause, the Maker of all things, and Creator of those very first principles, the unbeginning God, but reverencing "these weak and beggarly elements,"[/u] Galatians 4:9 as the apostle says, which were made for the service of man."[/b]
—Clement of Alexandria, [i]Exhortation to the Heathen[/i], Ch.5, "The Opinions of the Philosophers Respecting God" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/020805.htm)

[b]"Investigation of natural phenomena is superfluous and beyond the human mind, and the learning and study of these matters are impious and false."[/b]
—Eusebius

Source: Ramsey MacMullen, [i]Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries[/i] (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), p.88

"As we have been deferring up to the present time our final discourse hereon, which is the fifteenth Book of the treatise in hand, we will now make up what is lacking to the discussions which we have travelled through, [b]by still further dragging into light the solemn doctrines of the fine philosophy of the Greeks, and [u]laying bare before the eyes of all the useless learning therein.[/u] And before all things we shall show that not from ignorance of the things which they admire, [u]but from contempt of the unprofitable study therein we have cared very little for them, and devoted our own souls to the practice of things far better."[/u][/b]
—Eusebius. [i]Praeparatio Evangelica[/i], Book XV (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_15_book15.htm)

[b]"You have given credence to your wise men and those learned in every kind of study — those, foorsooth, who know nothing and proclaim no one doctrine, who join battle over their views with their adversaries[/b] . . . and make all doubtful, and demonstrate from their disputes that nothing can be known."
—Arnobius, [i]ADVERSVS NATIONES, 2.10 (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/arnobius/arnobius2.shtml)[/i]

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.206]

[b]"Blessed is he who has attained infinite ignorance."[/b]
—Evagrius

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.208]

[b]"What great and wonderful things have your philosophers effected?[/b] They leave uncovered one of their shoulders; they let their hair grow long; they cultivate their beards; their nails are like the claws of wild beasts. Though they say that they want nothing, yet, like Proteus, they need a currier for their wallet, and a weaver for their mantle, and a wood-cutter for their staff, and the rich, and a cook also for their gluttony. O man competing with the dog, you know not God, and so have turned to the imitation of an irrational animal. You cry out in public with an assumption of authority, and take upon you to avenge your own self; and if you receive nothing, you indulge in abuse, and philosophy is with you the art of getting money. [b]You follow the doctrines of Plato, and a disciple of Epicurus lifts up his voice to oppose you. Again, you wish to be a disciple of Aristotle, and a follower of Democritus rails at you. Pythagoras says that he was Euphorbus, and he is the heir of the doctrine of Pherecydes; but Aristotle impugns the immortality of the soul. You who receive from your predecessors doctrines which clash with one another, you the inharmonious, are fighting against the harmonious. One of you asserts that God is body, but I assert that He is without body; that the world is indestructible, but I say that it is to be destroyed; that a conflagration will take place at various times, but I say that it will come to pass once for all;[/b] that Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges, but I say that God Himself is Judge; that the soul alone is endowed with immortality, but I say that the flesh also is endowed with it. What injury do we inflict upon you, O Greeks? Why do you hate those who follow the word of God, as if they were the vilest of mankind? It is not we who eat human flesh --they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis.
—Tatian, [i]Address to the Greeks[/i] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html), 25

[b]"Cease to make a parade of sayings which you have derived from others, and to deck yourselves like the daw in borrowed plumes. If each state were to take away its contribution to your speech, your fallacies would lose their power. While inquiring what God is, you are ignorant of what is in yourselves; and, while staring all agape at the sky, you stumble into pitfalls. The reading of your books is like walking through a labyrinth, and their readers resemble the cask of the Danaids. Why do you divide time, saying that one part is past, and another present, and another future?[/b] For how can the future be passing when the present exists? As those who are sailing imagine in their ignorance, as the ship is borne along, that the hills are in motion, so you do not know that it is you who are passing along, but that time (o aiwn) remains present as long as the Creator wills it to exist. Why am I called to account for uttering my opinions, and why are you in such haste to put them all down? Were not you born in the same manner as ourselves, and placed under the same government of the world? [b]Why say that wisdom is with you alone, who have not another sun, nor other risings of the stars, nor a more distinguished origin, nor a death preferable to that of other men? The grammarians have been the beginning of this idle talk; and you who parcel out wisdom are cut off from the wisdom that is according to truth, and assign the names of the several parts to particular men; and you know not God, but in your fierce contentions destroy one another. And on this account you are all nothing worth. While you arrogate to yourselves the sole right of discussion, you discourse like the blind man with the deaf.[/b] Why do you handle the builder's tools without knowing how to build? Why do you busy yourselves with words, while you keep aloof from deeds, puffed up with praise, but cast down by misfortunes? Your modes of acting are contrary to reaSon, for you make a pompons appearance in public, but hide your teaching in corners. Finding you to be such men as these, we have abandoned you, and no longer concern ourselves with your tenets, but follow the word of God. Why, O man, do you set the letters of the alphabet at war with one another? Why do you, as in a boxing match, make their sounds clash together with your mincing Attic way of speaking, whereas you ought to speak more according to nature? For if you adopt the Attic dialect though not an Athenian, pray why do you not speak like the Dorians? How is it that one appears to you more rugged, the other more pleasant for intercourse?"
—Tatian, [i]Address to the Greeks[/i] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html), 26

[b]"How can I believe one who tells me that the sun is a red-hot mass and the moon an earth? Such assertions are mere logomachies, and not a sober exposition of truth.[/b] How can it be otherwise than foolish to credit the books of Herodotus relating to the history of Hercules, which tell of an upper earth from which the lion came down that was killed by Hercules? [b]And what avails the Attic style, the sorites of philosophers, the plausibilities of syllogisms, the measurements of the earth, the positions of the stars, and the course of the sun? To be occupied in such inquiries is the work of one who imposes opinions on himself as if they were laws."[/b]
—Tatian, [i]Address to the Greeks[/i] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html), 27

[b]"If to the causes of natural things, what happiness will be proposed to me, if I shall know the sources of the Nile, or the vain dreams of the natural philosophers respecting the heaven? Why should I mention that on these subjects there is no knowledge, but mere conjecture, which varies according to the abilities of men?[/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes[/i], Book III, "Of the False Wisdom of the Philosophers" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm)

[b]"But I am not prepared to concede even that philosophers are devoted to the pursuit of wisdom, [u]because by that pursuit there is no attaining to wisdom.[/u] For if the power of finding the truth were connected with this pursuit, and if this pursuit were a kind of road to wisdom, it would at length be found. But since so much time and talent have been wasted in the search for it, and it has not yet been gained, it is plain that there is no wisdom there.[/b] Therefore they who apply themselves to philosophy do not devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom; but they themselves imagine that they do so, because they know not where that is which they are searching for, or of what character it is. [b]Whether, therefore, they devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom or not, they are not wise, because that can never be discovered which is either sought in an improper manner, or not sought at all."[/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes[/i], Book III, "Of the False Wisdom of the Philosophers" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm)

"Philosophy appears to consist of two subjects, knowledge and conjecture, and of nothing more. [b]Knowledge cannot come from the understanding, nor be apprehended by thought; because to have knowledge in oneself as a peculiar property does not belong to man, but to God.[/b] But the nature of mortals does not receive knowledge, except that which comes from without. For on this account the divine intelligence has opened the eyes and ears and other senses in the body, that by these entrances knowledge might flow through to the mind. [b][u]For to investigate or wish to know the causes of natural things,—whether the sun is as great as it appears to be, or is many times greater than the whole of this earth; also whether the moon be spherical or concave; and whether the stars are fixed to the heaven, or are borne with free course through the air; of what magnitude the heaven itself is, of what material it is composed; whether it is at rest and immoveable, or is turned round with incredible swiftness; how great is the thickness of the earth, or on what foundations it is poised and suspended,—to wish to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation and conjectures, is as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose to be the character of a city in some very remote country, which we have never seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which cannot be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm that in which we may be refuted? How much more are they to be judged mad and senseless, who imagine that they know natural things, which cannot be known by man!" [/u][/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes[/i], Book III, "Of the False Wisdom of the Philosophers" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm)

"Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? [b]That the crops and trees grow downward? That the rains and snow and hail fall upward toward the earth? I am at a loss what to say of those who, when they have once erred, steadily persevere in their folly and defend one vain thing by another."[/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0701.htm)[/i]

[b]"Wretched Aristotle ! who established for them the dialectic art, so ingenious in the construction and refutation of propositions, so crafty in statements, so forced in hypotheses, so inflexible in arguments, so laborious in disputes, so damaging even to itself, always reconsidering everything, so that it never treats thoroughly of anything at all.

Hence come those fables and endless genealogies, and profitless questions, and words which spread like a cancer;[/b] in restraining us from which the Apostle expressly mentions philosophy as that which we ought to beware of, writing to the Colossians, [b]"Take heed lest any one beguile you through philosophy or vain deceit, according to the tradition of men,"[/b] beyond the providence of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle had been at Athens, and in his argumentative encounters there had become acquainted [b]with that human wisdom which affects and corrupts the Truth,[/b] itself also being many times divided into its own heresies by the variety of its mutually antagonistic sects.

[b]What then hath Athens in common with Jerusalem ? What hath the Academy in common with the Church ? What have heretics in common with Christians? Our principles are from the "Porch" of Solomon, who himself handed down that the Lord must be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with those who bring forward a Stoic or Platonic or dialectic Christianity.[u] We have no need of speculative inquiry after we have known Christ Jesus; nor of search for the Truth after we have received the Gospel. When we become believers, we have no desire to believe anything besides; for the first article of our belief is that there is nothing besides which we ought to believe." [/u][/b]
—Tertullian, [i]On the Prescription of Heretics[/i], Chapter, VII (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_test/bindley_test_07prae.htm)

"Now, pray tell me, [b]what wisdom is there in this hankering after conjectural speculations? What proof is afforded to us, notwithstanding the strong confidence of its assertions, [u]by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity,[/u][/b] which is tricked out with an artful show of language? It therefore served Thales of Miletus quite right, when, star-gazing as he walked with all the eyes he had, he had the mortification of falling into a well, and was unmercifully twitted by an Egyptian, who said to him, "Is it because you found nothing on earth to look at, that you think you ought to confine your gaze to the sky?" [u][b]His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean, who persist in applying their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural objects, which they ought rather (intelligently to direct) to their Creator and Governor."[/b][/u]
—Tertullian, [i]Ad Nationes[/i], Book II, Ch.4 (http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-16.htm)

"So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned brother gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; [b]although with yourself, a seeker he will, after all, [u]be quite aware that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know. “Thy faith,” He says, “hath saved thee” not observe your skill in the Scriptures.[/u][/b] Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill, however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack. [b][u]Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their noisiness, or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things.[/u][/b] (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so that we were not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would it be to agree with men who do themselves confess that they are still seeking? For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found anything amounting to certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for a while to hold, they betray their own scepticism, whilst they continue seeking. [b]You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to waverers, must needs be “led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch.”[/b] But when, for the sake of deceiving us, they pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may palm their essays upon us by the suggestion of an anxious sympathy, —when, in short (after gaining an access to us), they proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring into such points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for us in moral obligation to repel them, so that they may know that it is not Christ, but themselves, whom we disavow. For since they are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets yet; and being not fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet believers, they are not Christians. [u][b]But even though they have their tenets and their belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in order to discussion. [/u][/b]Previous, however, to the discussion, they deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long as they keep it an object of inquiry. When men, therefore, are not Christians even on their own admission, how much more (do they fail to appear such) to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith?"
—Tertullian, [i]Chapter XIV.—Curiosity Ought Not Range Beyond the Rule of Faith. Restless Curiosity, the Feature of Heresy (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030280.htm)[/i]

[b]"And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.[/b] And He was buried, and rose again;[b] the fact is certain, because it is impossible."[/b]
—Tertullian, [i]On the Flesh of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm)[/i], Ch.5

"As this matter of faith . . . we accept it as useful for the multitude, and that [b]we admittedly teach those who cannot abandon everything and pursue a study of rational argument to believe without thinking out their arguments."[/b]
—Origen

[b]"Restrain our own reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning,[/b] in order to provide a mind swept clear for the reception of divine words."
—John Chyrsostom

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.316]

"Did you see how great the holy dread in heaven and how great the arrogant presumption here below? The angels in heaven give God glory;[b] these on earth carry on meddlesome investigations."[/b]
—John Chyrsostom

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.311]

"Whenever God reveals something, [b]it is necessary to accept what is said in faith, not to pry impetuously."[/b]
—John Chyrsostom

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.311]

[b]"But how did He "destroy wisdom?" Being made known to us by Paul and others like him, [u]He showed it to be unprofitable. For towards receiving the evangelical proclamation, neither is the wise profited at all by wisdom,[/u] nor the unlearned injured at all by ignorance. But if one may speak somewhat even wonderful, ignorance rather than wisdom is a condition suitable for that impression, and more easily dealt with. [u]For the shepherd and the rustic will more quickly receive this, once for all both repressing all doubting thoughts and delivering himself to the Lord. In this way then He destroyed wisdom.[/u] For since she first cast herself down, she is ever after useful for nothing. Thus when she ought to have displayed her proper powers, and by the works to have seen the Lord, she would not. Wherefore though she were now willing to introduce herself, she is not able. For the matter is not of that kind; this way of knowing God being far greater than the other. [u]You see then, faith and simplicity are needed, and this we should seek every where, and prefer it before the wisdom which is from without. For "God," says he, "has made wisdom foolish."[/u][/b]
—John Chyrsostom, Homily 4 on First Corinthians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220104.htm)

[b]"Let us Christians prefer the simplicity of our faith to the demonstrations of human reason . . .[/b] For to spend much time on research about the essence of things would not serve the edification of the Church."
—Basil of Caesarea

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.89]

"And the further we advance in this reasoning the greater force we are obliged to give to this base, so that it may be able to support all the mass weighing upon it. [u][b]Put then a limit to your thought, so that your curiosity in investigating the incomprehensible may not incur the reproaches of Job,[/b][/u] and you be not asked by him, "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?"
—Basil of Caesarea, [i]Hexaemeron[/i], (Homily 1), 9 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm)

[b]"They only seek to persuade by forced reasoning. With us truth presents itself naked and without artifice.[/b] But why torment ourselves to refute the errors of philosophers, when it is sufficient to produce their mutually contradictory books, and, as quiet spectators, to watch the war?"
—Basil of Caesarea, [i]Hexamemeron[/i], (Homily 3), 8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32013.htm)

"Now we have no more meetings, no more debates, no more gatherings of wise men in the agora, nothing more of all that made our city famous."
—Basil of Caesarea

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.317]

". . . [b]a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan."[/b]
—Basil of Caesarea

Source: Edward Grant, [i]Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550, From Aristotle to Copernicus[/i] (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2004), p.118

[b]"There is a certain heresy concerning earthquakes that they come not from God's command, but, it is thought from the very nature of the elements . . . [/b]Paying no attention to God's power, they [the heretics] presume to attribute the motions of force to the elements of nature . . . like certain foolish philosophers who, ascribing this to nature, know not the power of God."
—Philastrius of Brescia

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.88]

"Whoever searches the whole of revelation will find there no doctrine of divine nature at all, nor indeed a doctrine of anything else that has a substantial existence,[b] so that we pass our lives in ignorance of much, being ignorant first of all of ourselves as human beings and then of all other things besides."[/b]
—Gregory of Nyssa

"The human voice was fashioned for one reason alone — to be the threshold through which the sentiments of the heart, inspired by the Holy Spirit, might be translated clearly into the Word itself."
—Gregory of Nyssa

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.315]

[b]"But it afterwards came to our ears, what we cannot mention without shame,[u] that your Fraternity is in the habit of expounding grammar to certain persons.[/u] This thing we took so much amiss, and so strongly disapproved it,[/b] that we changed what had been said before into groaning and sadness, since the praises of Christ cannot find room in one mouth with the praises of Jupiter. [b]And consider yourself what a grave and heinous offence it is for bishops to sing what is not becoming even for a religious layman."[/b]
—Gregory the Great, [i]Letter to To Desiderius, Bishop of Gaul (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360211054.htm)[/i]

[b]"The wise should be advised to cease from their knowledge."[/b]
—Gregory the Great

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.303]

[Fade the Butcher]

Such irrational, world-rejecting, mind-destroying nonsense would have been harmless if Christianity had remained a powerless sect like Gnosticism or Manichaeism, one amongst hundreds of other cults in the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, following the conversion of Constantine (312), religious toleration was extended to Christianity in the Edict of Milan of 313. The Church was extended patronage by the Roman state and was exempted from paying taxes. At the same time, state patronage was withdrawn from secular institutions like the museum and library in Alexandria, which had been liberally supported by the Antonines, the schools of philosophy in Athens, and the state supported pagan cults. This led directly to a massive transfer of wealth into the Church, which in turn led to the conversion of ever growing numbers of the opportunistic Roman elite, who would in time use the force of law to bludgeon the common people into the flock of Christ.

After the Church was rewarded lucrative financial privileges, it become imperative to define once and for all what constituted Christian orthodoxy. This ultimately proved impossible to resolve through rational argument and soon enough Christians were at each others throats divided into all sorts of factions: Nicene Catholics, Monophysites, Nestorians, Arians, Pelagians, Donatists, etc. Rivalries were carried on between cities, for example, the long running feud between Alexandria and Constantinople. These were several of the most prominent heresies, but Augustine and others claim there were dozens of others. Every few years new ones would bubble up and create brand new controversies. In the course of the fourth century, more Christians died KILLING EACH OTHER over theological differences than had died in all persecutions of the Roman emperors. [MacMullen, 1997; p.14] Frustrated with this divisive factionalism, the emperors stepped in and began to use their authority at church councils to impose orthodoxy on the bishops. Constantine was the first at the Council of Nicaea in 325 where the Nicene Creed was established and Arianism was condemned. The Nicene Creed bombed in the Greek-speaking east, which was the heartland of Christianity at the time, so Constantine cut his losses and reconciled himself with Arius. Arius was restored to his see and the supporters of the Nicene Creed were systematically sacked. Several of Constantine's successors — Constantius II, Valentinian I, and Valens — were Arians. Over the next several decades, the number of Christians and the wealth of the Church steadily grew, along with the influence of the bishops.

The tipping point came at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The Nicene Creed was reaffirmed and established as orthodoxy throughout the Empire. At the urging of "St. Ambrose," the emperors Theodosius and Gratian issued a series of edicts which established Christianity as the [b]exclusive religion[/b] of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was transformed into a Christian theocracy. The assault upon paganism and heretics began:

[quote][b]Theodosian Code on Religion (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codex-theod1.html)[/b]

Th. XV.xii.1: Bloody spectacles are not suitable for civil ease and domestic quiet. Wherefore since we have proscribed gladiators, those who have been accustomed to be sentenced to such work as punishment for their crimes, you should cause to serve in the mines, so that they may be punished without shedding their blood. Constantine Augustus.

C. Th. XVI.v.1:[b] It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion [u]should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only kept from these privileges, but be subjected to various fines.[/u][/b] Constantine Augustus.

C. Th. XVI.x.4: It is decreed that [b]in all places and all cities the temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes.[/b] Constantine and Constans Augusti.

C. Th. XVI.vii.1: [b]The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such an one, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death.[/b] Gratian, Valentinian, and Valens Augusti.

C.Th. XI.vii.13: Let the course of all law suits and all business cease on Sunday, which our fathers have rightly called the Lord's day, and let no one try to collect either a public or a private debt; and let there be no hearing of disputes by any judges either those required to serve by law or those voluntarily chosen by disputants. And he is to be held not only infamous but sacrilegious who has turned away from the service and observance of holy religion on that day. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.

C.Th. XV.v.1: On the Lord's day, which is the first day of the week, on Christmas, and on the days of Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, inasmuch as then the [white] garments [of Christians] symbolizing the light of heavenly cleansing bear witness to the new light of holy baptism, at the time also of the suffering of the apostles, the example for all Christians, the pleasures of the theaters and games are to be kept from the people in all cities, and all the thoughts of Christians and believers are to be occupied with the worship of God. [b]And if any are kept from that worship through the madness of Jewish impiety or the error and insanity of foolish paganism, let them know that there is one time for prayer and another for pleasure. And lest anyone should think he is compelled by the honor due to our person, as if by the greater necessity of his imperial office, or that unless he attempted to hold the games in contempt of the religious prohibition, he might offend our serenity in showing less than the usual devotion toward us; let no one doubt that our clemency is revered in the highest degree by humankind when the worship of the whole world is paid to the might and goodness of God.[/b]Theodosius Augustus and Caesar Valentinian.

[b]"It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. [/b]According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. [b]We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; [u]but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics,[/u] and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation [u]an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict. [/b][/u]

C. Th. XVI.v.iii: [b]Whenever there is found a meeting of a mob of Manichaeans, let the leaders be punished with a heavy fine and let those who attended be known as infamous and dishonored, and be shut out from association with men, and let the house and the dwellings where the profane doctrine was taught be seized by the officers of the city.[/b] Valentinian and Valens Augusti. [/quote]

Gone was the traditional Roman policy of religious tolerance. The Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate in Rome. The temples of pagans were demolished and profaned by mobs of fanatical monks. Their assets were confiscated by the Church for its own use. In a mere few decades after the triumph of Christianity, most of the priceless architecture of the ancient world was obliterated by hordes of iconoclastic religious fanatics. The famous public baths of the Roman Empire were closed or converted into crude churches. The Olympic Games which had gone on for over a THOUSAND YEARS were abolished by Theodosius in 393. Pagan ceremonies were outlawed. Apostasy was made a capital crime. Pagans were reduced to dhimmitude and forced to pay discriminatory taxes whereas Christians were given various legal privileges. That was just the beginning. In time, pagans would be excluded from the top ranks of the military (365), the civil service (415 and 425), the legal profession (468), and violent state authorized physical persecutions would be launched against them. [MacMullen, 1997; p.22-31] The effect of this was the rapid conversion of pagans and heretics to Nicene Christianity during the fifth and sixth centuries.

[quote][b]The Destruction of Temples[/b]

"Now the right faithful emperor diverted his energies to resisting paganism, [b]and published edicts [u]in which he ordered the shrines of the idols to be destroyed. [/u][/b]Constantine the Great, most worthy of all eulogy, was indeed the first to grace his empire with true religion; and when he saw the world still given over to foolishness he issued a general prohibition against the offering of sacrifices to the idols. He had not, however, destroyed the temples, though he ordered them to be kept shut. His sons followed in their father's footsteps. Julian restored the false faith and rekindled the flame of the ancient fraud. On the accession of Jovian he once more placed an interdict on the worship of idols, and Valentinian the Great governed Europe with like laws. Valens, however, allowed every one else to worship any way they would and to honour their various objects of adoration. Against the champions of the Apostolic decrees alone he persisted in waging war. Accordingly during the whole period of his reign the altar fire was lit, libations and sacrifices were offered to idols, public feasts were celebrated in the forum, and votaries initiated in the orgies of Dionysus ran about in goat-skins, mangling hounds in Bacchic frenzy, and generally behaving in such a way as to show the iniquity of their master. [u][b]When the right faithful Theodosius found all these evils he pulled them up by the roots, and consigned them to oblivion."[/u][/b]
—Theodoret, [i]Ecclesiastical History[/i], (Book V) Chapter 20. "Of the destruction of the temples all over the Empire" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27025.htm)

"The illustrious Athanasius was succeeded by the admirable Petrus, Petrus by Timotheus, and Timotheus by Theophilus, a man of sound wisdom and of a lofty courage. [b][u]By him Alexandria was set free from the error of idolatry; for, not content with razing the idols' temples to the ground,[/b][/u] he exposed the tricks of the priests to the victims of their wiles. For they had constructed statues of bronze and wood hollow within, and fastened the backs of them to the temple walls, leaving in these walls certain invisible openings. Then coming up from their secret chambers they got inside the statues, and through them gave any order they liked and the hearers, tricked and cheated, obeyed. These tricks the wise Theophilus exposed to the people.

Moreover he went up into the temple of Serapis, which has been described by some as excelling in size and beauty all the temples in the world. There he saw a huge image of which the bulk struck beholders with terror, increased by a lying report which got abroad that if any one approached it, there would be a great earthquake, and that all the people would be destroyed. The bishop looked on all these tales as the mere drivelling of tipsy old women, and in utter derision of the lifeless monster's enormous size, he told a man who had an axe to give Serapis a good blow with it. No sooner had the man struck, than all the folk cried out, for they were afraid of the threatened catastrophe. [b]Serapis however, who had received the blow, felt no pain, inasmuch as he was made of wood, and uttered never a word, since he was a lifeless block. His head was cut off, and forthwith out ran multitudes of mice, for the Egyptian god was a dwelling place for mice. [u]Serapis was broken into small pieces of which some were committed to the flames, but his head was carried through all the town in sight of his worshippers, who mocked the weakness of him to whom they had bowed the knee.

Thus all over the world the shrines of the idols were destroyed."[/u][/b]
—Theodoret, [i]Ecclesiastical History[/i], (Book V) Chapter 22. "Of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and what happened at the demolition of the idols in that city" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27025.htm)

On receiving information that Phœnicia was still suffering from the madness of the demons' rites, [u][b]John [Chyrsostom] got together certain monks who were fired with divine zeal, armed them with imperial edicts and despatched them against the idols' shrines.[/u][/b] The money which was required to pay the craftsmen and their assistants who were engaged in the work of destruction was not taken by John from imperial resources, but he persuaded certain wealthy and faithful women to make liberal contributions, pointing out to them how great would be the blessing their generosity would win.

[u][b]Thus the remaining shrines of the demons were utterly destroyed."[/u][/b]
—Theodoret, [i]Ecclesiastical History[/i], (Book V) Chapter 29. "Of the idol temples which were destroyed by John in Phœnicia" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27025.htm)

"Physically, town landscapes were transformed as the practice of keeping the dead separate from the living, traditional in Graeco-Roman paganism, came to an end, and cemetaries sprang up within town walls. [b]Churches replaced temples; as a consequence, [u]from the 390s onwards there was so much cheap second-hand marble available that the new marble trade all but collapsed."[/u][/b]

Peter Heather, [i]The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians[/i] (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p.121

"It was too late because by then Christians were in a position of power allowing the free expression of a deeply felt imperative; and that imperative allowed no rest. None, ever. So long as unbelievers clung to their old ways, and indeed in far more challenging numbers than the Christian record would acknowledge, good believers must fulfill the divine command, [u][b]"Ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves . . . for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God"[/u][/b] (Exod.34.13f). So spoke their Lord himself. And again, through his angels: [u][b]"Praise God in heaven! Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God"[/u][/b] (Lk.2.14) — but the displeasing were another matter, with different deserts. [u][b]"God who speaks truth has both predicted that the images of the many, the false gods, are to be overthrown, and commands that it be done."[/u][/b]

Ramsey MacMullen, [i]Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries[/i] (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), p.12

[b]"Periodic outbursts, however, of hate-filled mob or gang violence after the mid-fourth century are indeed recorded[/b] — reference ewill be made to them in what follows — [b]and the role of the church leadership in exciting them is clear. The leaders' appeals could be heared over a general background of terms such as "mad," "laughable," "loathsome," "disgusting," "contaminating," "wicked," "ignorant," and so forth, characteristic of ancient invective and freely applied by Christians to everything that was not also Christian.[/b] More to the fore were specific demands for aggressive action by fulminating synods or individual zealots, of whom I may pick out Firmicus Maternus in 346, adjuring the emperors, [b]"Little remains, before the Devil shall he utterly prostrate, overthrown by Your laws, and the lethal infection of a vanquished idolatry shall be no more . . . The favoring [i]numen[/i] of Christ has reserved for Your hands the annihilation of idolatry and the destruction of profane temples."[/b] Adjuration rises to a shout: [b]"Abolish! abolish in confidence, most holy emperors, the ornaments of temples . . . Upon You, most holy emperors, necessity enjoins the avenging and punishing of this evil . . . so that Your Severities persecute root and branch, [i]omnifariam[/i], the crime of idol worship. Harken and impress Your sacred minds what God commands regarding this crime"[/b] (and he goes on to work up Deut. 13.6-9. [b]"If they brother, son, daughter, or wife entice thee secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . thou shall surely kill them"[/b]).

MacMullen, 1997; pp.13-14

"Libanius directed an open oration [b]against the destruction of temples around Antioch,[/b] accepting the legal limits to the exercise of his faith but insisting that they had been complied with."

MacMullen, 1997; p.20

"At the end of the fourth century the bishops called in troops at various points east and west; [b]an imperial Procurator and Tribune of Soldiers used his men to destroy a gigantic Caelestis temple at Carthage in 421;[/b] but barbarian invasions in the west thereafter prevented cooperation of this sort until the end of the sixth century."

MacMullen, 1997; p.25[/quote]

The destruction of libraries by Christians.

[quote][b]The Destruction of Libraries and Book Burning[/b]

"Quite the contrary: at the very point of origin, back then in late antiquity, [u][b]both secular and ecclesiastical authorites repeatedly destroyed unedifying texts, in well advertised ceremonies, [/u]most obviously in sectarian disputes where rival claims for orthodoxy were pitted against each other; whereupon one of them along with its creeds and treatises would be declared heterodox by the other, [u]and measures would be taken to insure that no trace of its existence remained except, perhaps, what might be embedded in victorious disproofs and rejoinders. Non-Christian writings came in for this same treatment, that is, destruction in great bonfires at the center of the town square. Copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off."[/u][/b]

MacMullen, p.4

"And Jovian, influenced by his wife, [b]burned down a very nice temple established by the emperor Hadrian[/b] for the deification of his father Trajan, and [b]this temple had been made into a library by Julian for a eunuch named Theophilus, but Jovian burnt it down along with all its books, and the concubines[3] themselves set the fire as a joke.[/b] But the Antiochians got upset with the emperor and threw out some of the scrolls onto the ground so that whoever wanted could pick one out and read it, but they attached other scrolls to the walls.[4]"

John of Antioch, [i]Suda Online (http://www.stoa.org/sol/)[/i]

"From Alexandria, Severus and Zacharias removed to Beruit to study law. There they learned of the discreet paganism of certain leading citizens, whose servants and friends could be persuaded to expose and inform against them. The first victim of the Christians' efforts feel at their feet in terror, asserting his true Christian faith and lamenting what had only been a recent lapse from it. He convinced them of his sincerity and they let him off, but kept an eye on him. Their success encouraged them to form a small society, to elect a president, receive further denunciations, and bring charges against various fellow students before the bishop. [b]Public hearings held by the latter and the city Recorders culminated in a second bonfire, [u]this time of suspect books in the flight of the accused.[/u] One who fled was able to buy a safe return; a second was allowed back once he submitted to baptism."[/b]

MacMullen, 1997; p.26[/quote]

Outright murder.

[quote][b]The Murder, Torture, and Persecution of Scientists and Philosophers by Christians[/b]

"THERE was [b]a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. [/b]

On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. [b]Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, [u]whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them.[/u] This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church.[/b] And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius."

Socrates Scholasticus, [i]Ecclesiastical History,Bk VI: Chap. 15 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/hypatia.html)[/i]

"Men of their faith evidently could be dangerous. Therefore the pagans supporting Illous were pursued into their cities and severely punished (484/5). [b]In Alexandria, those arrested and tortured to extract the names of confederates included professor Horapollon. He endured interrogation in silence. Yet his school of rhetoric was closed through rioting instigated by the Patriarch, and, with other suspects, he retreated to a safer city, to Athens."[/b]

MacMullen, 1997; p.25

[/quote]

[Petr]

You think I couldn't fill this thread with spam as well, Fade?


Petr

[Keystone]

Christianity had its dull adherents, as well as some very great ones.

I'm comfortable with my faith. Atheists seem very bitter, on the whole. Moreso as they get older.

[Petr]

Christianity had it's dull adherents, as well as some very great ones.
Good point, Christianity's mass-calling (unlike with philosophy) makes that inevitable. Famous Scandinavian historian Carl Grimberg wrote that Julian the Apostate used to "judge paganism according to its best proponents and Christianity according to its worst proponents."


Petr

[Keystone]

Good point. Famous Scandinavian historian Carl Grimberg wrote that Julian the Apostate used to "judge paganism according to its best proponents and Christianity according to its worst proponents."


Petr
Well, that's how it seems to be played out by the atheists. Christianity is granted no quarter, even though it's been a unifying force for morality and charity over the centuries.

The ordinary Christian is overlooked also. The simple decency that comes from living a God-centered life is not something recorded in most history books, but it's shaped billions of lives over the years.

[Fade the Butcher]

You think I couldn't fill this thread with spam as well, Fade the Bitch?

This is your brain of Christianty. The church fathers attacked curiosity and praised simplicity. They rejected knowledge while glorifying ignorance. After the Christian fanatics got finished burning the libraries, demolishing the pagan temples, and persecuting, murdering, and torturing the philosophers and scientists of Late Antiquity, they destroyed the classical education system itself which had survived the barbarian invasions all across the West. It was no accident that the Europe was launched into the Dark Ages. That was the precisely the result that was intended.

"Instead, fourth-century Christian intellectuals set up in their writings a deliberately non-Classical anti-hero, the uneducated Christian Holy Man, who, despite not having passed through the hands of the grammarian, and despite characteristically abandoning the town for the desert, achieved heights of wisdom and virtue that went far beyond anything that could be learned from Homer or Virgil, or even from participating in self-government."

Heather, p.122

"Chrysostom, just like earlier bishops, vaunts the wisdom of the believing unlearned over the unbelieving learned; ridicules and rejects Plato and the other great names of the philosophic pantheon, just as Constantine had done; dismisses their teachings as mere cobwebs; and in the end approves only "rustics and ordinary folk." His is the cast of mind prevailing in the Byzantine world to come.

Where he lodges his trust is in the population that gave rise to the great exemplars of religious life in the fourth century and afterwards, made heroic in the person and biography of Saint Anthony. Of this time, the character was sketched earlier. It has been pronounced by Father Festugiere, no doubt our century's best authority on early eastern monasticism, as "anti-intellectual in tradition," suspicious of any refinement of argument or any elegance of expression, nor only not seeking human knowledge but glorying in its rejection, and for the most part illiterate, even lacking spoken Greek. A favorite moment in the life of such paragons, treasured by their biographers, provides an opportunity to confront the enemy, the learned believer (or occasionally pagan) who propounds subtle questions and is rebuked, discomfited made to look utterly foolish by the extreme simplicity of the ascetic's answers. The apparent loss of reason, and certain individuals among the monks called holy fools, are held up for admiration in that tradition."

MacMullen, p.89

[HrodbertPalatinus]

"Fade" is completely ignorant if he thinks Christianity is somehow uniquely destructive in its teaching on the ethical uselessness of secular wisdom. Long ago, Socrates and Plato virtuously combatted the decadent sophistic degradation of knowledge into empty empirical facts and worldly skills (see Eric Voegelin's Plato); Gautama Buddha, similarly, analyzed the obsession with endless contingent details and mundane speculation as "reflecting a state of restlessness or anguish, that is, the very state that must first be put behind him by one going along the 'path of the Ariya.'" (J. Evola, The Doctrine of Awakening, Chapter 4, Destruction of the Demon of Dialectics).

[Keystone]

"Fade" is completely ignorant if he thinks Christianity is somehow uniquely destructive in its teaching on the ethical uselessness of secular wisdom. Long ago, Socrates and Plato virtuously combatted the decadent sophistic degradation of knowledge into empty empirical facts and worldly skills (see Eric Voegelin's Plato); Gautama Buddha, similarly, analyzed the obsession with endless contingent details and mundane speculation as "reflecting a state of restlessness or anguish, that is, the very state that must first be put behind him by one going along the 'path of the Ariya.'" (J. Evola, The Doctrine of Awakening, Chapter 4, Destruction of the Demon of Dialectics).
Fade loves the State, and would like very much to Rule over the Common Man.

[Fade the Butcher]

"Fade" is completely ignorant if he thinks Christianity is somehow uniquely destructive in its teaching on the ethical uselessness of secular wisdom. Long ago, Socrates and Plato virtuously combatted the decadent sophistic degradation of knowledge into empty empirical facts and worldly skills

Neither Socrates or Plato ever murdered, persecuted, or tortured anyone out of religious fanaticism. Christianity is directly responsible for causing the Dark Ages. Christians like to blame this on the barbarians, but all across the Mediterranean the classical schools survived well into the sixth century and in some areas into the seventh century. They were systematically dismantled one by one as they were replaced with ecclesiastical schools which jettisoned the classical curriculum in favor of barbaric Christian texts.

[Petr]

Christianity is directly responsible for causing the Dark Ages.
Since Fade (due to his tremendous hidden insecurity) never voluntarily softens his stance or retracts anything, his claims tend to get progressively more and more brazen and extreme, until he begins to spout stuff like this.

Christians like to blame this on the barbarians, but all across the Mediterranean the classical schools survived well into the sixth century and in some areas into the seventh century.
Proof?

As Lindberg put it, if Christianity had not been around, the collapse of classical civilization would have been even more drastic. After all, the whole Mycenean civilization disappeared after the invasion of Sea Peoples.

See also here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html

They were systematically dismantled one by one as they were replaced with ecclesiastical schools which jettisoned the classical curriculum in favor of barbaric Christian texts.
They wouldn't have been if secular bigshots would have bothered (or had been able) to kick up some dough of their own.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Christianity had its dull adherents, as well as some very great ones. I'm comfortable with my faith. Atheists seem very bitter, on the whole. Moreso as they get older.

It saddens me to think of all those dark centuries wasted away on theology; the world that might have been if Christianity and Islam had never existed.

[Petr]

It saddens me to think of all those dark centuries wasted away on theology; the world that might have been if Christianity and Islam had never existed.
Once again, pampered modernist Fade takes the concept of progress for granted, and smuggles in teleological superstitions about "inevitable progress". He is simply scapegoating Christianity.

Without the energetic Christian impact, Greek paganism would have gone into the same purposeless dead-end cyclical worldview as China and India.


Petr

[Keystone]

It saddens me to think of all those dark centuries wasted away on theology; the world that might have been if Christianity and Islam had never existed.
What world? Immortal white folk jetting around on anti-grav cars, fucking all the time?

What is it that you expect from life?

[Petr]

What is it that you expect from life?
Fade was born into a family of wealth and ease, which causes him to have totally unrealistic expectations about life.

(And by application, to issue very unrealistic demands of "progress" for beaten-up cultures like Byzantium. A classic "let them at cake"-attitude, he is incapable of understanding empathy.)


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Since Fade (due to his tremendous hidden insecurity) never voluntarily softens his stance or retracts anything, his claims tend to get progressively more and more brazen and extreme, until he begins to spout stuff like this.

I have provided abundant evidence above that the church fathers, in their own words, violently rejected vain curiosity in favor of ignorance. The Dark Ages only look so abhorrent to our modern eyes which exalt reason, science, and progress. From the perspective of Christians like Tertullian, the deliberate rejection of all of this was wonderful. It is exactly what they set out to accomplish.

Proof?

"The rigorists, however, were not of the same mind. For them, paganism was still a religious force which the Christian must combat. Recent events had proved them correct: had not Theodoric, on the pretext of saving the antique heritage, set up statues and restored the temples "at the request of the several persons"? In 495, several Roman aristocrats wanted to restore the celebration of the Lupercalia in Rome according to the ancient ceremonial. During the siege of the city by Vitigis, some Romans wanted to reopen their temple of Janus. Magic and astrology still had their adherents. If Christians were to purify their faith, should not learned laymen and clergy point the way by purging their own works of any hint of paganism?

Furthermore, if the purification the rigorists sought was to be effected, scholars' works would have to be read and understood by great numbers of believers, not only by the educated. But the scholars could claim only a limited audience, and therefore the rigorists' complaint that classical religious culture was artificial was justified. Many, following Augustine's example, said that they preferred res to verba and preferred "to see themselves reprimanded by grammarians rather than misunderstood by the people. But while they affirmed in the prefaces of their works their intention to adopt rusticitas rather than sermo scholasticus, in practice it proved more difficult for them to abandon the intellectual habits they had developed in the rhetor's school and to adapt their writings and speeches for the popular public. But this failure was precisely the core of the problem: Christians had to preach a truth which would be accessible to everyone. This need was more acutely felt at the end of the fifth and at the beginning of the sixth centuries. More than ever, the old theme of "the Gospels preached to sinners and not to rhetors" was an extremely relevant one."

Pierre Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West in the Sixth Through Eighth Centuries (Columba: University of South Carolina Press, 1976, pp.89-90

As Lindberg put it, if Christianity had not been around, the collapse of classical civilization would have been even more drastic.

That argument is unpersuasive. It was Christianity that caused the collapse in the first place by deliberately rejecting the secular education system.

[Fade the Butcher]

What world? Immortal white folk jetting around on anti-grav cars, fucking all the time?

What is it that you expect from life?

Humans would probably be colonizing the galaxy right now if it were not for Christianity and Islam.

[Keystone]

Fade was born into a family of wealth and ease, which causes him to have totally unrealistic expectations about life.

(And by application, to issue very unrealistic demands of "progress" for beaten-up cultures like Byzantium. A classic "let them at cake"-attitude.)


Petr
I have noticed the elitest attitiude. Sort of being a god, because you don't acknowledge a higher power. There's a drive for perfection, but it isn't possible on your own---technology becomes god. That isn't perfect either, so....on it goes.

[Petr]

Humans would probably be colonizing the galaxy right now if it were not for Christianity and Islam.
What a load of bollocks. :rofl:

Thanks for showing us a glimpse of the juvenile sci-fi fantasies that influence your worldview and act as a religion-substitute for you.

But hey, you're the (ahem) impressionable person who copies his social policies from Hollywood flicks like Gattaca.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Once again, pampered modernist Fade takes the concept of progress for granted, and smuggles in teleological superstitions about "inevitable progress". He is simply scapegoating Christianity.

Christianity should be held accountable for its crimes against humanity.

Without the energetic Christian impact, Greek paganism would have gone into the same purposeless dead-end cyclical worldview as China and India.

This is the most absurd argument Petr has made in all these discussions. The ancient Hebrews accomplished virtually nothing in science and technology compared to the Greeks, Egyptians, and Babylonians. Byzantium was a stagnant backwater across its entire existence. Science only revived in the West after classical texts were rediscovered in the twelfth century.

[Keystone]

Humans would probably be colonizing the galaxy right now if it were not for Christianity and Islam.
Why is that good? Honestly. If Man is the highest power, all you're doing is reaching for higher Entertainment Value. There is no higher plane or purpose beyond the mundane. You're just looking to be amused.

[Fade the Butcher]

What a load of bollocks. Thanks for showing us a glimpse of the juvenile sci-fi fantasies that influence your worldview and act as a substitute-religion for you.

Just one example of this is the persecution of the alchemists for centuries by ignorant Christians who were convinced that chemistry was black magic practiced by witches and sorcerers. Thanks to Christianity, experimental science was repressed in Western Europe for almost five hundred years after its initial introduction.

[Petr]

There is no higher plane or purpose beyond the mundane. You're just looking to be amused.
The soft modernist smart-ass Fade is most certainly not made of same material as the dedicated religious men (and women) who built the foundations of Western culture with great spiritual inspiration.

Fade is closer to those Roman pagans who got their thrills from gladiatorial matches.


Petr

[Petr]

Thanks to Christianity, experimental science was repressed in Western Europe for almost five hundred years after its initial introduction.
Just what authorities besides White make such a claim? (And don't try to misrepresent people or put words to their mouths, as is your usual habit)


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

The soft modernist smart-ass Fade is most certainly not made of same material as the dedicated religious men (and women) who built the foundations of Western culture with great spiritual inspiration.

Your monks were actually the ones who tore it down.

[Keystone]

Just one example of this is the persecution of the alchemists for centuries by ignorant Christians who were convinced that chemistry was black magic practiced by witches and sorcerers. Thanks to Christianity, experimental science was repressed in Western Europe for almost five hundred years after its initial introduction.
So the suppression of alchemy, a superstition, held us back from the first moon-shot? That would have happened in 1469, instead of 1969?

[Petr]

Christianity should be held accountable for its crimes against humanity.
Fade is losing it. :nuts:


Petr

[Petr]

Your monks were actually the ones who tore it down.
Try some new soundbite, Don Impotenzo.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

So the suppression of alchemy, a superstition, held us back from the first moon-shot? That would have happened in 1469, instead of 1969?

Alchemy was not entirely worthless. Chemistry evolved out of alchemy in the seventeenth century when the religiously motivated persecutions finally began to ebb. The alchemists were using the experimental method.

[Petr]

Alchemy was not entirely worthless. Chemistry evolved out of alchemy in the seventeenth century when the religiously motivated persecutions finally began to ebb. The alchemists were using the experimental method.
Alchemists usually had highly religious (or occult) inspiration for their work. Pious Christian Robert Boyle was the key transitional figure in the transition to real chemistry.

Fade is practising deception by omission all the time, putting forward a simplistic, one-sided narrative like all mediocre propagandists do. What a transparent spiel.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Here is the "civilization" that Christianity brought to Byzantium:

"With these events the fifth century concludes. Times had become distinctly more difficult for even the wealthy and well placed if they persisted in the religion of their fathers; the pagan population as a whole had become more clearly a weak minority. Savage penalties were more loudly advertised by the impatient autocracy of the emperors, to offset the irremediable venality and favortism of their servants. The means of persecution available to the church thus had more of an edge.

Especially so under Justinian (527-665). A brutally energetic, or energetically brutal, ruler enjoying a very long reign, he pursued the goal of religious uniformity as no one before him. "He did not see it as murder if the victims did not share his own beliefs." Those he disagreed with he was likely to mutilate if he didn't behead or crucify them; and among a number of highly placed pagans who escaped baptism by suicide, at least one he pursued to the grave, and buried him like an animal; apostates, he declared, should be executed. Persecution came in waves, or at least it is so reported, toward the start of his reign, again in 545/6 and 562, and at the very end: "There was a great persecution of pagans, and many lost all their property . . . A great terror was aroused . . . with a deadline of three months to be converted." Troops were used to destroy the remotest temples still active as centers of worship, in Egypt; in the center of the realm, in Anatolia, "many straightaway went everywhere from place to place and tried to compel such persons as they met to change from their ancestral faith. And since such action seemed unholy to the farmer class, they all resolved to make a stand against those who brought this message. So, then, while many were being destroyed by the soldiers and many even made away with themselves, thinking in their folly that they were doing a most righteous thing, and while the majority of them, leaving their homelands, went into exile . . . " The account (which for a half page is directed to a particular group, heretics, against whom also, along with Jews in Palestine, the emperor's wrath was even more implacable than against pagans) returns at the end to the point at which it began: "He [Justinian] then carried the persecution to the 'Greeks,' as they are called . . . and any of them who had decided to take on merely the name of Christian, evading their present circumstances, were, most of them, soon arrested at their libations, sacifices and other unholy acts.

After Justinian's death there was a short lull in the course of persecution. Tiberius (578-582), however, was determined to take up the cause with vigor. Toward the beginning of his reign he ordered the local army commander at Baalbek-Heliopolis in Phoenicia, where the Christians were a miserable poor little community, to move in and teach the non-Christians some manners toward their scruffy neighbors. This charge the commander Theophilus, notorious for his savagery against the Jews in earlier years, most readily addressed, "and seized many of them and punished them as their impudence merited, humbling their pride and crucifying and killing them." When their like were denounced "in every region and city of the east, especially Antioch," he proceeded against these populations, too, summoning the high priest of Antioch to him at Edessa. The old man killed himself, but his elderly associates were terrified into denouncing as his fellow worshiper no less than Anatolius, the vice-prefect, provincial governor, and apparently a senator as well. Anatolius was therefore reprimanded to the Constantinopolitan court. tried and found guilty, tortured, torn up by wild beasts and then crucified, while his aide died of tortures."

MacMullen, pp.26-28

[HrodbertPalatinus]

Humans would probably be colonizing the galaxy right now if it were not for Christianity and Islam.

Witness the inverted pseudo-religious faith of modern rationalist utopianism. Modern man has trashed traditional Christianity, so the idea of Heaven is unconsciously distorted to the lowest level and now modern man pseudo-religiously yearns to "conquer Space" as the surrogate for the contemplative experience of Heaven. The meaning of human achievement is parodied. "Interstellar communications", UFOS, etc. are the new pseudo-religious idols of rationalist utopianism. Colonizing the galaxy would not help man discover anything about himself. Our most important goals as human beings do not lie in space, and the way to them is not a material way. Christianity teaches that God is transcendent of space and time. Intelligent pagans like Pindar and Plotinus knew as much:

"One would not find the road, worthy of admiration, which leads to the main place of assembly of the Hyperboreans, even if one traveled on sea or on land."

"Let us flee to the beloved Fatherland." Here is sound counsel. But what is this flight? How are we to "gain the open sea"? Here is no journeying for the feet; feet bring us only from land to land. Nor is it for coach or ship to bear us off. We must close our eyes and invoke a new manner of seeing, a wakefulness that is the birthright of all of us, though few put it to use. (Plotinus, Enneads, I, 6, 8)

[Macrobius]

Christianity should be held accountable for its crimes against humanity.


On your premises, you may have trouble finding a judge who is not also party to the dispute.

[Petr]

On your premises, you may have trouble finding a judge who is not also party to the dispute.
Yup - just like with Dawkins wanting to criminalize the religious upbringing of children, Fade's sheer irrational hatred simply bursted out of its pseudo-rationalist cocoon and showed its ugly totalitarian face.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Witness the inverted pseudo-religious faith of modern rationalist utopianism. Modern man has trashed traditional Christianity, so the idea of Heaven is unconsciously distorted to the lowest level and now modern man pseudo-religiously yearns to "conquer Space" as the surrogate for the contemplative experience of Heaven. The meaning of human achievement is parodied. "Interstellar communications", UFOS, etc. are the new pseudo-religious idols of rationalist utopianism. Colonizing the galaxy would not help man discover anything about himself. Our most important goals as human beings do not lie in space, and the way to them is not a material way. Christianity teaches that God is transcendent of space and time.

Finally, an honest Christian. The church fathers denigrated "vain curiosity" as the "sin of pride." We moderns unabashedly celebrate the "curious art" and evaluate other cultures on that basis. The church fathers rejected knowledge for ignorance. We celebrate the demise of ignorance and the advance of knowledge. For centuries, Christians rejected this world in favor of an imaginary one. We reject the supernatural for the natural world. For centuries, Christians subordinated reason to faith. We subordinate faith to reason. The church fathers attached little value to knowledge of the natural world. We moderns glorify our science as our greatest accomplishment. You Christians thump your Bibles and lecture us about "fallen man." We moderns see man emerging from primitive tribes and soaring to ever new heights. For centuries, Christians spoke of the heavens, but we have explored them. The modern spirit could not possibly be more alien to Christianity: to shed our ignorance, cast off all imperfections, and become as gods amongst men.

Note: You're right. If our culture was running off Christianity alone, exploring the stars, curing disease, and countless other things we consider positive would never have been posited as goals. So please, know thyself, and drop the pretense that Christianity is responsible for the modern world.

[Fade the Butcher]

Alchemists usually had highly religious (or occult) inspiration for their work. Pious Christian Robert Boyle was the key transitional figure in the transition to real chemistry.

Boyle's accomplishment was made possible the mechanistic philosophy, atomic theory of matter, and the experimental method -- none of which owe anything to Christianity. Modern chemistry would have probably arrived centuries earlier had it not been for the demonization of chemistry by the Church and the persecution of alchemists as sorcerers.

Fade is practising deception by omission all the time, putting forward a simplistic, one-sided narrative like all mediocre propagandists do. What a transparent spiel.

The narrative does look rather one sided, but that is not my fault. Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have written gospels, say, that praise physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Paul could have celebrated reason instead of faith. Genesis could have been about a spherical earth billions of years old in orbit of the sun. Augustine and the church fathers could have praised science and encouraged investigation of the natural world. There is ample room in the Bible that could have been filled with all sorts of valuable information from an omniscient god. The Catholic Church could have embraced Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, and so on. Protestant fundamentalists like yourself could have embraced Darwin. That's simply not what happened.

[Petr]

Modern chemistry would have probably arrived centuries earlier had it not been for the demonization of chemistry by the Church and the persecution of alchemists as sorcerers.
Bullshit speculation. If anything, the natural selection imposed by the church weeded out occultist rubbish from the practice and thus purified it. Are marine recruits "persecuted" by their drill instructors?

Fade has no background in science at all. His ideas and expectations of what scientific progress could or should have been in the Middle Ages are guided by childish modernist Jetsonesque daydreams.

Sulla used to mock him:

Fade has a tendancy to go to extremes whenever he 'learns' something. He used to be saying:

Reality is objective? Also, experience is the source of knowledge, not reason.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=111337&page=2&highlight=Christianity

Which contradicts his current theory that Medieval Europe could have created rocket ships if pagan Rome hadn't made a secret pact with the early Christian church to prevent space travel. :rofl:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=90102#post90102

Little did I know that Fade was actually preposterous enough to really believe something like that.


It's also quite shameless (but oh so routine) hypocrisy for Fade to put forward an antiquated apologist for secularism like White, but to reject eminently qualified scholar like Stanley Jaki as an "apologist." (Grant isn't ashamed to cite him.)

I have just gotten hold of a splendid book by Jaki - Science and Creation: from eternal cycles to an oscillating universe

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Creation-Eternal-Oscillating-Universe/dp/0707304601

This book really puts science in proper theological prespective. If I were as insecure as you, I could flood the threads with spam from it.

The narrative does look rather one sided, but that is not my fault. Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have written gospels, say, that praise physics, chemistry, and mathematics.
What an unspeakably crass person you are. I wouldn't want my supreme religious guide to aim its primary focus on such vulgar matters.


And what we have seen from you in last few weeks has been one grotesque parody of scholarship - wild cherry-picking of sources (of varying quality) guided by ever-more-rabid bias. No discerning person will ever mistake you as a serious commentator anymore.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

From that one SF thread you linked to Petr, Fades states this:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=846773&postcount=15

"There never would have been a 'scientific method' if it had not been for the Rule of St. Benedict. Science, as we know it, is absolutely unthinkable without William of Ockham, Robert Grosseteste, and above all Roger Bacon. Western Christendom and Western Civilization are the same thing too, the latter having grown out of the former."

Im find it amazing Fade is capable of so many remarkable 180s and still be able to live with himself.

[Petr]

We moderns see man emerging from primitive tribes and soaring to ever new heights. For centuries, Christians spoke of the heavens, but we have explored them. The modern spirit could not possibly be more alien to Christianity: to shed our ignorance, cast off all imperfections, and become as gods amongst men.
Take your bets, folks! How many corny progressivist clichés can Fade (the non-scientist) spurt out in one breath?


Petr

[Petr]

Im find it amazing Fade is capable of so many remarkable 180s and still be able to live with himself.
All it takes is some flexible prostitute-spirit.


Petr

[Petr]

Now it has come time to give Fade a little lesson in Christian theology.

From the very beginning, there have been basically two kinds of Christians - we shall call them "pietists" and "triumphalists".

Apostle Paul famously compared such "weak brothers" and "strong brothers":

Romans 14:

14:1
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
14:2
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
14:3
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
14:6
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.


The basic attitude of pietists is that Christians must not let themselves be defiled by pagan ideas or attitudes. They're the "this glass is half empty", pessimistic part of Christendom. Their escapist attitudes are often strengthened by nasty social conditions, like the ones that existed during the Dark Ages.

But there are also the triumphalists. (I am pretty much one of them) The ones who believe that Christians need not fear pagan defilement too much, and that they could and should take the best parts of pagan learning (which are products of natural revelation anyways, common property to mankind) and make it into even something more praiseworthy.

Their basic slogan is: "whatever pagans do, Christians can do better!"


But guess what? Both pietists and triumphalists are brothers in Christ all the same. Their conflict is a classic case of family dispute. Just because Roger Bacon was opposed by pietistic Christians doesn't change the fact that he himself was a pious Christian.


Like all truly great movements, Christianity is a source of huge energy that can manifest itself in many very different forms. Only naivë essentialists imagine that just because Christianity has inspired some non-scientific or even anti-scientific schools of thought, it couldn't have also inspired some very pro-scientific attitudes.

(In the similar manner, Greek philosophy could produce both exaltation of mathematics by Pythagoras and the nihilistic denial of truth by Gorgias or Platonic academicians.)

Like Lynn White and many others have observed, (even more than Hermeticism) Biblical doctrine can be interpreted as proclaiming the sovereign rule of spiritually reformed Adam over the earth.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA6-69White.html

Fade himself used to argue that the doctrine of humanistic omnipotence originates from Christianity! :rolleyes:


Petr

[Macrobius]

Im find it amazing Fade is capable of so many remarkable 180s and still be able to live with himself.

180 degrees... reversal... hmm....

I'm a god... no wait I'm a dog, that's it... woof, woof .... no wait, I know....

[Fade the Butcher]

Im find it amazing Fade is capable of so many remarkable 180s and still be able to live with himself.

This is coming from a Christian with Nietzsche as his avatar. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

Take your bets, folks! How many corny progressivist clichés can Fade (the non-scientist) spurt out in one breath?


Petr

Is it not odd how Petr insists that modern science stems from Christianity while simultaneously and emphatically rejecting its conclusions? Where should we start? Astronomy? Geology? Biology?

[Petr]

Is it not odd how Petr insists that modern science stems from Christianity while simultaneously and emphatically rejecting its conclusions?
Yawn, we've seen that soundbite-strawman already. "Modern science" is a meaningless, vague abstraction.

I do agree with "modern science" on many fundamental issues, like that the universe in not eternal or cyclical and that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

This is coming from a Christian with Nietzsche as his avatar. :p

Hmmmn....you didnt complain when jcs had one.

[Boleslaw]

Anyways....I recently came across this interesting quote:

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
--Pope John Paul II

[Fade the Butcher]

Bullshit speculation. If anything, the natural selection imposed by the church weeded out occultist rubbish from the practice and thus purified it. Are marine recruits "persecuted" by their drill instructors?

It is no coincidence that modern chemistry emerged towards the end of the seventeenth century. The witch craze and the religious fanaticism of the Reformation that culminated in the Thirty Years War ebbed after the middle of the seventeenth century. Alchemy finally evolved into chemistry once the influence of Christianity began to recede in European life post Westphalia. Chemistry made more progress in the eighteenth century alone than it had made in all the darkness of the Middle Ages. Petr's argument is ridiculous. If religious persecution of alchemists was required to turn alchemy into chemistry, then the golden age of chemistry should have been centuries earlier, not during the eighteenth and, god forbid, the nineteenth century.

Fade has no background in science at all. His ideas and expectations of what scientific progress could or should have been in the Middle Ages are guided by childish modernist Jetsonesque daydreams.

Petr has argued that modern science emerged only after it was "transmuted" by Christianity. Actually, the decline of science coincides exactly with the triumph of Christianity after the fourth century and its revival with the abandonment of the handmaiden doctrine after the fourteenth century.

Sulla used to mock him:

Sulla has always enjoyed creating hysterical straw man arguments and attributing them to others.

Little did I know that Fade was actually preposterous enough to really believe something like that.It's also quite shameless (but oh so routine) hypocrisy for Fade to put forward an antiquated apologist for secularism like White, but to reject eminently qualified scholar like Stanley Jaki as an "apologist." (Grant isn't ashamed to cite him.)

He is a religious apologist and his arguments are absurd. The church fathers knew very well that the root of science is not Christianity. Rather, it is what Tertullian, Augustine, Lactantius, Tatian and others denounced over and over again as "vain curiosity," "the wisdom of the wise," and the "curious art." Their favorite example was Thales falling into the well while gazing at the heavens. They reasoned correctly that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake was dangerous to Christianity and that scientific progress would undermine the authority of Scripture and interfere with their project of salvation. Their solution to this problem was to heap scorn upon rationality, curiosity, philosophy, and science while celebrating ignorance, simplicity, silence, and faith in their place. The result was the Dark Ages.

I have just gotten hold of a splendid book by Jaki - Science and Creation: from eternal cycles to an oscillating universe This book really puts science in proper theological prespective. If I were as insecure as you, I could flood the threads with spam from it.

By all means, please post excerpts from this book. I would love to see Jaki explain why the ancient Hebrews, Byzantines, and the Christian West for over a thousand years contributed virtually nothing to science compared to the ancient Greeks. The Mayans also suscribed to the notion of cyclical time, but their accomplishments in astronomy and mathematics far exceed those the ancient Hebrews. The Chinese, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Babylonians, and Egyptians all made more notable contributions to science, mathematics, and technology than the ancient Hebrews.

What an unspeakably crass person you are. I wouldn't want my supreme religious guide to aim its primary focus on such vulgar matters.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! You mean "profane sciences," right?

And what we have seen from you in last few weeks has been one grotesque parody of scholarship - wild cherry-picking of sources (of varying quality) guided by ever-more-rabid bias. No discerning person will ever mistake you as a serious commentator anymore.

Notice how Petr evades my previous response. If the Bible was truly a document that inspired modern science, its contents would be radically different. Such an amazing source of wisdom, from the creator of the universe himself, would be a treasure chest of scientific information without peer and would be cited again and again by working scientists in every field in our own times. The same is true of the church fathers. Their attitude towards natural philosophy ranged from outright rejection (Lactantius, Tatian, Augustine, Gregory the Great) to utilitarian exploitation (Clement, Justin Martyr). It was, on balance, broadly negative.

The glorification of mathematics and experimentation that made modern science possible is alien to Christianity. It comes from other sources. Christians associated mathematics with occult Pythagorean numerology and experimental science with demonic sorcerers and magicians practicing black magic. The rise of Christianity coincided with a horrific growth in innumeracy in Western Europe. The revival of mathematics in the West is no great mystery. Gerbert, Adelard of Bath, Fibonacci and others either went to the Islamic world themselves or acquired translations of Arabic texts. The recovery of the Platonic corpus in the Late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance can be directly linked to the emergence of modern science in the Early Modern Era. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were carrying on the Pythagorean tradition in their search for mathematical harmonies lurking behind observable phenomena.

[Petr]

More personal opinions and verbose rhetoric from Fade. We'll see if there's anything worth answering amidst all that useless chatter.

Anyways, Rodney Stark had a great citation from Chinese scholars in his latest book - a nice "outsider's opinion":


Near the end of his book, he quotes from a study group of Chinese scholars who have been trying for at least two decades to figure out the success of the West, as compared with China itself and Islamic culture:

One of the things that we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24291/pub_detail.asp


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Yawn, we've seen that soundbite-strawman already. "Modern science" is a meaningless, vague abstraction. I do agree with "modern science" on many fundamental issues, like that the universe in not eternal or cyclical and that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible.


Petr

Modern science is a euphemism for "non-Aristotelian science." In astronomy, this refers to the shift away from the geocentric universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and Kepler. In physics, this refers to classical mechanics, pioneered by Galileo and Newton. In chemistry, this refers to the rehabilitation of the atomic theory of matter and the rejection of the four elements. In geology, this refers to the rejection of the Biblical account in favor of a much older earth by Buffon, Lyell, and others. In biology, this refers to the rejection of creation for evolution. In medicine, this refers to the critiques of Galen in the sixteenth century by Paracelsus, Harvey, and others.

[Petr]

He is a religious apologist and his arguments are absurd.
Please notice that windbag Fade knows hardly anything yet about Jaki's arguments, but already thinks himself capable of declaring them as "absurd". What a joke, and shows how Fade is constantly bluffing.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

More personal opinions and verbose rhetoric from Fade. We'll see if there's anything worth answering amid all that useless chatter.

In other words, Petr has no response.

Anyways, Rodney Stark had a great citation from Chinese scholars in his latest book - a nice "outsider's opinion":

As we have seen, Stark is an unreliable source. He is not even an authority on the subject. The most detailed comparative analysis of Chinese, Western, and Islamic science is Toby Huff's The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West. Stark himself cites Huff in For the Glory of God but ignores his conclusions. The Chinese and Arabs were superior to the Christian West in science and technology well into the High Middle Ages. The problem with Chinese science was not the absence of Christianity. It was the absence of the Greek scientific tradition. Similarly, the decline of science in the Islamic world after the twelfth century and in Europe from the fourth to the twelfth centuries was caused by the rejection of Greek science by Islamic and Christian fundamentalists.

[Petr]

In other words, Petr has no response.
No, Fade. I have responses in abundance. It's just that your mere (thoroughly bigoted) personal opinions, when not accompanied by expert support, are hardly worth a snooze.

As we have seen, Stark is an unreliable source.
Stark is a way better source than antiquated rubbish like A.D. White from whom you have graced us with huge-ass spams.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Please notice that windbag Fade knows hardly anything yet about Jaki's arguments, but already thinks himself capable of declaring them as "absurd". What a joke, and shows how Fade is constantly bluffing.


Petr

The notion that a linear view of time is somehow necessary to inspire curiosity in the natural world and modern science by extension is ridiculous and easily refuted. The ancient Hebrews, unlike the ancient Greeks, contributed nothing to science. The Byzantines contributed nothing to science. The Christian West contributed nothing to science for over twelve centuries. This argument is easily turned upside down. It was precisely the Christian belief that the end of the world is imminent and that the salvation of eternal souls was the overriding priority before the rapidly approaching Apocalypse that caused the turning away to theology and the decline of science in the first place. Also, the church fathers denounced the Greek philosophers for that very reason -- their vain curiosity in the natural world, and their disinterest in their message of salvation! Finally, "linear time" is nonsense from the perspective of science. General Relativity holds that time is part of the fabric of space which is warped by the gravitational fields of large bodies like the sun.

[Petr]

The notion that a linear view of time is somehow necessary to inspire curiosity in the natural world and modern science by extension is ridiculous and easily refuted.
Bhah. Your flapping of gums refutes exactly nothing. All you prove here is your own presumptious ridiculousness.

See Fade, more and more people are learning not to pay too serious attention to your insincere lawyerly blather.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

No, Fade. I have responses in abundance. It's just that your mere (thoroughly bigoted) personal opinions, when not accompanied by expert support, are hardly worth a snooze.

Petr is enunciating a new doctrine here that he doesn't have to respond to my arguments. He must be approaching the end of his rope.

Stark is a way better source than antiquated rubbish like A.D. White from whom you have graced us with huge-ass spams.

No one who has read either book would honestly compare Stark's For the Glory of God to White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. I have both right here on my desk. The latter was one of the most influential books in the history of science ever written. It is an enormous book filled with copious citations of original sources. In contrast, For the Glory of God only addresses the subject of Christianity and science in a single chapter and refers almost exclusively to secondary sources.

[Fade the Butcher]

Bhah. Your flapping of gums refutes exactly nothing. All you prove here is your own presumptious ridiculousness. See Fade, more and more people are learning not to pay too serious attention to your insincere lawyerly blather.

In a single stroke, Petr has refuted the flapping gums of Albert Einstein!

[Petr]

And here's one response: one should be careful not to make anachronistic evaluations about the nature of medieval scholarship, as Grant seems to be doing - even while he is not clearly the anti-Christian you try to make him look like.


From Knowledge and the Sciences in Medieval Philosophy: proceedings of the eighth international congress of medieval philosophy, Helsinki 24-29 August 1987:

p. 274

If, then, philosophia and modern philosophy are so unlike, study of the autonomy of philosophia in the Middle Ages cannot be used - as many historians of medieval thought have tried to use it - to establish the claim that their material is "truly philosophy" and that they are truly historians of philosophy". Rather, it should make them aware of the dangers of assuming that the organization of knowledge in past times will conform to modern expectations, and lead them to reflect on the problems posed by the very notion of the "history of philosophy". 31


Petr

[Petr]

Petr is enunciating a new doctrine here that he doesn't have to respond to my arguments. He must be approaching the end of his rope.
Don't make me laugh. You're just trying to childishly tease me into wasting unreasonable amounts of time with your tedious rhetoric.

The latter was one of the most influential books in the history of science ever written.
Undeservedly and unfortunately.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Anyways....I recently came across this interesting quote:

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
--Pope John Paul II

Perun,

I will be the first to admit that Christianity has come a long way in the last two thousand years. The Catholic Church is no longer the obstacle to science that it was for over a thousand years. Catholics have even gone so far as to embrace Darwinism and warrant praise in that respect. Similarly, the Anglican communion is now broadly supportive of science. The old war against science is now carried on mostly by Protestant fundamentalists like Petr who stick to Biblical literalism.

[Petr]

In a single stroke, Petr has refuted the flapping gums of Albert Einstein!
What has Einstein got to do with this? I didn't see you citing him.


Petr

[Petr]

Perun,

I will be the first to admit that Christianity has come a long way in the last two thousand years. The Catholic Church is no longer the obstacle to science that it was for over a thousand years. Catholics have even gone so far as to embrace Darwinism and warrant praise in that respect. Similarly, the Anglican communion is now broadly supportive of science. The old war against science is now carried on mostly by Protestant fundamentalists like Petr who stick to Biblical literalism.
Fade tries transparent "divide and conquer"-trick. :nopity:

All decent people should unite against sleazy shysters like you and drive you out of town, metaphorically speaking.


Petr

[Petr]

Alchemy finally evolved into chemistry once the influence of Christianity began to recede in European life post Westphalia.
And again - does any modern scholar (besides antiquated bigot White) support this crude interpretation?

Far more likely, without Christian opposition to animism and pantheism, alchemy would have remained alchemy forever.


Christian theology enabled men like Boyle to combine the best parts of Platonism with best parts of atomism into a harmonious whole.


From Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by R. Hooykaas:

pp. 13-15

From the standpoint of adherents of the ancient religion of nature, the Christians and the Epicureans alike were "atheists". In the same way in the seventeenth century the adherents of the old Aristotelian school considered that mechanical philosophy would necessarily lead to atheism; whereas, on the other hand, some of the Christian protagonists of the "new philosophy" (Beeckman, Basso, Gassendi, Boyle) looked favourably upon the Epicureans. Boyle thought that the doctrine of "matter and motion" gave more honour to God than the doctrine of "nature" gave to Him, and that Aristotle did more damage to religion than did Epicurus. (31) At the same time he recognized that Epicurus and Lucretius set up, instead of the one God they rejected, an infinity of gods, the atoms, to which they attributed such divine properties as eternity and sovereignty. That is, he considered the difference between his and Epicurus's philosophy to be greater than the affinity. Here Boyle was right indeed, and not only from the religious but also from the scientific standpoint. Ancient atomism shared with mechanical philosophy the belief that change comes about through matter and motion, but atomism did not recognize design in nature. A mechanism, however, is a product of design. So the concept of the world as a a machine not only excluded the organistic naturalism of Aristotle, but also the materialism of Epicurus. The image of a machine is connected with that of a maker apart from itself, that is with the theistic faith in a transcendent God. The man who compares the world with the clock of Strasburg, said Boyle, could accept a God as a creator and sustainer of it. (32)

The element of design in mechanistic philosophy does not arise from the "natures" of things, but from the properties which God endowed them. These properties may perhaps even lead to "Forms" different from any manifested hitherto. Mechanistic philosophy also recognized final causes, but these were considered to belong to another level than that of pure physics - the end to which a clock had been made did not explain its behavior. Teleology in mechanical philosophy is on a higher level than physical theory. Whereas a living organism suggests the idea of a immanent final cause (the maintenance of the life of the individual), a machine finds its reason for being in the plan of its maker and outside itself. A world organism has been generated; a world mechanism has been fabricated. That is why the latter fits in more suitably witha biblical view of the world. (33) So seventeenth century mechanistic philosophy was not a new compromise of Christianity, this time with ancient materialism instead of ancient organicism or idealism, but rather a step towards the Christianization and the emancipation of natural science. Neither the de-deification of the world by the materialists, nor the rationalization of the world by the idealists, has been able to find the right pattern for science. Evidently, the mechanization of the world picture (a radical de-deification in the biblical sense) ws necessary to do this.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

And here's one response: one should be careful not to make anachronistic evaluations about the nature of medieval scholarship, as Grant seems to be doing - even while he is not clearly the anti-Christian you try to make him look like.

What we call the "Middle Ages" is really three distinct periods: the Dark Ages (500-1000 A.D.), the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 A.D.), and finally the Late Middle Ages (1300-1450). The Dark Ages was a period of stagnation and decline. Edward Grant doesn't hestitate to call this period for what it was: a "scientific dark age." The latter two were periods of revival, recovery, and progress in many areas. The only "philosopher," so to speak, throughout the entire period of the Dark Ages in the West was the Irish monk John Scotus Erigena who seems to have come out of nowhere. His case is especially revealing for exceptions tell us quite a lot about the rule. It just so happens that Erigena spoke Greek and was inspired by the Neoplatonists. The Irish Church was out of sync of Rome throughout much of this period which explains the unusual interest in the "profane sciences" there. The Irish exception is further evidence of the linkage between the decline of philosophy in the Dark Ages and the Catholic Church. It is further evidence that Christianity minus the Greek tradition is worthless.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade tries transparent "divide and conquer"-trick. :nopity: All decent people should unite against sleazy shysters like you and drive you out of town, metaphorically speaking.


Petr

The established churches cringe in horror at the prospect of being associated with people like you. Their sordid past is something they would much rather put behind them. I can't say that I blame them given your theories about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

[Fade the Butcher]

What has Einstein got to do with this? I didn't see you citing him.


Petr

The case of Einstein makes a farce out of your claims about linear time and curiosity in the natural world.

[Petr]

The case of Einstein makes a farce out of your claims about linear time and curiosity in the natural world.
a) Fade now tries to set me up against Einstein. How, exactly?

b) more weaselly quibbling as Fade talks about "curiosity in the natural world" - I never used that term.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Don't make me laugh. You're just trying to childishly tease me into wasting unreasonable amounts of time with your tedious rhetoric.

Petr seems to have finally acknowledged that argument is pointless given his circular reasoning.

Undeservedly and unfortunately.

White's various claims are not necessarily wrong. The major criticism of White is that the conflict thesis doesn't encompass the relationship between Christianity and science in its entirety.

[Fade the Butcher]

a) Fade now tries to set me up against Einstein. How, exactly?

Einstein rejected both linear time and the claim that interest in the natural world depends upon the existence of a personal god.

b) more weaselly quibbling as Fade talks about "curiosity in the natural world" - I never used that term.

Does Petr even understand the claims made by the various scholars he has cited?

[Fade the Butcher]

Do you mean gutless apostates like Bishop Spong?


Petr

Which sect of Christianity is the correct one? I don't recall ever telling us. What form of Christianity do you subscribe to?

[Petr]

Edward Grant happens to disagree with Fade's stupid, extremist claim (that he made out of sheer spitefulness) that Christian theology didn't make any contributions to scientific progress.

His books are clearly not aimed at vicious Christ-haters like Fade - even though if he is too secularist for my taste.


The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages by Edward Grant

p. 196

Natural impossibilities were derived largely from the concept of God's absolute power as embodied in the Condemnation of 1277. Counterfactuals allowed the imagination to soar. In the Middle Ages, such thinking resulted in conclusions that challenged aspects of Aristotle's physics. ...

One of the most fruitful ideas that passed from the Middle Ages to the seventeenth century was that God could annihilate matter and leave behind a vacuum. For example, John Locke based his argument for the existence of three-dimensional void space on the assumption that God could annihilate any part of matter. ... In a similar, though somewhat more complicated, manner, Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), a French philosopher, also concluded that an infinite, three-dimensional void space existed. He demonstrated the validity of this claim in stages, by imagining the supernatural annihilation of all matter first within the sublunar region, then in the celestial region beyond the moon, and, finally, in a world that he imagined was becoming successively larger and larger.


Btw, this particular idea was definitely in conflict with ancient Greek thought - classical expert Walter Burkert has written that ever since Parmenides, one of the defining ideas of Greek philosophy was that matter could not be destroyed, that "we cannot annihilate the smallest piece of refuse."


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

And again - does any modern scholar (besides antiquated bigot White) support this crude interpretation?

This will require another trip to the library. I will see what I can turn up.

Far more likely, without Christian opposition to animism and pantheism, alchemy would have remained alchemy forever.

Nonsense. If persecuting alchemists had anything to do with the emergence of modern chemistry, then it would have emerged centuries earlier. It was only after the persecution ended and religious fanaticism ebbed that progress in chemistry could finally proceed.

Christian theology enabled men like Boyle to combine the best parts of Platonism with best parts of atomism into a harmonious whole.

The mechanical philosophy and atomism had both already triumphed before the time of Boyle and Newton. They were introduced to these theories at college. Boyle is famous for using the experimental method to demonstrate that chemical properties can be explained mechanically. His methods owe absolutely nothing to Christianity. The only role "Christian theology" played in this was in inspiring the repression of the mechanical philosophy and atomism for almost seventeen hundred years. Christians found the materialism of the ancient atomists especially distasteful which is why their writings haven't come down to us.

[Fade the Butcher]

Edward Grant happens to disagree with Fade's stupid, extremist claim (that he made out of sheer spitefulness) that Christian theology didn't make any contributions to scientific progress.His books are clearly not aimed at vicious Christ-haters like Fade - even though if he is too secularist for my taste.

I'm not sure where Petr retrieved this excerpt, but he is distorting Grant. Grant is referring to the various "thought experiments" that were done "according to the imagination" by Scholastics. They were merely hypotheses, not claims of fact. For example, if God is omnipotent, then he could create a vacuum by moving the planet earth out of its place in a rectilinear motion, which is impossible according to Aristotle. Such counterfactuals play no role in modern science. Why this is so is easy enough to see: an omnipotent god could turn a man into a chicken, reverse the order of the planets, turn the earth into a fireball, or do any number of impossible things that violate any natural law. None of this magical thinking proves or demonstrates anything. A scientific theory postulates what cannot happen. I'm looking at the book right now. Grant states on the very same page (which is excised by Petr) that "the novel replies that emerged from the physics and cosmologies of counterfactuals did not cause the overthrow of the Aristotelian worldview, but they did challenge some of its fundamental principles." Indeed, Aristotle was not overthrown by the Scholastics. Aristotelianism remained dominant in the universities into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Btw, this particular idea was definitely in conflict with ancient Greek thought - classical expert Walter Burkert has written that ever since Parmenides, one of the defining ideas of Greek philosophy was that matter could not be destroyed, that "we cannot annihilate the smallest piece of refuse."

The existence of the void is an old doctrine that goes back to Epicurus and the atomists. The Greeks were at odds with themselves on any number of issues. Epicurus also asserted the existence of an infinity of worlds in infinite space. He believed that the heavens and earth were made up of the same substances. As for Gassendi, he inferred the existence of the void from Torricelli's famous experiment. Finally, the notion that space is filled with a mysterious substance known as aether was current well into the twentieth century.

[Petr]

I'm not sure where Petr retrieved this excerpt, but he is distorting Grant. Grant is referring to the various "thought experiments" that were done "according to the imagination" by Scholastics. They were merely hypotheses, not claims of fact.
You're just throwing lawyerly spin and hand-waving to distort the obvious. Once again you prove that you're an insecure ninny who is unable to admit of having been wrong.

Can everyone see why Fade is such an unworthy opponent? No proof given is ever enough if he isn't in the mood for concessions. He just keeps demanding more evidence.


Petr

[Petr]

His methods owe absolutely nothing to Christianity. The only role "Christian theology" played in this was in inspiring the repression of the mechanical philosophy and atomism for almost seventeen hundred years.
I am dealing with an irrational extremist. Fade refuses to give Christianity its proper credit out of sheer malicious hatred.


Petr

[Petr]

Nonsense. If persecuting alchemists had anything to do with the emergence of modern chemistry, then it would have emerged centuries earlier.
Stupid non sequitur. Fade's philosophical training is as shabby as his scientific capabilities.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

You're just throwing lawyerly spin and hand-waving to distort the obvious. Once again you prove that you're an insecure ninny who is unable to admit or hving been wrong.

Grant makes that clear on the page you quoted from. Do you have the book? Nevermind, I will transcribe from it for your benefit:

"The widespread assumption of "natural impossibilities," or counterfactuals, or, as they are sometimes called, "though experiments," as described in chapters 5 and 7, was a significant aspect of medieval methodology. A hypothetical occurence would have been considered "naturally impossible" if it were thought inconceivable within the accepted framework of Aristotelian physics and cosmology. Natural impossibilities were derived largely from the concept of God's absolute power as embodied in the Condemnation of 1277. Counterfactuals allowed the imagination to sour. In the Middle Ages, such thinking resulted in conclusions that challenged aspects of Aristotle's physics. Whereas Aristotle had shown that other worlds were impossible, medieval scholastics showed not only that other worlds were possible but that they would be compatible with our world. The novel replies that emerged from the physics and cosmology or counterfactuals did not cause the overthrow of the Aristotelian worldview, but they did challenge some of its fundamental principles."

Grant, Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, p.196

^^ See, I told you so.

Can everyone see why Fade is such an unworthy opponent? No proof given is ever enough if he isn't in the mood for concessions. He just keeps demanding more evidence.

Your major claim has been that modern science was created by the Scholastics who "transmuted" Greek natural philosophy. This is absurd. Do you know anything about the subject? The scholastics didn't overthrow Aristotelianism at all. Aristotelianism, in the guise of Scholasticism, remained DOMINANT in the universities into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The transformation occurred in the Early Modern Era, not the Middle Ages.

In astronomy, the Scholastics stuck to the geocentric universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In chemistry, they clung to the four elements. In physics, they criticized Aristotle and formulated the theory of impetus, but impetus WAS NOT classical mechanics. In biology, they never moved beyond creationism. In geology, they stuck to the old theory of a young earth derived from Genesis. They even stuck to Aristotle's scientific method of deductive syllogisms.

[Petr]

I haven't been able to reach the piece by Lindberg that this excerpt cites:


A Scientific Theology: Volume I Nature by Alister E. McGrath

p. 7

Some, such as the thirteenth-century writer Roger Bacon, brought all together in a coherent vision of a comprehensive human engagement with reality, undergirded by a vigorous theological foundation. (6) For Bacon, scientia as a whole was the handmaiden of theology.

6. David C. Lindberg, "Science as Handmaiden: Roger Bacon and the Patristic Tradition", Isis 78 (1987), 518-36


Petr

[Petr]

Your major claim has been that modern science was created by the Scholastics who "transmuted" Greek natural philosophy. This is absurd. Do you know anything about the subject? The scholastics didn't overthrow Aristotelianism at all.
Fade is burning a wild strawman. It is exhausting as I must be ever-careful with my mouth when dealing with this shyster, who will grab the slightest excuse to start playing definition-games, like now with the term "Scholastics"

Aristotelianism was overthrown by Christian scholars who were (partly) inspired by Christian theology.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I am dealing with an irrational extremist. Fade refuses to give Christianity its proper credit out of sheer malicious hatred.


Petr

I know this sounds like Globus and egghead, but Petr has now retreated into denial. It is simply a fact that the church fathers found Epicurean materialism extremely distasteful and this is the reason why none of the writings of the ancient atomists were preserved. The Catholic Church found materialism so offensive to Christian theology (specifically, the doctrine of the Eucharist which had been married to Aristotle's theory of substance) that it even had the works of Descartes banned in the seventeenth century! It was so enthusiastic about the new astronomy that it banned books written by Kepler and Galileo!

[Petr]

I know this sounds like Globus and egghead, but Petr has now retreated into denial.
You're the only denier here, as no amount of evidence will ever persuade you to give credit to Christian contributions. You will keep on denying it.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I haven't been able to reach the piece by Lindberg that this excerpt cites:

LOL. Roger Bacon is hardly the best example of Christianity supporting science. You do know that Bacon was violently condemned as a sorcerer and thrown in prison for over a dozen years for his advocacy of the experimental method?

[Petr]

Grant makes that clear on the page you quoted from.
Grant makes it very clear how fruitful the idea of absolutely powerful God was for the progress of science. You are just smarmily trying to belittle that.

It is totally besides the point that it was a "thought experiment." Very much of science is just thought experiment.


Petr

[Petr]

LOL. Roger Bacon is hardly the best example of Christianity supporting science. You do know that Bacon was violently condemned as a sorcerer and thrown in prison for over a dozen years for his advocacy of the experimental method?
IRRELEVANT.

You are one smarmy little loser, always ready with a distortion, evasion or strawman to prevent conceding a point.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

You're the only denier here, as no amount of evidence will ever persuade you to give credit to Christian contributions. You will keep on denying it.


Petr

The major contribution of Christianity to science was its repression in Europe for over a thousand years. This actually understates the damage Christianity inflicted upon Western civilization. The church fathers were not content to merely attack and destroy science. That was not enough. No, they went beyond that. They condemned CURIOSITY and REASON itself and encouraged instead the celebration of IGNORANCE and SIMPLICITY. The monks called themselves "holy fools." The rejection of "profane knowledge" was thought to be a demonstration of piety. Did you know that Gregory the Great intentionally made grammatical errors in his writings? Luther was very much in this tradition when he condemned reason as the whore of the devil.

[Petr]

The major contribution of Christianity to science was its repression in Europe for over a thousand years. This actually understates the damage Christianity inflicted upon Western civilization. The church fathers were not content to merely attack and destroy science. That was not enough. No, they went beyond that. They condemned CURIOSITY and REASON itself and encouraged instead the celebration of IGNORANCE and SIMPLICITY. The monks called themselves "holy fools." The rejection of "profane knowledge" was thought to be a demonstration of piety. Did you know that Gregory the Great intentionally made grammatical errors in his writings? Luther was very much in this tradition when he condemned reason as the whore of the devil.
Oh blah blah blah. You're so not worthy.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

IRRELEVANT.

You are one smarmy little loser, always ready with a distortion, evasion or strawman to prevent conceding a point.


Petr

The Church could always have embraced Bacon and experimental science. Instead, as White points out, they attacked him as a sorcerer, magician, and Averroist. They spent the better part of the next five hundred years burning alchemists at the stake and murdering the magicians like Bruno.

[Fade the Butcher]

Grant makes it very clear how fruitful the idea of absolutely powerful God was for the progress of science. You are just smarmily trying to belittle that.

Where does he say that? Grant actually belittles the influence of theology upon natural philosophy. He argues that it was the latter that transformed the former, not the other way around. He also points out that the revival of natural philosophy and reason in Europe was due to the recovery of Greek texts.

It is totally besides the point that it was a "thought experiment." Very much of science is just thought experiment.

Counterfactuals are not science. An omnipotent god could snap his fingers give your mother a penis and your dad a vagina. Such miraculous nonsense makes a farce out of natural laws, is merely hypothetical, and doesn't prove anything. As I pointed out above, the belief that space was filled with aether was held into the twentieth century, so Scholastic speculations hardly overturned the status quo, and Grant acknowledges that.

[Petr]

Where does he say that? Grant actually belittles the influence of theology upon natural philosophy. He argues that it was the latter that transformed the former, not the other way around. He also points out that the revival of natural philosophy and reason in Europe was due to the recovery of Greek texts.
Fade is performing sheer physical attrition battle by repeating mechanically his besides-the-point, half-truth soundbites.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade is burning a wild strawman. It is exhausting as I must be ever-careful with my mouth when dealing with this shyster, who will grab the slightest excuse to start playing definition-games, like now with the term "Scholastics"

Petr has used the term "Scholastics" over and over again. He had told us over and over again that the Scholastics transmuted Greek natural philosophy into modern science. Throughout all of this, Petr seems to have been unaware that scholastic natural philosophers were the opponents of Galileo.

Aristotelianism was overthrown by Christian scholars who were (partly) inspired by Christian theology.

The truth is that Christian theology had been married to Aristotelianism by Thomas Aquinas and it was an obstacle to the emergence of modern science. The story of Galileo is well known. He was condemned as a heretic for expounding the Copernican theory and confined to his villa. The books of Descartes were banned because he attempted to mechanically explain the Eucharist. Kepler's book The New Astronomy was banned. Even Boyle and Newton were denounced by Christian theologians. The Protestants were hardly any better. As we have seen, Luther and Calvin condemned heliocentrism. Michael Servetus, who discovered the circulation of blood through the lungs, was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake in Calvin's Geneva.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade is performing sheer physical attrition battle by repeating mechanically his besides-the-point, half-truth soundbites.


Petr

I have transcribed the relevant passages several times now. Grant also argues that the Orthodox Church played an instrumental role in suppressing science in Byzantium.

[Petr]

Throughout all of this, Petr seems to have been unaware that scholastic natural philosophers were the opponents of Galileo.
I mostly certainly was not.

Sigh, why am I still wasting my time with you?


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Petr never responded to this. He simply called me "Fade the Bitch." :p

"To this is added another form of temptation more manifoldly dangerous. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which consisteth in the delight of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves, who go far from Thee, waste and perish, the soul hath, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, not of delighting in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh.. . . From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know."
—Augustine, Confessions, Ch.35 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xi.xxxv.html)

"The knowledge of the stars, again, is not a matter of narration, but of description. Very few of these, however, are mentioned in Scripture. And as the course of the moon, which is regularly employed in reference to celebrating the anniversary of our Lord's passion, is known to most people; so the rising and setting and other movements of the rest of the heavenly bodies are thoroughly known to very few. And this knowledge, although in itself it involves no superstition, renders very little, indeed almost no assistance, in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and by engaging the attention unprofitably is a hindrance rather; and as it is closely related to the very pernicious error of the diviners of the fates, it is more convenient and becoming to neglect it."
—Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Ch.29, 46 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.iv.iii.html[/url)

"And what did it profit me, that all the books I could procure of the so-called liberal arts, I, the vile slave of vile affections, read by myself, and understood? And I delighted in them, but knew not whence came all, that therein was true or certain. For I had my back to the light, and my face to the things enlightened; whence my face, with which I discerned the things enlightened, itself was not enlightened. Whatever was written, either on rhetoric, or logic, geometry, music, and arithmetic, by myself without much difficulty or any instructor, I understood, Thou knowest, O Lord my God; because both quickness of understanding, and acuteness in discerning, is Thy gift: yet did I not thence sacrifice to Thee. So then it served not to my use, but rather to my perdition, since I went about to get so good a portion of my substance into my own keeping; and I kept not my strength for Thee, but wandered from Thee into a far country, to spend it upon harlotries."
—Augustine, Confessions, Ch. XVI (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.v.xvi.html)

"If by calling yourself wise, you become a fool, call yourself a fool, and you will become wise."
—Augustine

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.315]

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
—Augustine

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.315]

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
—Augustine

"It is also frequently [b]asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them.[u] Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial."[/u][/b]
—Augustine, [i]The Literal Meaning of Genesis (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/saintaugustine.htm)[/i]

"This being the case, when that verse of Maro's gives us pleasure, [i]"Happy is he who can understand the causes of things,"[/i] [b]it still does not follow that our felicity depends upon our knowing the causes of the great physical processes in the world, which are hidden in the secret maze of nature,[/b] [i]"Whence earthquakes, whose force swells the sea to flood, so that they burst their bounds and then subside again,"[/i] [b]and other such things as this."[/b]
—Augustine, [i]Enchiridon[/i], Ch.5, 16 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter5.html)

"I think, however, [b]there is nothing useful in the other branches of learning that are found among the heathen,[/b] except information about objects, either past or present, that relate to the bodily senses, in which are included also the experiments and conclusions of the useful mechanical arts, except also the sciences of reasoning and of number."
—Augustine, On [i]Christian Doctrine[/i], Book II, Ch. 39 (http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb2c35-40.html)

"Wherefore, when it is asked what we ought to believe in matters of religion, [u][b]the answer is not to be sought in the exploration of the nature of things, after the manner of those whom the Greeks called "physicists." Nor should we be dismayed if Christians are ignorant about the properties and the number of the basic elements of nature, or about the motion, order, and deviations of the stars, the map of the heavens, the kinds and nature of animals, plants, stones, springs, rivers, and mountains; about the divisions of space and time, about the signs of impending storms, and the myriad other things which these "physicists" have come to understand, or think they have. For even these men, gifted with such superior insight, with their ardor in study and their abundant leisure, exploring some of these matters by human conjecture and others through historical inquiry, have not yet learned everything there is to know.[/u][/b] For that matter, many of the things they are so proud to have discovered are more often matters of opinion than of verified knowledge. [u][b]For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all created things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and the true God."[/u][/b]
—Augustine, [i]Enchiridon[/i], Ch.3, 9 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter3.html)

"Come, Holy Spirit, and help Your prophets, in whom You are wont to dwell, in whom we believe. [b]Shall we believe the wise of this world, if we believe not the prophets? But where is the wise man, where is the scribe? [u]When our peasant planted figs, he found that whereof the philosopher knew nothing, for God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the strong. Are we to believe the Jews?[/b][/u] for God was once known in Jewry. Nay, but they deny that very thing, which is the foundation of our belief, seeing that they know not the Father, who have denied the Son."
—Ambrose, [i]De Fide[/i], Book I, Ch.3, 30 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

"For they store up [u][b]all the strength of their poisons in dialetical disputation,[/u] which by the judgment of philosophers is defined as having no power to establish anything, and aiming only at destruction.[u] But it was not by dialectic that it pleased God to save His people; "for the kingdom of God consists in simplicity of faith, not in wordy contention."[/b][/u]
—Ambrose, [i]De Fide[/i], Book I, Ch.5, 42 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

"It is of the Son, therefore, that we read, your mind understands the reading, let your tongue make confession. [u][b]Away with arguments, where faith is required; now let dialectic hold her peace, even in the midst of her schools. I ask not what it is that philosophers say, but I would know what they do. They sit desolate in their schools. See the victory of faith over argument. They who dispute subtly are forsaken daily by their fellows; they who with simplicity believe are daily increased. Not philosophers but fishermen, not masters of dialectic but tax-gatherers, now find credence. [/u][/b]The one sort, through pleasures and luxuries, have bound the world's burden upon themselves; the other, by fasting and mortification, have cast it off, and so does sorrow now begin to win over more followers than pleasure."
—Ambrose, [i]De Fide[/i], Book I, Ch.13, 84 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

"Let us then run over, if you choose, [b]the opinions of the philosophers, to which they give boastful utterance, respecting the gods; that we may discover philosophy itself, through its conceit making an idol of matter;[/b] although we are able to show, as we proceed, that even while deifying certain demons, it has a dream of the truth."
—Clement of Alexandria, [i]Exhortation to the Heathen[/i], Ch.5, "The Opinions of the Philosophers Respecting God" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/020805.htm)

"Let the philosophers, then, own as their teachers the Persians, or the Sauromatæ, or the Magi, [b]from whom they have learned the impious doctrine of regarding as divine certain first principles, [u]being ignorant of the great First Cause, the Maker of all things, and Creator of those very first principles, the unbeginning God, but reverencing "these weak and beggarly elements,"[/u] Galatians 4:9 as the apostle says, which were made for the service of man."[/b]
—Clement of Alexandria, [i]Exhortation to the Heathen[/i], Ch.5, "The Opinions of the Philosophers Respecting God" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/020805.htm)

[b]"Investigation of natural phenomena is superfluous and beyond the human mind, and the learning and study of these matters are impious and false."[/b]
—Eusebius

Source: Ramsey MacMullen, [i]Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries[/i] (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), p.88

"As we have been deferring up to the present time our final discourse hereon, which is the fifteenth Book of the treatise in hand, we will now make up what is lacking to the discussions which we have travelled through, [b]by still further dragging into light the solemn doctrines of the fine philosophy of the Greeks, and [u]laying bare before the eyes of all the useless learning therein.[/u] And before all things we shall show that not from ignorance of the things which they admire, [u]but from contempt of the unprofitable study therein we have cared very little for them, and devoted our own souls to the practice of things far better."[/u][/b]
—Eusebius. [i]Praeparatio Evangelica[/i], Book XV (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_15_book15.htm)

[b]"You have given credence to your wise men and those learned in every kind of study — those, foorsooth, who know nothing and proclaim no one doctrine, who join battle over their views with their adversaries[/b] . . . and make all doubtful, and demonstrate from their disputes that nothing can be known."
—Arnobius, [i]ADVERSVS NATIONES, 2.10 (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/arnobius/arnobius2.shtml)[/i]

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.206]

[b]"Blessed is he who has attained infinite ignorance."[/b]
—Evagrius

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.208]

[b]"What great and wonderful things have your philosophers effected?[/b] They leave uncovered one of their shoulders; they let their hair grow long; they cultivate their beards; their nails are like the claws of wild beasts. Though they say that they want nothing, yet, like Proteus, they need a currier for their wallet, and a weaver for their mantle, and a wood-cutter for their staff, and the rich, and a cook also for their gluttony. O man competing with the dog, you know not God, and so have turned to the imitation of an irrational animal. You cry out in public with an assumption of authority, and take upon you to avenge your own self; and if you receive nothing, you indulge in abuse, and philosophy is with you the art of getting money. [b]You follow the doctrines of Plato, and a disciple of Epicurus lifts up his voice to oppose you. Again, you wish to be a disciple of Aristotle, and a follower of Democritus rails at you. Pythagoras says that he was Euphorbus, and he is the heir of the doctrine of Pherecydes; but Aristotle impugns the immortality of the soul. You who receive from your predecessors doctrines which clash with one another, you the inharmonious, are fighting against the harmonious. One of you asserts that God is body, but I assert that He is without body; that the world is indestructible, but I say that it is to be destroyed; that a conflagration will take place at various times, but I say that it will come to pass once for all;[/b] that Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges, but I say that God Himself is Judge; that the soul alone is endowed with immortality, but I say that the flesh also is endowed with it. What injury do we inflict upon you, O Greeks? Why do you hate those who follow the word of God, as if they were the vilest of mankind? It is not we who eat human flesh --they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis.
—Tatian, [i]Address to the Greeks[/i] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html), 25

[b]"Cease to make a parade of sayings which you have derived from others, and to deck yourselves like the daw in borrowed plumes. If each state were to take away its contribution to your speech, your fallacies would lose their power. While inquiring what God is, you are ignorant of what is in yourselves; and, while staring all agape at the sky, you stumble into pitfalls. The reading of your books is like walking through a labyrinth, and their readers resemble the cask of the Danaids. Why do you divide time, saying that one part is past, and another present, and another future?[/b] For how can the future be passing when the present exists? As those who are sailing imagine in their ignorance, as the ship is borne along, that the hills are in motion, so you do not know that it is you who are passing along, but that time (o aiwn) remains present as long as the Creator wills it to exist. Why am I called to account for uttering my opinions, and why are you in such haste to put them all down? Were not you born in the same manner as ourselves, and placed under the same government of the world? [b]Why say that wisdom is with you alone, who have not another sun, nor other risings of the stars, nor a more distinguished origin, nor a death preferable to that of other men? The grammarians have been the beginning of this idle talk; and you who parcel out wisdom are cut off from the wisdom that is according to truth, and assign the names of the several parts to particular men; and you know not God, but in your fierce contentions destroy one another. And on this account you are all nothing worth. While you arrogate to yourselves the sole right of discussion, you discourse like the blind man with the deaf.[/b] Why do you handle the builder's tools without knowing how to build? Why do you busy yourselves with words, while you keep aloof from deeds, puffed up with praise, but cast down by misfortunes? Your modes of acting are contrary to reaSon, for you make a pompons appearance in public, but hide your teaching in corners. Finding you to be such men as these, we have abandoned you, and no longer concern ourselves with your tenets, but follow the word of God. Why, O man, do you set the letters of the alphabet at war with one another? Why do you, as in a boxing match, make their sounds clash together with your mincing Attic way of speaking, whereas you ought to speak more according to nature? For if you adopt the Attic dialect though not an Athenian, pray why do you not speak like the Dorians? How is it that one appears to you more rugged, the other more pleasant for intercourse?"
—Tatian, [i]Address to the Greeks[/i] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html), 26

[b]"How can I believe one who tells me that the sun is a red-hot mass and the moon an earth? Such assertions are mere logomachies, and not a sober exposition of truth.[/b] How can it be otherwise than foolish to credit the books of Herodotus relating to the history of Hercules, which tell of an upper earth from which the lion came down that was killed by Hercules? [b]And what avails the Attic style, the sorites of philosophers, the plausibilities of syllogisms, the measurements of the earth, the positions of the stars, and the course of the sun? To be occupied in such inquiries is the work of one who imposes opinions on himself as if they were laws."[/b]
—Tatian, [i]Address to the Greeks[/i] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html), 27

[b]"If to the causes of natural things, what happiness will be proposed to me, if I shall know the sources of the Nile, or the vain dreams of the natural philosophers respecting the heaven? Why should I mention that on these subjects there is no knowledge, but mere conjecture, which varies according to the abilities of men?[/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes[/i], Book III, "Of the False Wisdom of the Philosophers" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm)

[b]"But I am not prepared to concede even that philosophers are devoted to the pursuit of wisdom, [u]because by that pursuit there is no attaining to wisdom.[/u] For if the power of finding the truth were connected with this pursuit, and if this pursuit were a kind of road to wisdom, it would at length be found. But since so much time and talent have been wasted in the search for it, and it has not yet been gained, it is plain that there is no wisdom there.[/b] Therefore they who apply themselves to philosophy do not devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom; but they themselves imagine that they do so, because they know not where that is which they are searching for, or of what character it is. [b]Whether, therefore, they devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom or not, they are not wise, because that can never be discovered which is either sought in an improper manner, or not sought at all."[/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes[/i], Book III, "Of the False Wisdom of the Philosophers" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm)

"Philosophy appears to consist of two subjects, knowledge and conjecture, and of nothing more. [b]Knowledge cannot come from the understanding, nor be apprehended by thought; because to have knowledge in oneself as a peculiar property does not belong to man, but to God.[/b] But the nature of mortals does not receive knowledge, except that which comes from without. For on this account the divine intelligence has opened the eyes and ears and other senses in the body, that by these entrances knowledge might flow through to the mind. [b][u]For to investigate or wish to know the causes of natural things,—whether the sun is as great as it appears to be, or is many times greater than the whole of this earth; also whether the moon be spherical or concave; and whether the stars are fixed to the heaven, or are borne with free course through the air; of what magnitude the heaven itself is, of what material it is composed; whether it is at rest and immoveable, or is turned round with incredible swiftness; how great is the thickness of the earth, or on what foundations it is poised and suspended,—to wish to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation and conjectures, is as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose to be the character of a city in some very remote country, which we have never seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which cannot be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm that in which we may be refuted? How much more are they to be judged mad and senseless, who imagine that they know natural things, which cannot be known by man!" [/u][/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes[/i], Book III, "Of the False Wisdom of the Philosophers" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm)

"Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? [b]That the crops and trees grow downward? That the rains and snow and hail fall upward toward the earth? I am at a loss what to say of those who, when they have once erred, steadily persevere in their folly and defend one vain thing by another."[/b]
—Lactantius, [i]Divine Institutes (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0701.htm)[/i]

[b]"Wretched Aristotle ! who established for them the dialectic art, so ingenious in the construction and refutation of propositions, so crafty in statements, so forced in hypotheses, so inflexible in arguments, so laborious in disputes, so damaging even to itself, always reconsidering everything, so that it never treats thoroughly of anything at all.

Hence come those fables and endless genealogies, and profitless questions, and words which spread like a cancer;[/b] in restraining us from which the Apostle expressly mentions philosophy as that which we ought to beware of, writing to the Colossians, [b]"Take heed lest any one beguile you through philosophy or vain deceit, according to the tradition of men,"[/b] beyond the providence of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle had been at Athens, and in his argumentative encounters there had become acquainted [b]with that human wisdom which affects and corrupts the Truth,[/b] itself also being many times divided into its own heresies by the variety of its mutually antagonistic sects.

[b]What then hath Athens in common with Jerusalem ? What hath the Academy in common with the Church ? What have heretics in common with Christians? Our principles are from the "Porch" of Solomon, who himself handed down that the Lord must be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with those who bring forward a Stoic or Platonic or dialectic Christianity.[u] We have no need of speculative inquiry after we have known Christ Jesus; nor of search for the Truth after we have received the Gospel. When we become believers, we have no desire to believe anything besides; for the first article of our belief is that there is nothing besides which we ought to believe." [/u][/b]
—Tertullian, [i]On the Prescription of Heretics[/i], Chapter, VII (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_test/bindley_test_07prae.htm)

"Now, pray tell me, [b]what wisdom is there in this hankering after conjectural speculations? What proof is afforded to us, notwithstanding the strong confidence of its assertions, [u]by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity,[/u][/b] which is tricked out with an artful show of language? It therefore served Thales of Miletus quite right, when, star-gazing as he walked with all the eyes he had, he had the mortification of falling into a well, and was unmercifully twitted by an Egyptian, who said to him, "Is it because you found nothing on earth to look at, that you think you ought to confine your gaze to the sky?" [u][b]His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean, who persist in applying their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural objects, which they ought rather (intelligently to direct) to their Creator and Governor."[/b][/u]
—Tertullian, [i]Ad Nationes[/i], Book II, Ch.4 (http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-16.htm)

"So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned brother gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; [b]although with yourself, a seeker he will, after all, [u]be quite aware that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know. “Thy faith,” He says, “hath saved thee” not observe your skill in the Scriptures.[/u][/b] Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill, however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack. [b][u]Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their noisiness, or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things.[/u][/b] (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so that we were not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would it be to agree with men who do themselves confess that they are still seeking? For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found anything amounting to certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for a while to hold, they betray their own scepticism, whilst they continue seeking. [b]You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to waverers, must needs be “led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch.”[/b] But when, for the sake of deceiving us, they pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may palm their essays upon us by the suggestion of an anxious sympathy, —when, in short (after gaining an access to us), they proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring into such points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for us in moral obligation to repel them, so that they may know that it is not Christ, but themselves, whom we disavow. For since they are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets yet; and being not fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet believers, they are not Christians. [u][b]But even though they have their tenets and their belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in order to discussion. [/u][/b]Previous, however, to the discussion, they deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long as they keep it an object of inquiry. When men, therefore, are not Christians even on their own admission, how much more (do they fail to appear such) to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith?"
—Tertullian, [i]Chapter XIV.—Curiosity Ought Not Range Beyond the Rule of Faith. Restless Curiosity, the Feature of Heresy (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030280.htm)[/i]

[b]"And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.[/b] And He was buried, and rose again;[b] the fact is certain, because it is impossible."[/b]
—Tertullian, [i]On the Flesh of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm)[/i], Ch.5

"As this matter of faith . . . we accept it as useful for the multitude, and that [b]we admittedly teach those who cannot abandon everything and pursue a study of rational argument to believe without thinking out their arguments."[/b]
—Origen

[b]"Restrain our own reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning,[/b] in order to provide a mind swept clear for the reception of divine words."
—John Chyrsostom

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.316]

"Did you see how great the holy dread in heaven and how great the arrogant presumption here below? The angels in heaven give God glory;[b] these on earth carry on meddlesome investigations."[/b]
—John Chyrsostom

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.311]

"Whenever God reveals something, [b]it is necessary to accept what is said in faith, not to pry impetuously."[/b]
—John Chyrsostom

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.311]

[b]"But how did He "destroy wisdom?" Being made known to us by Paul and others like him, [u]He showed it to be unprofitable. For towards receiving the evangelical proclamation, neither is the wise profited at all by wisdom,[/u] nor the unlearned injured at all by ignorance. But if one may speak somewhat even wonderful, ignorance rather than wisdom is a condition suitable for that impression, and more easily dealt with. [u]For the shepherd and the rustic will more quickly receive this, once for all both repressing all doubting thoughts and delivering himself to the Lord. In this way then He destroyed wisdom.[/u] For since she first cast herself down, she is ever after useful for nothing. Thus when she ought to have displayed her proper powers, and by the works to have seen the Lord, she would not. Wherefore though she were now willing to introduce herself, she is not able. For the matter is not of that kind; this way of knowing God being far greater than the other. [u]You see then, faith and simplicity are needed, and this we should seek every where, and prefer it before the wisdom which is from without. For "God," says he, "has made wisdom foolish."[/u][/b]
—John Chyrsostom, Homily 4 on First Corinthians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220104.htm)

[b]"Let us Christians prefer the simplicity of our faith to the demonstrations of human reason . . .[/b] For to spend much time on research about the essence of things would not serve the edification of the Church."
—Basil of Caesarea

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.89]

"And the further we advance in this reasoning the greater force we are obliged to give to this base, so that it may be able to support all the mass weighing upon it. [u][b]Put then a limit to your thought, so that your curiosity in investigating the incomprehensible may not incur the reproaches of Job,[/b][/u] and you be not asked by him, "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?"
—Basil of Caesarea, [i]Hexaemeron[/i], (Homily 1), 9 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm)

[b]"They only seek to persuade by forced reasoning. With us truth presents itself naked and without artifice.[/b] But why torment ourselves to refute the errors of philosophers, when it is sufficient to produce their mutually contradictory books, and, as quiet spectators, to watch the war?"
—Basil of Caesarea, [i]Hexamemeron[/i], (Homily 3), 8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32013.htm)

"Now we have no more meetings, no more debates, no more gatherings of wise men in the agora, nothing more of all that made our city famous."
—Basil of Caesarea

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.317]

". . . [b]a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan."[/b]
—Basil of Caesarea

Source: Edward Grant, [i]Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550, From Aristotle to Copernicus[/i] (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2004), p.118

[b]"There is a certain heresy concerning earthquakes that they come not from God's command, but, it is thought from the very nature of the elements . . . [/b]Paying no attention to God's power, they [the heretics] presume to attribute the motions of force to the elements of nature . . . like certain foolish philosophers who, ascribing this to nature, know not the power of God."
—Philastrius of Brescia

Source: [MacMullen, 1997; p.88]

"Whoever searches the whole of revelation will find there no doctrine of divine nature at all, nor indeed a doctrine of anything else that has a substantial existence,[b] so that we pass our lives in ignorance of much, being ignorant first of all of ourselves as human beings and then of all other things besides."[/b]
—Gregory of Nyssa

"The human voice was fashioned for one reason alone — to be the threshold through which the sentiments of the heart, inspired by the Holy Spirit, might be translated clearly into the Word itself."
—Gregory of Nyssa

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.315]

[b]"But it afterwards came to our ears, what we cannot mention without shame,[u] that your Fraternity is in the habit of expounding grammar to certain persons.[/u] This thing we took so much amiss, and so strongly disapproved it,[/b] that we changed what had been said before into groaning and sadness, since the praises of Christ cannot find room in one mouth with the praises of Jupiter. [b]And consider yourself what a grave and heinous offence it is for bishops to sing what is not becoming even for a religious layman."[/b]
—Gregory the Great, [i]Letter to To Desiderius, Bishop of Gaul (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360211054.htm)[/i]

[b]"The wise should be advised to cease from their knowledge."[/b]
—Gregory the Great

Source: [Freeman, 2002; p.303]

[Petyr Baelish]

[...] The Protestants were hardly any better. As we have seen, Luther and Calvin condemned heliocentrism.

Add this to your list of quotes, Fade:

"Reason is the devil's harlot." - Martin Luther.

[Petyr Baelish]

Sigh, why am I still wasting my time with you?


Because you're a moron who thinks that incessant whining, bitching and spamming somehow substitutes for refuting Fade's arguments, which you are incapable of doing.

[Petr]

Grant also argues that the Orthodox Church played an instrumental role in suppressing science in Byzantium.
Grant wrote that if secular elites of Byzantium had been really interested in science, the church would not have been able to stop them. He also speculates that Jesus' teaching about rendering to God and Caesar inspired positive feeling among Christians towards natural philosophy.

Grant also speaks with great respect about the work of Pierre Duhem and has cited Stanley Jaki as an expert on Duhem.


But really, what does it all matter? I am talking to a delusional man with no sense of balance. Fade is not satisfied with anything less than a total triumph in debate with no concessions whatsoever.


Petr

[Petr]

Because you're a moron who thinks that incessant whining, bitching and spamming somehow substitutes for refuting Fade's arguments, which you are incapable of doing.
Hop along stupid junkie whoremonger.


Petr

[Petr]

Petr never responded to this. He simply called me "Fade the Bitch." :p
Let the audience remember that when debating anti-Semites, Fade criticized them for cherry-picking Jewish names in support of their "Jews control media"-arguments.

What a filthy hypocrite.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I mostly certainly was not.

Sigh, why am I still wasting my time with you?


Petr

Good question. Your reasoning is circular, so arguing the matter is pointless and establishes nothing. You assume the conclusion on the basis of faith and proceed from there; butchering the facts as you go. Why not follow the advice of Ambrose, "it was not by dialectic that it pleased God to save His people; "for the kingdom of God consists in simplicity of faith, not in wordy contention." or Tertullian, "Now, pray tell me, what wisdom is there in this hankering after conjectural speculations? What proof is afforded to us, notwithstanding the strong confidence of its assertions, by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity . . ."? You should consider leaving the "curious art" up to non-Christians. As John Chyrsostom pointed out, how does it profit you? The natural world will soon be destroyed anyway, infidels cast down into hell, and your eternal soul will be raptured up to heaven where you sit on clouds and and sign pslams.

[Petr]

And even church fathers like Tertullian were, in one sense at least, absolutely right.

After all, Greek sophists and skeptic "academicians" themselves had already proven the bankruptcy of autonomous reason. Whatever philosophy proved it could also disprove, and there was no objective truth.

Augustine was totally correct when he said that an act of faith must precede understanding. Only theistic faith could give birth to science.


Petr

[Petyr Baelish]

Hop along stupid junkie whoremonger.


With such piercing insight and solid debate tactics, how could you lose an argument?

[Petyr Baelish]

Augustine was totally correct when he said that an act of faith must precede understanding.

When one is dealing with absurd and incoherent fairy-tales blind faith is indeed sine qua non.

Only theistic faith could give birth to science.


Faith is completely antithetical and irreconcileable with science. Faith is no more needed to "give birth" to science than Down syndrome to obtain a PhD in mathematics.

[Fade the Butcher]

Add this to your list of quotes, Fade:

"Reason is the devil's harlot." - Martin Luther.

I'm going to make another list. I haven't even started on the Middle Ages or Early Modern Era. Here is a brilliant quote from Bernard in his denunciation of Peter Abélard. Bernard was the most revered theologian of the twelfth century.

"He has defiled the Church, he has infected with his own blight the minds of simple people. He tries to explore with his reason what the devout mind grasps at once with a vigorous faith. Faith believes, it does not dispute. But this man, apparently holding God suspect, will not believe anything until he has first examined it with his reason."
—St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Here is Petr's hero Luther on Copernicus:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
—Martin Luther

Here is Melanchthon applying the vastly superior theological method to astronomy:

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolved in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves. . . Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
—Phillip Melanchthon

Of course, Luther and Melanchthon can be forgiven for their ignorance given their premises. The Bible, which Christians hold to be the inerrent word of the creator of the universe, plainly holds that the earth is fixed and the sun moves. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and the Papacy were correct in deducing from the Bible that heliocentrism is false given their bogus premise.

[Petr]

I'm going to make another list. I haven't even started on the Middle Ages or Early Modern Era.
Cowardly spammer.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Let the audience remember that when debating anti-Semites, Fade criticized them for cherry-picking Jewish names in support of their "Jews control media"-arguments.

What a filthy hypocrite.


Petr

The attitude of the church fathers towards natural philosophy varied from individual to individual but it is entirely fair to say that it ranged from broadly to deeply negative. Furthermore, it became even more negative over time, moving away from the handmaiden doctrine to the utter and complete rejection of the "profane sciences" by Augustine in his final years. By the time of Gregory the Great (late sixth century), even the secular education system was being abandoned in favor of the conscious and deliberate adoption of more "rustic" or "simple" modes of education (i.e., the chanting of psalms, vulgar tongue, manual labor) which could appeal to the rural masses and monastic rigorists.

[Fade the Butcher]

And even church fathers like Tertullian were, in one sense at least, absolutely right.

Tertullian went beyond attacking science to attacking its very motivations. Tertullian, Paul, and Augustine were the fathers of the Dark Ages.

After all, Greek sophists and skeptic "academicians" themselves had already proven the bankruptcy of autonomous reason. Whatever philosophy proved it could also disprove, and there was no objective truth.

The Greeks entertained all sorts of theories. The sophists were one school amongst others. Petr has made much out of Gorgias, but the golden age of Greek science was during the Hellenistic era well after his death.

Augustine was totally correct when he said that an act of faith must precede understanding. Only theistic faith could give birth to science.

Augustine and Tertullian represent the end of science.

[Fade the Butcher]

Grant wrote that if secular elites of Byzantium had been really interested in science, the church would not have been able to stop them.

Where does Grant write this? I have three of his books right here.

He also speculates that Jesus' teaching about rendering to God and Caesar inspired positive feeling among Christians towards natural philosophy.

Grant is referring to separation of church and state. I agree with that. The marginalization of Christianity did play a major role in the ultimate triumph of science in the West, unlike the Byzantine East.

Grant also speaks with great respect about the work of Pierre Duhem and has cited Stanley Jaki as an expert on Duhem.

Both Grant and Lindberg point out that Duhem's claims are overblown and misunderstand classical science. A good example of this is the Condemnation of 1277. It applied exclusively to one university: the University of Paris. It was also rescinded in 1325. Medieval natural philosophers would have moved on to criticizing Aristotle with or without the Condemnation of 1277 and were already doing so at other universities where it was not in effect. In any case, the whole debate about the Middle Ages is really irrelevant since Scholasticism wasn't rejected until the Early Modern Era.

But really, what does it all matter? I am talking to a delusional man with no sense of balance. Fade is not satisfied with anything less than a total triumph in debate with no concessions whatsoever.

That's not the case at all. I find your arguments unpersuasive. I don't have the slightest problem changing my views when I discover they are erroneous. I myself was once convinced by the likes of Duhem and others that the Scholastics were more influential in the history of science than they actually were. I find Koyré more persuasive.

[Petr]

The Greeks entertained all sorts of theories. The sophists were one school amongst others. Petr has made much out of Gorgias, but the golden age of Greek science was during the Hellenistic era well after his death.
More bullshit from Fade. He does not know this subject at all.

Hyper-skeptical skeptics took over the Platonic academy soon after Plato's death, and kept their control during the very golden age of Hellenism, and it was only religious Neoplatonism that overthrew them.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/skepanci.htm#H2

Actually one of the most famous examples of Greek relativism occurred during the 2nd century BC, when academician Carneades (actually a perfect predecessor of Fade) took pride in his ability to flip-flop, and thus concretely showed the relativity of truth to Romans:


But Carneades went beyond criticizing the arguments of other philosophers by trying to propound equally convincing arguments for incompatible conclusions, which would have the effect of leaving his interlocutor suspending judgement as to which is true. For instance, while on a mission to Rome with the heads of two other philosophical schools, Carneades gave an eloquent defense of traditional views on justice one day, and the next day offered an equally eloquent attack on those same views. (Unamused traditionalist Romans expelled the philosophers from the city as a result.)

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/carneade.htm


Petr

[Petr]

I don't have the slightest problem changing my views when I discover they are erroneous.
Nobody really trusts you anymore.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Nobody really trusts you anymore.


Petr

Why don't you set up a poll?

[Fade the Butcher]

More bullshit from Fade. He does not know this subject at all. Hyper-skeptical skeptics took over the Platonic academy soon after Plato's death, and kept their control during the very golden age of Hellenism, and it was only religious Neoplatonism that overthrew them.

Petr refutes his own argument. If that is true, then it had little impact upon Greek science in the Hellenistic era, which disproves his theory that Greek science had ended at a hyper-skeptical terminus.

Actually one of the most famous examples of Greek relativism occurred during the 2nd century BC, when academician Carneades (actually a perfect predecessor of Fade) took pride in his ability to flip-flop, and thus concretely showed the relativity of truth to Romans:

This old chestnut was a favorite of the church fathers, especially Basil: because scientific truth is provisional and subject to revision, it is somehow inferior to the barbaric scribblings of the ancient Hebrews found in the Bible. Actually, this is only goes to show that dogmatic theology is worthless and its methods are not comparable to those of science which celebrates the progressive accumulation of knowledge. Even erroneous theories, say, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system or the limitations of Newtonian mechanics create problems that point to new, more perfect theories. The major difference between science and theology is that science admits the existence of error and has built in mechanisms to eliminate it. That is precisely why science is more reliable.

[Petyr Baelish]

[...] Only theistic faith could give birth to science.


Petr

Why is it that science firmly discredits virtually every claim the Bible makes on the subject of the natural world? There is hardly a field of scientific inquiry that does not irreconcileably contradict biblical claims.

[Petr]

LOL. Roger Bacon is hardly the best example of Christianity supporting science. You do know that Bacon was violently condemned as a sorcerer and thrown in prison for over a dozen years for his advocacy of the experimental method?
Just a quick note - some examples of what comes from uncritically believing White's rubbish:


Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.” [NOTE]


In chapter 2, White informs us “In 1327 Cecco d’Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this [the doctrine of antipodes] and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence.” Cecco D’Ascoli was indeed burnt at the stake in 1327 in Florence. He is the only natural philosopher in the entire Middle Ages to pay this penalty and was executed for breaking parole after a previous trial when he had been convicted of heresy for, apparently, claiming Jesus Christ was subject to the stars. This is not enough for White who claims, entirely without foundation, that Cecco met his fate partly for the scientific view that the antipodes were inhabited as well as dishonestly calling him an ‘astronomer’ rather than an ‘astrologer’ to strengthen his scientific credentials. [NOTE]


It is hard to confirm some of White’s victims existed at all. “The chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison,” he says in chapter 12 “and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved.” The great historian of science, George Sarton, with a better knowledge of the sources of anyone before or since, says this episode is ‘completely unknown’ to him. [NOTE] Needless to say, White gives no reference.

...

One would like to take the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting that which agrees with his hypothesis while being sceptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. The points given above together with Numbers and Lindberg’s criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White’s work as utterly worthless as history. Draper, with no footnotes or references cannot even claim to give an illusion of scholarship. Colin Russell, in a recent summary of the historiography of the alleged warfare sums up the views of modern scholarship, saying “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”. [NOTE] But even today, historians who should know better, like Daniel Boorstin, Charles Freeman and William Manchester, have produced popular books that wheel out all the old misconceptions and prejudices.

http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm


This is the guy on whom Fade is heavily relying upon and has posted huge spams from. He has called it a "masterpiece"!

Fade's own work is also filled with distortions like this. It is sheer physical exhaustion and sense of futility that prevents me from fully tackling them all.


Petr

[Petr]

Petr refutes his own argument. If that is true, then it had little impact upon Greek science in the Hellenistic era, which disproves his theory that Greek science had ended at a hyper-skeptical terminus.
(Yet another) strawman. I did not claim that dogmatic skepticism caused the end of Greek thought, although it certainly did not make things any better.

Only by becoming more religious, even sort-of-monotheistic (Neoplatonism, which was partly influenced by Jewish and Christian speculations) could Greek thought make some new progress in late antiquity.

Also, if there was any school of Greek thought that had really withered away on its own by then, it was Epicureanism.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Just a quick note - some examples of what comes from uncritically believing White's rubbish:

Petr continues to reflexively quote garbage Christian apologetics websites. White cites several sources to support his claim about Bacon. Unfortunately, these sources are French and German, so I don't have immediate access to them. This probably explains why Lindberg doesn't mention the subject in several of his books. I haven't seen any evidence that he is multilingual.

This is the guy on whom Fade is heavily relying upon and has posted huge spams from. He has called it a "masterpiece"!

Yes. White's book is enormous and wider in scope that most others. It is a pleasure to read. White mentions incidents that other scholars seem to be either unaware of or deliberately choose not to discuss.

Fade's own work is also filled with distortions like this. It is sheer physical exhaustion and sense of futility that prevents me from fully tackling them all.

Here is a suggestion. Why don't you retrieve some actual sources and investigate the matter for yourself? That is what I do.

[Fade the Butcher]

(Yet another) strawman. I did not claim that dogmatic skepticism caused the end of Greek thought, although it certainly did not make things any better.

Petr has made this claim several times in various threads.

Only by becoming more religious, even sort-of-monotheistic (Neoplatonism, which was partly influenced by Jewish and Christian speculations) could Greek thought make some new progress in late antiquity.

G.E.R. Lloyd has dispensed with this bullshit in his study of Greek science.

[Fade the Butcher]

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Bacon.html

Around 1278 Bacon was put in prison in the convent in Ancona in Italy by his fellow Franciscans, the charge being of suspected novelties in his teaching. Here friars who had views with which their superiors disagreed were put in solitary confinement and not allowed to speak even to their guards for fear their views would have influence. They were refused confession and denied absolution so, their superiors believed (and so did the imprisoned friars), they would go to hell for all eternity. A change in the Franciscan leadership in 1290, however, saw Raymond of Guafredi take control of the Order and following the teachings of love by St Francis, released the prisoners in Ancona. Although we have no explicit evidence that Bacon was among these men, it seems very likely that he was and he must have returned to England as soon as he could.

From his writings it is clear that Bacon had always argued for what he believed and against those he believed to be wrong. He continued to state his views even after suffering the prison at Ancona for around 12 years. They were as aggressively stated in Compendium studii theologiae, his last writings of 1293, as at any time in his life.


Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356329

He also wrote on mathematics and logic. He was condemned to prison c. 1277 by his fellow Franciscans because of “suspected novelties” in his teaching.

[Fade the Butcher]

I will personally retrieve a biography of Roger Bacon and see if I can independently verify White's claim. This shouldn't be a problem. The same charge is repeated in the Encyclopedia Britannica and dozens of other sources on the internet.

[Fade the Butcher]

Back to the subject of Christianity and the Dark Ages. Here is the conclusion of Pierre Riché's study of the decline of the classical education system. I mentioned above the total rejection of the "profane sciences" by Christians.

"On the eve of the disappearance of the Roman Empire in the West, the antique educational system was still very much alive, its prestige intact. By the time of Charlemange's reign, however, it had ceased to exist. In its place was a new educational system that was destined to influence Western cultural history until the twelfth century: written civilization had been destroyed; education for laymen was the exception rather than the rule; only an elite of clerics, monks, and princes had access to intellectual culture.

The change came about very slowly during the two and a half centuries which separate Antiquity from the Middle Ages. The antique educational system survived the Barbarian invasions only, regrettably, to be abandoned by men in the West. The antique school survived and continued to flourish in the fifth century. As long as the Germans remained Arians, they did nothing to save antique culture - but neither did they destroy it. Only Theodoric - who, as master of Italy, considered himself heir to the emperors - bestirred himself to protect educational institutions.

In Gaul until the beginning of the sixth century, in Italy until the beginning of the seventh century, and in Africa until the Arab invasions, the schools of the grammarians and rhetors remained open and carried on the traditional program of study. Where a school was unable to survive the disruptions, classical culture found refuge among the great aristocratic families: the "senators" of southern Gaul until the middle of the seventh century and the Hispano-Gothic nobility until the beginning of the eighth century still displayed a taste for good style and the habits of antique men of letters. In the lands under Germanic influence, the most civilized laymen mastered writing and gave their children a minimum of religious and profane culture.

At the same time, the influence of antique education marked clerical and monastic culture: Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus at the end of the sixth century and Isidore of Seville and his followers in the seventh century seem to me to be the heirs of the classical authors. If they contributed to the formation of medieval culture, they did so by transmitting the legacy of the past rather than by inventing a new system of thought. They were more in line with Augustine than with the real "founders of the Middle Ages," the Anglo-Saxon and Irish monks. True to the example of Gregory, Cassiodorus, and Isidore, some clerics and monks remained faithful to classical forms in their poems and discourses, but fettered by their early education, they were unable to create a genuinely Christian culture based on the Bible.

The need for a truly Christian culture was felt even before the ruin of the antique school, to which the Christian school stood not as an heir but as a rival. By the beginning of the sixth century, monastic reformers and others influenced by the monks created centers of study for parish and episcopal clergy that dispensed an ascetical culture and introduced the clergy to biblical studies. These schools, however, never introduced the desired results; too concerned with pastoral needs, they could nto become centers of sacred study. Similarly, the "Christian university" Cassiodorus planned for Rome never saw the light of day. Even his foundation at Vivarium, intended for only a few monks, was without a future. The instruction organized in the great Spanish monasteries was reserved for an elite group of clerics and monks, and the work of the most famous Spaniard, Isidore of Seville, was in most respects turned towards the past.

The honor of having first successfully applied the principles of Christian culture belongs to the Barbarian Celts and Anglo-Saxons. When Isidore died in 636, the king of East Anglia was founding his religious school, Irishmen were settling at Lindisfarne, and the disciples of Columban were established centers for asceticism in Gaul and Italy -- all of which taught only sacred literature. It was in the "desert" that the West rethought its culture.

Pierre Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: Sixth Through Eighth Centuries (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976), pp.495-496

[Petr]

Petr continues to reflexively quote garbage Christian apologetics websites.
Attack is the best defense, huh?

Your hero Charles Freeman has deigned to correspond with that "garbage website."

http://www.bede.org.uk/freeman.htm

---Edit: This is a bit too much for Highbrow Petr.---

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/jerk.htm

Yes. White's book is enormous and wider in scope that most others. It is a pleasure to read.
He panders to your prejudices and that's why you love his rubbish that was also written in a very unprofessional tone of voice, even by the standards of 19th century.

White mentions incidents that other scholars seem to be either unaware of or deliberately choose not to discuss.
That probably because White mentions incidents that he himself has made up.


Petr

[Petr]

Back to the subject of Christianity and the Dark Ages. Here is the conclusion of Pierre Riché's study of the decline of the classical education system.
Fade works on the presupposition that Christians should have carried water for secular studies all the time.

His method is really simple: whenever something good happens, it is in spite of Christianity, whenever something bad happens, it is because of Christianity.

Anyways, the medieval university system that Christians did eventually build was better than anything that ancient pagans ever had.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

So much for the myth that worthless monks "preserved" Western civilization in the Dark Ages:

"Most of the liberal arts, then, were consciously ignored by educated Anglo-Saxon men. The arts were strangers to them, as Aldhelm expressed it so clearly. We have already said that Jarrow could have become a new Vivarium. Here, we must argue that Bede did not follow Cassiodorus' program.

In his commentary on Edsras, Bede incidentally mentioned Cassiodorus, "formerly a senator, then a doctor of the Church." It is that Cassiodorus, the exegate of the Pslams, that alone interested Bede. . . .

In fact, he condemned Christians who, under the influence of the demon, descended from the heights of God's Word to secular sciences. He did not speak of an inverse movement leading from the liberal arts to God. This should not be surprising in light of Bede's several reminders to his readers that secular literature was noxious. He compared secular letters to the thorns that surrounded a rose and to the poisonous stinger of bees that one could not study with impunity. Bede recalled that the masters of the Church had incurred the reproach that they were more Ciceronian than Christian. A Christian must not follow the example of Johathan, who, despite the interdiction of his father, tasted the honey of the forest: these sweets were useless and deceptive.

The disciplines that seemed most dangerous to Bede, as well as to Aldhelm, were rhetoric and dialectic because they were the diabolical weapons used by heretics and philosophers, those "patriarchs of heretics."

It might seem surprising that eighth-century men were still troubled by the errors of philosophy, when the study of philosoph had been practically abandoned in the West. Neither Bede nor Aldhelm had any philosophical culture, and yet they feared philosophy and its daughter, heresy, as real dangers. Did they share th reasons of the seventh-century popes? The theological innovations of the Greeks did not have great reprecussions in England, and the arrival of an Easterner to the see of Canterbury did not provoke a revival of philosophical thought. If Theodore received the surname of "philosopher" from his contemporaries, it was primarily because of his great learning and his knowledge of Greek. What preoccupied Bede more was a resurgence of Pelagianism in ecclessiastical circles. He inserted in his History a letter that Pope John IV wrote to the Celtic clergy in 640 on the subject. This heresy must still have been in existence a century later because Bede denounced it several times and thought it necessary to respond to Pelagius' De amore in a work called De gratia Dei.

Lettered Anglo-Saxons were just as condemnatory when it came to natural philosophy because they feared pagan mythographical and astrological deviations which might result from the study of the "nature of things." Even Isidore of Seville's scientific works were suspect. Bede redid a De natura rerum under the influence of Isidore's work, but he wanted to write a treatise which was more descriptive than explicative. Toward the end of his life, Bede returned once again to Isidore's treatise to draw extract from it, "so that his disciples would not read lies and would not work without profit." This is a clear expression of Bede's criticism of the Sevillian for what Bede thought was an abuse of the allegorical genre and for digressions that were still to close to the cosmic system of the pagans. We should note, however, that except for the De natura rerum and Origines, Isidore's work was almost entirely unknown to Bede. At one point, apropos of the calender, he even affirmed that he preferred the Roman interpretation to that of the Spaniard.

Bede, unlike certain Eastern and Irish exegetes, did not try to bring his scientific learning to bear on the clarification of the sacred text. For him the sole explanation for the miracles recounted in the Bible was the direct intervention of God. For example, having explained the passage in the Epistle in which Saint Paul recalls his stay in the depths of the sea, he remarked that Theodore of Canterbury compared this text to the chasm of Cyzicus into which criminals were pitched. But he refused to embellish this scientific interpretation and compared Paul at the bottom of the sea to Peter who walked on the waters.

We can now better define the principles that inspired the program of Anglo-Saxon masters. They affirmed even more strongly than their predecessors that the Bible was superior to all other texts, "not only by authority, since it is divine, or because of its usefulness, since it leads to eternal life, but even more by its antiquity and its form." Since it contains all literary genres, it was necessary to study grammar, the only liberal art worthy of interest, in order to appreciate all its richness. "Especially apply yourself unceasingly to the reading of the Bible and sacred texts," Aldhelm wrote to his discipline Aethilwald. "If in addition you want to know something about secular literature, do so with the following goal in mind: since in the Scriptures all or nearly all of the sequence of words rests on grammar, you will comprehend all the more easily the deeper and more sacred sense of this divine language when you have learned the very diverse rules of the art of forming its thread." This famous text can be joined to the statements of Bede and Boniface underscoring the importance of grammatical studies for the study of the sacred text.

Detached from the other branches of the future trivium, grammar was now Christianized. The examples from classical authors that had to be known, isolated from their contexts, were no longer noxious for the monk, who only retained the mechanics of their construction. The verses of the pagan poets, which were still feared as dangerous, were neutralized in grammatical treatises when used to illustrate the mechanism of the language. Bede read the classics but did not experience them as literary works. He borrowed only their clarity and correctness of style. He was a poet, but he placed his talent in the service of God and the saints. Far from plagiarizing the pagans, as had the representatives of Christian classical culture, he created a new Christian religious poetry, as had the Irishmen before him.

The interest the Anglo-Saxons had in scientific research was also dictated by religious preoccupations. They left aside theoretical concerns, retaining only the sciences useful in fixing the time and the calender: astronomy, cosmography, and computus. But as a result, they reconstructed a scientific program around the ratio temporum, which no longer existed in the antique school.

It cannot be said that the Anglo-Saxons had "passed on a mutilated Antiquity," for they did not wish to be the heirs of the Ancients. What Gregory the Great called the exteriora studia, that is, the program of the liberal arts, had no meaning for them. As Boniface said in the preface to his grammatical treatise, no knowledge can exist outside the circle of the faith. The only culture worthy of existence was religious culture.

In organizing their studies by abandoning an entire portion of the antique program, the Anglo-Saxon masters freed themselves from the equivocacy that we have noted in studying the culture of Cassiodorus and Isidore. The conditions under which they lived facilitated this break.

Ibid, pp.388-393

[Geist]

This thread seems to have gotten somewhat out of hand. Since the two of you seem to be talking to the gallery it is probably wise that I tell you that other than yourselves nobody is really posting here, or reading. That is no such gallery exists. Neither of you is likely to convince the other, and all it seems to exist for is for mods to occasionally respond to reported posts.

[Fade the Butcher]

Here again. This time Gregory the Great. Notice how the deranged Christian savage rejects the "profane sciences" and the "wisdom of the wise" in favor of ignorance and simplicity because the "end times" are near. :p

In explicating the verse in which the Philistines forbid the Israelites from working metal (I Kings 13:19), Gregory transferred this episode to the intellectual plane. The arms the metal worker fabricates are secular letters - arms which are useless for the spiritual combat the Israelites must wage. Whosoever lives by God combats demonic spirits without the help of secular learning. . .

That is the essence of Gregory's thought. Gregory continuously contrasted worldly wisdom, which included profane studies, to God's wisdom. Because of his monastic vocation and his belief that the end of the world was near, he wanted to convert his fellow men to the superior wisdom one acquired from the study of the sacred text. Gregroy remained clerics, monks, and even lay aristocrats of the urgency of studying the Bible, which "transcends all learning and doctrine."

Ibid, pp.155-157

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade works on the presupposition that Christians should have carried water for secular studies all the time.

The contrast between the Dark Ages and Antiquity could not possibly be more clear. In the ancient world, education was the mark of a civilized man, and to succeed in public life one had to study the liberal arts. Illiteracy was associated with barbarism. While the Romans themselves were not really interested in science, the study of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic was still taught in the municipal schools and were considered prepatory for higher education in philosophy. The Romans also did little to interfere with Greek science and philosophy and even patronized it for centuries.

The triumph of Christianity inverted the values of the ancient world. Christians defined themselves against classical culture. Their ideal was the ignorant ascetic holy man who lived a simple life, not the educated philosopher who pursued wisdom for its own sake. As Ambrose put it, fishermen and tax-collectors, not philosophers. Ignorance of secular knowledge became a badge of honor and a way to demonstrate one's piety. The barbarian invasions did little to disrupt the classical education system outside the most extreme northern provinces of the Western Empire. On the contrary, the secular education system was simply abandoned because the values of society had changed.

His method is really simple: whenever something good happens, it is in spite of Christianity, whenever something bad happens, it is because of Christianity.

Christianity has been a largely negative force in European history, yes.

Anyways, the medieval university system that Christians did eventually build was better than anything that ancient pagans ever had.

The only reason the universities are remarkable is because the study of non-Christian, Greek scientific texts became institutionalized there, in spite of the best efforts of traditional theologians like Bernard and Peter Damian.

[Fade the Butcher]

An excellent article. Enjoy!

The Death of Science (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/science.html)

The Gathering Darkness


“The Bible is not a textbook in science. Its world view is that of the childhood of the race, and this primitive cosmology is seen in all its references to the physical world.

The earth is conceived as flat and stationary. The sky is a canopy or vault through whose windows the rain falls. The sun, moon, and stars are contained within this vault. Beneath the earth is Sheol, the realm of the dead. The world and the creatures in it, according to the scripture, were made in six days.

The world in which the Bible was written was one in which human destiny was determined by the stars, sickness caused by demon possession, the dead were raised, angels stirred the waters of a pool for the healing of the sick, and the Red Sea was parted.”

– Bratton (A History of the Bible, p22)


At the center of the Christian Dark Ages stood the Bible.



This fabricated compendium of garbled history, borrowed mythology, genocidal conflict and pious platitudes was elevated as the font of all wisdom, even as the bonfires set by Christian zealots reduced the science of a millennium to ash. In the new Christian tyranny all scientific thought which contradicted the Bible was suppressed. If rationality and observation contradicted the "revealed Word of God" then it was rationality and the observer who were in error. "For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator."
– St. Augustine (Enchiridion 3.9)




In the early 340s a fanatic, Firmicus Maternus, wrote to the emperors Constantius and Constans ('De Errore'). He was one of the first Christians to urge the persecution of pagans, for which he promised the 'reward from God.' The monarchs needed little encouragement – persecution (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/closure.html#persecution) began immediately, with pagan sacrifice made a capital offence in 353. Records Gibbon:

"The sons of Constantine trod in the footsteps of their father, with more zeal, and with less discretion ... every indulgence was shown to the illegal behaviour of the Christians ; every doubt was explained to the disadvantage of Paganism; and the demolition of the temples was celebrated as one of the auspicious events of the reign of Constans and Constantius."




Even during the brief reign of the pagan emperor Julian, the Temple of Apollo at Daphne (Antioch) had been burned down by Christian arsonists. His successor, the sadistic Valens, restored tax and other privileges to the Church, rescinded by Julian, and waged a particularly vicious campaign against the dead emperor's supporters (in vain, attempting a coup under Julian's cousin Procopius). In Italy, Gratian chose this moment to seize the immense wealth of the Temple of Vesta, protector goddess of the city of Rome.

Within a generation, the wildest dreams of Firmicus were fulfilled with the institution of the theocratic tyranny of Theodosius (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/theodosius.html) and the subsequent murder of scientists, the destruction of libraries, and eliminated and silencing of intellectuals.

"All heretics we pronounce mad and foolish ... these are to be visited first by the divine vengeance, and secondly by the stroke of our own authority, which we have received in accordance with the will of Heaven."




Thus spoke Theodosius in 380 (Norwich, p118).

A new and darker culture emerged. In 397, at the 4th Church Council of Carthage, the synod drew up a list of approved books of the Catholic canon and at the same time instituted a prohibition on anyone, including Christian bishops, from studying pagan literature. Non-Christian teachers, army officers, public employees and judges were dismissed from office. Early in the 5th century John Chrysostom (erstwhile patriarch in Constantinople) recorded with delight:

"And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished"
('Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers, 5').





He goes on to describe Pythagoras as a sorcerer and barbarian!
Within half a century, imperial edicts required the burning of non-Christian books. Many libraries of antiquity had been attached to temples, academies, and public baths and therefore suffered in the general attack by Christians on these vulgar pagan edifices. Plato's Academy, and the last of the pagan schools, were closed by Justinian in 529.

In contrast to the assault upon science and paganism, imperial patronage and wealth from the elite poured into a plethora of new churches, monasteries and nunneries – glorifying God and securing for their patrons 'a place in heaven.' Starved of funds, as well as legality, scientific research inevitably withered and died.

End of Scientific Method

The 'philosophy of the pagans' and secular public education were thus marginalised and eliminated. Lamented Ammianus Marcellinus , Rome's last great historian (who died in 395):

"Those few mansions which were once celebrated for the serious cultivation of liberal studies, now are filled with ridiculous amusements of torpid indolence ... The libraries, like tombs, are closed forever."




For those bright and privileged enough to seek education, career opportunities now lay exclusively within the hierarchy of the church and a Christianised state bureaucracy. With the active cooperation of the imperial court the Church had grasped complete control over education and, having done so, restricted instruction to potential priests.

Initially, rhetoric and grammar remained on the syllabus but knowledge which did not serve the purposes of the Church was suppressed. Some classic writers – Homer (in whose work Christians saw allegories), Plato and Aristotle (philosophies which 'anticipated' Christianity'), and some poetic and rhetorical works (Juvenal, Ovid and Horace) useful as teaching aids – were preserved; most were destroyed.

Such was Christian hostility to general learning and practical knowledge that access to scripture itself was forbidden to any lay-person who might still be literate. Preoccupied with ceremonial and holy pageants, within a few generations most members of the priesthood could not even read their own Bible. Ritual had replaced reading, iconography had replaced words.

Scientific method – empirical observation of the natural world, the testing of hypotheses and revision of assumptions – had no role in an age in which eternal truth had been made known to man by the revealed Word of God.

The Natural World Demonized

In this harsh and solemn world of Christ the rich variety of public entertainments of an earlier age were replaced by a meagre diet of pious ceremonials in which the Christian monarch and his retinue appeared ever-grander, ever more remote from mere mortals. (The emperor Hadrian had once been accosted by an old woman and chided for ignoring her petition; he read it. Christian monarchs could only be approached by courtiers, forced to prostrate themselves and kiss the hem of the imperial garments.)

The frequent public holidays – more than half the year during the empire's golden age – disappeared with the gods they honoured. The pagan festivals had not only provided generous leisure time but had brought nature and the seasons into peoples lives.

In the Christian monarchy 'Nature' was now seen as the domain of evil spirits, not a realm worthy of respect and exploration. Joyful public holidays were replaced by solemn commemorations of biblical events.

"The Platonists and their Christian successors held the peculiar notion that the Earth was tainted and somehow nasty, while the heavens were perfect and divine. The fundamental idea that the Earth is a planet, that we are citizens of the Universe, was rejected and forgotten."

Carl Sagon (Cosmos, p188)





The popular nature gods of a millennium became the 'demons' of the Christians, infesting streams, forests, mountains and animals – and of course the temples and shrines of the pagans.

The Christians, if anything, feared the old gods more than the pagans, particularly as they preferred a diabolic rather than a natural explanation for mishaps and disasters. Far from exposing the old gods as merely wood and stone (the fate of Serapis in Alexandria, for example), most Christians of the 4th and 5th centuries invested the pagan deities with a new, and sinister, power. Instead of contempt, now only the utter extirpation of the old gods could make the world safe for Christians.

God's Domain

To a plague of malevolent spirits was added the chastising hand of the Lord himself. Unlike the humanoid and capricious old gods of Greece or Rome – in the main, getting on with their own bawdy lives – the 'true God' of the Christians was pervasively interventionist, knowing every human thought, 'looking into men's hearts,' and able to suspend natural law at will.

The course of nature could be anything God chose it to be; human 'knowledge' of natural causes could be overturned simply by God's decision to do things otherwise. In this brave New World Order, divine caprice and cosmic lawlessness had triumphed and rationality had died. All that remained was to glorify God and await his judgement.

Flight from Reality: Theology the Source of all 'Wisdom'

As early as 221 AD the Bishop of Emmaus (in Palestine), Sextus Julius Africanus discovered that he could write a Christian 'history' by a close reading of scripture. His "Chronographiai" used the Bible to begin human history with creation in the year 5499 BC.

His framework was used in the next century by another, more notable fantasist, Eusebius, who shamelessly declared:

'We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.'

Ecclesiastical History (Vol. 8, chapter 2).





Thus was history reduced to ecclesiastical propaganda and the Bible used to 'prove' its own veracity. In all subsequent histories (Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, etc) theology was the guide. For example, the Lux Ex Orient ('the Light Comes from the East') doctrine emerged which said that all civilization originated in the "fertile river valleys" of the Middle East, the scene of the supposed Biblical events.

This belief was largely unchallenged until the middle of the 20th Century, when scientific advances in radiocarbon dating and other methods established that some of the oldest great structures had in fact been built in northern Europe – megaliths predating the Middle Eastern civilizations by perhaps thousands of years.

Cartography takes a Detour

Whether willfully or by neglect ancient understanding of world geography went into free fall with the emergence of the Christian theocracy. Ptolemy's 1st century "Geographica" – a handbook for Roman mariners (which not only promoted a spherical earth, but detailed the grid system of latitude and longitude still used today) – was lost to the west for well over a thousand years, as was the 2nd century "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea," which hints at knowledge of south east Asia and China. In its place, Christian scribes developed theological maps which detailed such unlikely places as Heaven and Hell, and filled in the gaps with "terra incognito" and "here be dragons". Empiricism was unnecessary. Records one scholar:

"With the Christian God established under state protection as the source of all wisdom, and the highlighting of miracles as a sign of God's favour, scientific and mathematical research became redundant."

C. Freeman (The Closing of the Western Mind, xvii)


Mapping the stars: What Did it matter?

Mapping the stars was not an idle leisure activity.

The lifeblood of Alexandria – as of other cities – was trade, particularly the export of grain and papyrus to the rest of the Mediterranean, and developments in astronomy allowed sailors to do away with the consultation of "oracles" and priests and be able to risk year-round navigation out of sight of the coast.

As early as 300 BC Aristarchus had argued for a heliocentric theory, a sun-centred universe, though many thinkers continued to support an earlier Aristotelian system which had the Earth at the centre of several 'spheres' – despite various observed 'anomalies' in the movement of the planets.

400 years after Aristarchus, Ptolemy worked out a system of 'epicycles' to explain away the irregularities and maintain the geocentric, Aristotelian view. The Christians seized upon this Ptolemaic system with relish and their thinking never moved beyond that point.

In the following centuries, mariners were forced, once more, to rely on "oracles" and the ship's Bible. Hazards of the sea consumed unfortunate sailors and, with so many cities in headlong decline, maritime trade collapsed.

Banned by church, it was the rediscovery of the heliocentric theory by Copernicus which got Galileo into trouble in the 1600s.

[Petr]

I can spam as well. Thanks for ruining this thread, Fade.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0062.html


Christianity and Progress

VINCENT CARROLL AND DAVID SHIFLETT


Christians, we are often told, are easy to locate. They are the people marooned on the wrong side of history. Again and again, century after dispiriting century, they have dug in their heels against progress. In politics, the critics charge, a Christian's instinctive allegiance has been with despots and oppressors rather than democrats and liberators, with inquisitors and book burners as opposed to probing minds and pamphleteers. Christians have buttressed hierarchy against equality, patriarchy against women's rights, absolutism against individualism, and small-minded tradition against broad-minded tolerance. The most popular version of this indictment sees the whole of Western history since the fall of Rome as a difficult but increasingly successful struggle to wrest the human spirit from the fetters of the Christian church.
"It's not hard to be hostile to the church," Jane Fonda confided to Oprah. After all, "you can go through history, the Crusades and the inquisitions, and the formal church has a lot to apologize for." Fonda's view of the Christian past is not an uncommon one.

The indictment of Christianity as a reactionary faith usually spares the message of Jesus himself, but turns on the earliest church leaders including Paul, on the church fathers of Late Antiquity, and on the clerics of the Middle Ages. Augustine, the most influential of the patristic writers, is frequently seen as a grim prototype of Torquemada, encouraging church absolutism and the persecution of heretical ideas. The medieval church to which he contributed so much is portrayed as a kind of institutional incubus, sucking liberty and creativity out of Europe for hundreds of years. Every presumed sin of Christianity is seen in distilled form in the medieval West.

This is the viewpoint adopted by high school textbooks, as Paul Gagnon confirmed in his study of the five most-read books. "The Middle Ages, when they are mentioned at all," he concludes, "are dark and stagnant, their people without ideas or curiosity, and interested only in life after the grave." Popular historians and critics echo this attitude. For example, in his review of David Fromkin's sweeping survey of world history, The Way of the World: From the Dawn of Civilization to the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, Richard Bernstein of the New York Times praised the author for dealing "in about half a page with Galileo, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and Michel de Montaigne, saying that they were all men of 'skepticism in thought and moderation in action' who helped draw Europe out of 'the long sleep of feudalism.' That is correct, and to be correct is an achievement." The implication is that moving forward required retreating from the medieval faith.

Yet there is a quite different possibility: that the Middle Ages were the incubator for some of our most cherished modern values and institutions, and that the origins of those values and institutions may often be found in an earlier age of the church.

"Both slave and free must equally philosophize, whether male or female in sex ... whether barbarian, Greek, slave, whether an old man, or a boy, or a woman.... And we must admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue." These remarks by Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) cannot be confused with the views of most educated citizens of the Roman Empire in the third century. The sentiments they express would have been equally unusual, or more so, in the other great civilizations of the time: the various empires stretching across Asia, as well as those in the Americas and in Africa south of the Sahara. Clement spoke with the distinctively universalist tone of a Christian. "I would ask you," he declared, "does it not seem monstrous that you — human beings who are God's own handiwork — should be subjected to another master, and, even worse, serve a tyrant instead of God, the true king?"

This was explosive stuff, and its force rested in its premise: If human beings are all God's own handiwork — and if, moreover, they are made in God's image, as Christians from the early days believed — then it follows that they must be moral equals. And once they are moral equals, the progress associated with Western civilization cannot be far behind. Without belief in moral equality, there would have been little hope for the rise of the Western legal tradition, with its distinctive feature of equality before the law. The recognition of individual rights would scarcely have been possible. Without moral equality, democracy in the modern sense is not even a serf's fugitive dream.

Of course, it was many centuries after the first appearance of Christian communities before practical political philosophers would write, with self-conscious gravity — and a sense that they were expressing the will of God — "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," and then found a nation committed to that principle. It took so long, in part, because it had to be made self-evident that all men are created equal, and that was the work of centuries. Someone could write such a statement in 1776 and expect his readers not to laugh out loud only because of a common culture steeped in the belief that mankind was "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." That culture was a legacy of Western Christendom.

It is not that Christians were the first or only people to insist on the fraternity of mankind and the intrinsic value of each human being. Stoics such as Marcus Aurelius, the second-century Roman emperor, also held that all individuals are equals. Yet there was a grim and cheerless quality about the Stoics, who believed in the suppression of all passions, not just the bad ones, and who touted virtue while denying it had any positive effect. The Stoics never tapped the popular longing for a sense of moral equality in the way Christians did.

Jews of the ancient world put unusual value on human life, and as Elaine Pagels remarks, "Hebrew tradition sometimes reveals a sense of universalism where one might least expect it. Even God's election of Abraham and his progeny includes the promise of a blessing to extend through them to all people, for that famous passage concludes with the words, 'in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."1 For a time, Judaism appeared a candidate to become a world religion, as converts scurried toward its impressive ethics and clear-headed monotheism. Yet in the end, the tribal legacy of Judaism presented obstacles too great for many pagans to overcome — circumcision being only the most obvious. It was Christianity that proved the more powerful lure. Up and down the social ladder, the doctrine of moral equality was to find an ever-expanding home.



How Christian Ethics Transformed the Pagan World

More than two hundred years after the death of Jesus, midway into the third century, Christians were still a small minority in the Roman Empire — no more than 5 percent of the multiethnic throng by the highest estimates, and probably less than half that much. "They were mostly concentrated in the bigger cities, but they were prominent in towns of varying rank and degree," Robin Lane Fox concludes in Pagans and Christians. "Their center of gravity lay with the humbler free classes, not with the slaves, whom they did little to evangelize.... Women of all ranks were conspicuous and there was a notable presence in some churches of women of high status.2

What was it that accounted for this particular social profile, if not Christianity's insistence on the equal value of every soul in God's sight? The apostle Paul had said, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," and his words still resonate two thousand years later. How much more potent they must have seemed in an empire in which social class — from emperor down to slave — was so much more confining, and in which the portion of the population that could be bought and sold like oxen seemed to swell with Rome's stupendous military reach.

How much more inspiring, in particular, the early Christian message must have been to women. To put it plainly, women enjoyed higher status and more autonomy among Christians than among pagans, and could expect better treatment from their husbands. Pagan Roman women were "three times as likely as Christians to have married before age 13," according to the sociologist Rodney Stark.3 Christian women also exercised far more choice in whom they wed, and were less likely to be forced into an abortion (a frequent cause of death for women of the time). The church expected men to remain faithful to their wives, a principle that enjoyed more freedom to choose for themselves whether to remarry, secure in the knowledge that their congregation would look after them if they elected to remain alone. "It is . . . an established fact, taken from simple evidence, that everywhere progress in free choice of a spouse accompanied progress in the spread of Christianity," declares Regine Pernoud.4

Women's status in the church itself was unusually favorable for the times. Wayne Meeks notes that "Both in terms of their position in the larger society and in terms of their participation in the Christian communities ... a number of women broke through the expectations of female roles."5 Paul is often rebuked these days for his offhand acceptance of the fact of slavery and for his allegedly regressive views on the status of women. But in fact what distinguished Paul from his non-Christian contemporaries was not the patriarchal views he sometimes expressed, especially in the admonition "Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord," but rather his repeated emphasis on the obligations of husbands to wives. Thomas Cahill writes that in Paul we find "the only clarion affirmation of sexual equality in the whole of the Bible — and the first one ever to be made in any of the many literatures of our planet."6 A. N. Wilson makes the same point: "In those days, you would have been hard put to find anyone who believed in 'sexual equality' in the modern sense, and the person who comes closest to it is, strangely enough, Paul."7

Paul also demanded that converts of Gentile background enjoy the same status as their brethren of Jewish origin, perhaps thereby sparing the Jesus movement a narrow future as another Jewish sect. This accomplishment is more extraordinary than it might now seem. It meant that the competition between paganism and Christianity, as Robert L. Wilken explains in The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, was something quite unusual: "a debate about a new concept of religion.... The ancients took for granted that religion was indissolubly linked to a particular city or people. Indeed, there was no term for religion in the sense we now use it to refer to ... a voluntary association divorced from ethnic or national identity."8 With Paul leading the way, Christianity would shatter this insular outlook for all time.

The crucial difference between pagans and Christians was not, as is commonly supposed, a belief in many gods versus a belief in one. By the first and second centuries, many pagans had begun to conceive of the major Roman gods as aspects of a unified divinity. This "striving after monotheism," in Henry Chadwick's phrase, also took the form of sun worship and an openness to spiritual imports from the East. But Chadwick points out that "Even after the cults of Isis and the Oriental mystery religions had spread from their original homes, there was curiously little sense of universality about their worship."9 It wasn't the number of their gods that prevented the vast majority of pagans from developing an outlook that transcended town, region, class and sometimes even gender. It was, at least in part, the confining nature of the religious message itself.

To be sure, most early Christians did not hope to transform society to mirror their belief in moral equality. It made as much sense to advocate manned flight as to propose equality before the law in an empire utterly dependent on slaves, with rulers who functioned as a law unto themselves. How could there be moral equality when the emperor was believed to possess something akin to divine powers? Yet even in those early centuries, Christian morality worked like a great shock absorber on everyday life, softening the blows of a frequently pitiless existence and gentling the private realm.

For exhilarating cruelty, few spectacles in human history have surpassed the gladiatorial games. Crowds that included the very best citizens exulted as scores of men, and sometimes many hundreds, slaughtered one another for fleeting fame and honor. Not that they always had much choice in the matter. Elaine Pagels describes the action at the Roman amphitheater in the second century: "The spectators cheered the men who recklessly courted death, and thrilled to the moment of the death blow. The crowd would go wild when a defeated gladiator defiantly thrust out his neck to his antagonist's sword, and they jeered and hooted when a loser bolted in panic."10 Major imperial shows could deploy thousands of pairs of combatants, not to mention all manner of animals and wild beasts — hounds, lions, bears, bulls — battling one another, or humans, to the death.

Christians deplored this entertainment, and not merely because there was always the chance that they might themselves someday wind up as prey. Rather, they were repulsed by the way this spectacle debased human life. When the Emperor Constantine outlawed gladiator games in the fourth century (or attempted to; they flourished for decades afterward), he did so as an affirmation of Christian values.

Even Edward Gibbon — the great eighteenth-century historian whose Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire so provoked pious Christians of his day — had to concede the impressive ethical standards of early Christians. He listed their "pure and austere morals" as the fourth of five reasons for Christianity's remarkable growth before Constantine."11 Yet this is grudging tribute. It hardly does justice to a morality that rejected the casual practice of infanticide and the abandonment of unwanted babies, opposed the exploitation of children for erotic pleasure, elevated the status of women, accepted and broadened the Jewish tradition of concern for the poor (as Ramsay MacMullen tartly observes, "who outside that tradition in the ancient world would have been recorded on his tombstone as a `lover of the poor'?"),12 exalted humility, and tirelessly preached the gifts of charity and love. "Austere" is scant praise indeed for such bedrock beliefs. "Life-affirming" is more like it.

If the amphitheater was the gaudiest manifestation of pagan cruelty the killing of infants, often by abandoning them on the local dung heap, was the saddest. Boys were disposed of when they were deformed; girls when they were inconvenient. The result was a society — not just in Italy but in the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa — in which males outnumbered females by 30 per cent or more. Most families simply refused to raise a second girl. Consider the instructions written by a man named Hilarion to his pregnant wife around the year Jesus was born: "If you are delivered of a child, if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it." Such orders were so ordinary, so unexceptional, that they didn't require a single word of justification. Christians, on the other hand, had a starkly different attitude: female infants were to be cherished equally with males as gifts from God.

True, there was great variety among early Christians, such that it is sometimes difficult, in Wayne Meeks's words, "to draw firm boundaries" around their moral beliefs. Yet there is little doubt that within this diversity there existed "a family resemblance of moral traits."13 Moreover, the contrast between pagan and Christian ethics is not only apparent retrospectively to historians; it was emphasized by early converts like Justin Martyr, who rejoiced at the "innumerable multitude who have reformed intemperate habits." And it was noted repeatedly by anti-Christian pagans of the time.

The Emperor Julian ("the Apostate"), whose last-ditch effort to reverse the Christian tide in 360-63 expired at the point of a Persian arrow, admitted that "It is generosity toward non-members, care for the graves of the dead, and pretended holiness of life that have specially fostered the growth of atheism" (a common term for Christianity at the time). Ammianus Marcellinus, the fourth century historian who attributed Roman military setbacks to a failure to satisfy pagan gods, nevertheless described Christianity as a "just and gentle" religion. The satirist Lucian of Samosata (c. 170) knew "that the Christians were unbelievably generous with their money and preferred to be open-handed rather than inquire too closely into the recipients." Even the provincial governor Pliny the Younger, who executed Christians for no reason other than their stubborn profession of faith, acknowledged in a letter to the Emperor Trajan that their behavior appeared above reproach, except of course for their regrettable "superstition." "During the plague in Alexandria," writes Robin Lane Fox, Christians "tended their own sufferers, while the pagans were said to abandon their sick at the first sign of disease; during the siege of the same year, the two Christian leaders contrived to save many old and weak people, Christians first, then pagans, too, later."14 Moreover, "Whereas the corn doles of pagan cities had been confined to citizens, usually to those who were quite well-off, the Christians' charity claimed to be for those who were most in need."15

There is no doubt that Christian charity (about which more later) exercised a powerful pull on converts, and that Christian dedication to the poor, ill, disabled, imprisoned, elderly, widowed and exploited was notable from the outset. Early bishops, for example, were expected to eat one meal a day with the poor. In the larger cities, the church founded orphanages and the forerunners of hospitals. As the Roman Empire spiraled into chaos, the church expanded its philanthropic role until it was virtually the sole recourse of the poor. "St. Gregory is said to have taken his responsibilities so seriously," recounts Christopher Dawson, "that when a single poor man was found dead of hunger in Rome, he abstained from saying Mass as though he were guilty of his death."16

It is not that Christian ethics were entirely original; they were substantially Jewish in derivation, although with distinctive accents such as the command to love one's enemies. And it is possible to exaggerate the moral differences between pagans and Christians; for leading pagan citizens were capable of great acts of giving, if not often to the direct benefit of the poor, then at least to the local community and to their gods. Much of Christian ethics can be found articulated by pagan philosophers.

"Hence the paradox of the rise of Christianity as a moral force in the pagan world," observes Peter Brown.

The rise of Christianity altered profoundly the moral texture of the late Roman world. Yet in moral matters the Christian leaders made almost no innovations. What they did was more crucial. They created a new group, whose exceptional emphasis on solidarity in the face of its own inner tensions ensured that its members would practice what pagan and Jewish moralists had already begun to preach."17
The result was that the ethical differences in practice between the pagan and Christian worlds could be stark. The concepts of mercy and humility were not just unappreciated in pagan culture, they were ridiculed by men of the highest learning. The idea that God put us on earth to love one another — that the duty of charity demolished family and community boundaries — was radically offensive to many wellborn pagans.

Gibbon believed that paganism had lost its religious vigor by the time of Jesus, becoming little more than a facade for vacant materialism. Some modern historians disagree. To Robert Wilken, for example, "the debate between paganism and Christianity in antiquity was at bottom a conflict between two religious visions. The Romans were not less religious than the Christians."18 Yet even if the pagan and Christian outlooks overlapped at points, there was no reconciling the differences. "The Christian principle, 'Love your enemies,' is good," quipped Bertrand Russell, "but the Stoic principle, 'Be indifferent to your friends,' is bad. And the Christian principle does not inculcate calm, but an ardent love even towards the worst of men. There is nothing to be said against it except that it is too difficult for most of us to practice sincerely."19

But beginning in the first century, a swelling parade of men and women announced that they would try.



How Church/State Rivalry Prevented the Total Domination of Either

When Theodosius the Great allowed the Visigoths, in the year 382, to settle within the Roman Empire in return for their promise to fight as allies, he committed one of those slow-moving blunders that take years to ripen into full catastrophe. The emperor had chosen a policy of coexistence rather than confrontation, believing that the barbarians could be contained, neutralized, exploited. Instead, by slow degrees, they and future invaders seized ever larger pieces of the empire, culminating first in the Sack of Rome in 410 and finally in the collapse of the Western Empire in 476.

Yet much as he sought to avoid a showdown with barbarians squatting on his territory, Theodosius was no pacifist. Like his predecessors, he countered challenges to imperial authority with a mailed fist. It was just such an incident that produced one of the defining moments in all of Christian, and indeed Western, history.

The spark was lit in 390 by a mob in Thessalonica that murdered an officer of the garrison. When Theodosius heard of it, he reacted with fury, ordering a wholesale reprisal. Roman troops set upon a large crowd assembled in the circus, and in a breathtaking massacre, slaughtered upwards of seven thousand. In an earlier age, the incident would have ended there. An emperor who wades through the blood of innocents need never glance back unless, that is, he happens to be a nominal Christian and is called to account by the likes of Bishop Ambrose of Milan.

Ambrose had counseled Theodosius against his butchery, and now he threw down the gauntlet: The emperor must repent or the Holy Eucharist would be withheld from him. In his letter of condemnation, Ambrose declared, "There was that done in the city of the Thessalonians of which no similar record exists, which I was not able to prevent happening; which, indeed, I had before said would be most atrocious when I so often petitioned against it." Pointedly noting the biblical example of David's repentance, the bishop then wheeled out his heavy cannon: "I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so."

It was an act of magnificent valor, but even more memorable for the principle it enshrined: No ruler was above God's law and no churchman might trample on that law in the service of his sovereign. The church's moral authority flowed from God, not the state.

Of course there is no particular reason why even a Christian emperor like Theodosius would necessarily flinch at such a high handed challenge. There must have been a close moment or two as a result. Yet in the end, Theodosius consented to public penance at the cathedral in Milan. Ambrose had risked everything to assert ecclesiastical preeminence in moral judgment. In so doing, he provided an example that would echo through the centuries.

Ambrose and the other stiff-necked clerics who followed would help to check secular authorities in the Christian world from seizing the kind of suffocating, unimpeded power that rulers elsewhere usually enjoyed. They didn't do this because they endorsed a separation of powers in the modern sense. Medieval popes sometimes asserted not only independence but even supremacy over secular lords, and were often willing to exercise civil power when it fell their way. Yet the practical effect of their confrontations with temporal powers would be deeply important for the growth of freedom and the carving out of separate spheres of influence.

This was not Ambrose's first gamble on behalf of church prerogatives. A few years before, during the ascendancy of Valentinian II in the west, Ambrose had defied a direct order by the Empress Justina that he turn over a church to those who professed the Arian creed; he and throngs of supporters held out even after Gothic soldiers were dispatched to seize the basilica. "The counts and tribunes came and urged me to cause the basilica to be quickly surrendered, saying that the Emperor was exercising his rights since everything was under his power," Ambrose explained in a letter. "I answered that if he asked of me what was mine, that is, my land, my money, or whatever of this kind was my own, I would not refuse it, although all that I have belonged to the poor, but that those things which are God's are not subject to the imperial power."

Fortunately for Ambrose, the Goths — who might just as easily pillage as parley — were in no mood for a massacre. The bishop prevailed. Even if he were not a father of the Christian church, he would surely be remembered as one of very few unarmed men in all of Roman history to succeed in forcing more than one emperor to blink.

Although Ambrose lived decades after Constantine's Edict of Milan (A.D. 313), which ended the era of Christian persecution, he proved that church leaders (at least in the west) were not about to forget their past. Three hundred years of anxious, sometimes furtive, existence had molded a psychology of defiance and even contempt for the lordly pretensions of secular powers. This psychology was braced by what Richard Fletcher describes as the "rich Judaic literature of exile which was developed by early Christian writers, "20 and by a Gospel that demanded Christians to distinguish between what they owed Caesar and what they owed God. Church leaders and philosophers who had risked martyrdom before the fourth century — and it was they who mainly had been targeted, not average communicants — were followed by men like Ambrose who maintained the same unchained spirit. "In matters of faith," Ambrose declared, "bishops are wont to be the judges of Christian emperors, not emperors of bishops."

Ambrose was not the most impudent of fourth-century churchmen. Christopher Dawson recounts how when the Emperor Constantius II attempted to meddle in ecclesiastical issues, he was "met with vehement opposition from two quarters: from Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria, and from the West, where the doctrine of the independence of the Church was uncompromisingly maintained, above all by St. Hilary and Hosius, the famous bishop of Cordova."21 Hosius let Constantius have it without a speck of reserve:

Remember that you are a mortal man. Fear the day of judgment.... Do not interfere in ecclesiastical affairs, or dictate anything about them to us, but rather learn from us what you ought to believe concerning them. God has given to you the government of the Empire and to us that of the Church. Whosoever dares to impugn your authority, sets himself against the order of God. Take care lest you likewise render yourself guilty of a great crime by usurping the authority of the Church. We are commanded to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. It is not lawful for us to arrogate to ourselves the imperial authority. You also have no power in the ministry of holy things.
As bold as such language was, it lacked a certain intellectual heft. That would be supplied in due course by Augustine (354-429), the great North African bishop of Hippo and, after Paul, the most important Christian philosopher of the first millennium. He wrote The City of God after the Sack of Rome in 410 had staggered the empire's self-confidence, and pagans were interpreting it as the vengeance of their now-neglected gods. Augustine countered with the long view: Empires rise and fall in the natural order of things, but the church's mission stands apart from any passing secular institution. Because the true church endures, it is government's duty to take instruction from religion, not the other way around. This view could reinforce arrogance and absolutism in the church, and eventually it did. Yet Augustine's political theory also provided a basis for ideals of human freedom and individual rights.

Augustine saw that the state often became a ravenous predator, in need of restraint. "Without justice, what then are kingdoms but great robberies?" he asked. "For what are robberies themselves but little kingdoms?" Still, he was not propounding an antigovernment theory. Because of man's fallen nature, he regarded the state as a necessary instrument for maintaining order. "Sinful man hates the equality of all men under God," he explained, "and, as though he were God, loves to impose his own sovereignty upon his fellow men." The state could at least keep these predators at bay — an essential but hardly exalted function.

In effect, Fletcher writes, Augustine "detached the state — any state, but in particular, of course, the Roman state — from the Christian community. Under his hands the Roman empire became theologically neutral."22 By clearly delimiting the role of secular powers, Augustine helped set Western Christendom on a course in which the believer's duties to God (however interpreted) might trump his obligations to the state. It is impossible to understand the West's unique tradition of the dissenting conscience without granting Augustine his due.

The ancients tended to equate an individual's well-being with that of society. It is no wonder that "there seems to be scarcely any discussion of individual liberty as a conscious political ideal (as opposed to its actual existence) in the ancient world," as Isaiah Berlin once noted .23 Yet the concept of the individual is embedded in the biblical emphasis on the sanctity of each life, which reaches its summit in Jesus' final commandment to his apostles that they "love one another as I have loved you." Augustine helped develop the concept of the individual by introducing to Western thought what Charles Taylor calls the "first person standpoint."

Indeed, in his Confessions, a highly personal memoir, Augustine became "the first to make the first-person standpoint fundamental to our search for the truth."24 It is no accident that when the discussion of individual liberty finally breaks into view, it is a gift of Christendom — in no small part because of the bishop of Hippo.

To be sure, Augustine is often burdened with precisely the opposite legacy. As Elaine Pagels observes, "Later in his life Augustine came to endorse, for the church as well as the state, the whole arsenal of secular government that [John] Chrysostom had repudiated-commands, threats, coercion, penalties, and even physical force. "25 Thomas Cahill goes so far as to dub Augustine the "father of the Inquisition" for applauding the persecution of the Donatist heresy in North Africa and then writing "the first Catholic justification for state persecution of those in error: error has no rights; to disbelieve in forced conversions is to deny the power of God; and God must whip the son he receives.... Augustine, the last great man of Roman antiquity, is going over the edge."26

Hardly. There is no doubt that Augustine sowed a number of minefields for later Christians to pick their way through: his somewhat sour attitude toward sex (which in fact was not uncommon among pagan intellectuals of late antiquity), his belief in every individual's predestined fate, his doctrine of original sin with its unnerving implications for those who remained unbaptized through no fault of their own — and his eventual enthusiasm for coercion. But critics who dress him in jack boots do so only by plucking him from his time. While the Roman Empire did tolerate, within limits, a variety of religions, it never embraced religious liberty in the modern sense. The imperial state was, Chadwick remarks, a place "where personal freedom counted for little ... where the secret police ... seemed ubiquitous, and where the screams of those under judicial torture and the gibbets of arbitrary executions were common sounds and sights.27 Christians who lived under pagan emperors had meanwhile nurtured a remarkable commitment to nonviolence. There is apparently no record of their initiating attacks against pagan neighbors. A few, such as Tertullian, actually seemed to have broken through to a deeper conception of religious freedom. "It should be considered absurd," he concluded, "for one person to compel another to honor the gods."

By comparison, Augustine may sound brutal — but he also sounds like a man of his time. "There was religious intolerance all around," Garry Wills notes in his biography of the bishop. "It was not an aberration but the norm. Augustine, however, supplied something that was new — a theory of suppression. It is a sign of the general acceptance of religious intolerance that no one had felt the need to justify it." What is more, Augustine "formed his theory as a matter of conscience, trying to reconcile his own acts with his own values. In the process he mitigated what were harsher measures, gave a didactic restriction to repression, and opposed torture or execution."28

When the Vandals burst into North Africa from Spain in 429, they did not require lessons from Augustine or anyone else in the fine art of repression. Catholic and Donatist alike was tortured and put to the sword. Augustine might have fled, but stayed instead with his flock to face the siege and the inevitable slaughter. He died before Hippo fell, a firsthand witness to the uncertain prospects for the City of Man.

Thanks in part to Augustine, neither church nor state in the West would ever have an easy time absorbing the other. "It is not that the church or the state directly advocated religious freedom or any other freedom," writes Paul Marshall, a professor of philosophy and a senior fellow at Freedom House.

They did not, and often inquisitions were defended. But people in both realms always believed that there should be boundaries, and they struggled over centuries to define them. This meant that the church, whatever its lust for civil control, had always to acknowledge that there were forms of political power which it could and should not exercise. And the state, whatever its drive to dominate, had to acknowledge that there were areas of human life that were beyond its reach.29
David Landes spells out the implications: "Earthly rulers were not free to do as they pleased, and even the Church, God's surrogate on earth, could not flout rights and take at will.... All of this made Europe very different from [other] civilizations around. "30



How Christianity Preserved Civilization and Then Extended It

What does a man contemplate on the road up from Rome to parley with Attila, king of the Huns? Does he dwell on the fate of Milan, Verona or Pavia, all of which were brutalized by the Hun army to the point of civic and economic collapse? Or does he ponder the obliteration of Aquileia, which could hardly be found when Attila was through with it? Aquileia had virtually disappeared — razed, burnt, eliminated.

The road to Rome was open to Attila. What humanitarian arguments could one marshal to persuade a great and pitiless warrior that he should spare an ancient city from fire and sword? We don't know precisely what Pope Leo said to Attila when he appeared before him at Mantua in 452, but whatever the plea was, it seemed to work. Attila pulled back. Or perhaps his timely change of heart had something to do with the plague racing through his army, his imperiled supply lines, or the shortage of food. Whatever the cause of Attila's retreat, he and Pope Leo had set a pattern that would endure for more than five hundred years. Time after time, on their own initiative, the best and bravest of Christian clerics would gamble their lives in attempts to tame the barbarian heart.

Leo himself tried again three years later, when he met the Van dal Gaiseric at the gates of Rome in the hope of deflecting him from wanton destruction. Gaiseric complied, in a manner of speaking. He pillaged Rome with the artful control of a second-story man, while leaving the looted city more or less intact.

In the centuries to come, the contrast between Christian peace maker and barbarian brute would not always be so stark, of course. Sometimes the peacemaker and the brute were kinsmen, even brothers, nominally of the same faith, living side by side in the same kingdom. And sometimes the brute was the Christian leader himself, particularly when coercion offered a shortcut to the otherwise painstaking labor of conversion.

In the waning years of the fourth century, mobs of Christian enthusiasts, aided by recent laws or simply indulged by imperial troops, smashed pagan shrines and closed their temples — as if determined to pay back three hundred years of intermittent repression in the space of a lifetime or two. Long after Constantine, vast reaches of countryside were Christian in little more than name, and the tenacity of primitive folk cults was a recurring scandal. The measures employed by some church messengers, like Martin of Tours in the later fourth century, were hardly more sophisticated than the cults they opposed. Realizing that abstract argument had no chance to win the day, ancient evangelists often resorted to raw proofs of the power of their God. "Miracles, wonders, exorcism, temple-torching and shrine-smashing were in themselves acts of evangelization," explains Fletcher.31

Christian heroism took new forms as the empire collapsed, to be parceled out among various hordes of barbarians, some of the Asian creed (like the Visigoths) and others heathen (Huns, Franks, Angles, Saxons and others who poured into northern and central Europe). As Chadwick recounts, "the task of organizing local resistance often fell in the main to the bishops. One Hun attack on a town in Thrace was resisted only by the energy of the local bishop who placed a huge ballista [a catapult for hurling stones] under the patronage of St. Thomas and then fired it himself to such purpose that he scored a direct hit on the barbarian chief."32 Not every bishop remained at his post, but enough did to ensure that the fate of classical culture in the West soon rested solely in the church's hands, where it would remain for hundreds of years.

In the ninth and tenth centuries, Western Christendom was pounded from all sides, with Vikings slamming from the north and west, Muslims from the south, and Magyars from the east. Even during this turmoil, lives of peaceful example were never in short supply. It is difficult to exaggerate the significance of ascetic monks, an import from Asian/African Christianity, on the course of European history. Thomas Cahill has told the best-selling tale of how Irish monks "saved civilization" — a grand claim, yet one surely merited by the facts. Not only did these monks salvage Latin literature from impending oblivion, they scattered across Europe scores of monasteries that restored learning and books to their rightful place. They also reinvigorated the literary spirit and offered to pagan peasants a compelling example of the power of the Christian message.

Cahill disdains the rival Benedictine tradition as "a monasticism of disciplined uniformity, enforced — through floggings, if necessary — by an autocratic abbot."33 This is like scorning a Marine because he failed to enroll at Julliard. What the Benedictines may have lacked in playful irreverence and intellectual audacity (but only in comparison with the Irish monks) they more than made up for in sheer dedication and patient scholarship. "St. Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins," John Henry Newman wrote memorably more than a hundred years ago,

and his mission was to restore it in the way not of science, but of nature, not as if setting about to do it, not professing to do it by any set time, or by any rare specific, or by any series of strokes, but so quietly, patiently, gradually, that often till the work was done, it was not known to be doing. It was a restoration rather than visitation, correction or conversion. The new work which he helped to create was a growth rather than a structure. Silent men were observed about the country, or discovered in the forest, digging, clearing and building; and other silent men, not seen, were sitting in the cold cloister, tiring their eyes and keeping their attention on the stretch, while they painfully copied and recopied the manuscripts which they had saved. There was no one who contended or cried out, or drew attention to what was going on, but by degrees the woody swamp became a hermitage, a religious house, a farm, an abbey, a village, a seminary, a school of learning and a city.34
These painstaking efforts of draining, clearing, planting and building came to be — at least in west, north and central Europe — "the prime economic facts of the entire Dark Ages," writes Paul Johnson. "In a sense they determined the whole future history of Europe: they were the foundation of its world primacy. The operation was so huge, and took place over so long a period — nearly a millennium — that no one element in society can claim exclusive credit: it was a collective effort. But it was the monasteries that led the movement and long sustained it."35 It was monasteries, too, that helped give birth to Europe's unrivaled tradition of mechanical and technical invention, from clocks to brewing, from mining to waterpower. Books were only one of many legacies of the monastic movement, if no doubt the most consequential.

Even in early times, to be sure, a few monasteries resembled privileged fraternities more than barracks for the devout. Some bishops, for that matter, luxuriated in feasting, fine clothes and the hunt. "The gap between precept and practice is as old as human moral teaching," Fletcher observes. "It is not, therefore, a difficult matter to assemble evidence for clerical behavior which fell short of the ideal enunciated by rigorists."36 But an ideal may still be important even where it is widely flouted. If nothing else, Christian ideals and ethics functioned like a gravitational force, slowly pulling into their orbit those who repeatedly heard them.

The virtues of charity, patience, humility and love for those outside one's immediate circle are difficult enough to practice even after they have been absorbed into the cultural lifeblood through generations of ethical teaching. Their chances are slimmer still in a world dominated by the warrior spirit and memories of heroic combat, as was still the case throughout the Dark Ages. Indeed, on the northern fringes of what had been the Roman Empire, the religions displaced by Christianity sometimes still involved human sacrifice, and almost always paid homage to a god of war. "Throughout the heathen period in northern Europe there was clear need of a god of war," explains H. R. Ellis Davidson in Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. "The story of the Germanic peoples and the Vikings is one in which local battles, feuds, invasions, and wars on a national scale are the order of the day."37 This is the world, so alien to us today, that Christianity gradually absorbed and transformed.



How Christianity Set the Stage for the Rule of Law

The Middle Ages have become an embarrassment to many Christians, in no small part because of descriptions like this one by Cambridge professor Patrick Collinson:

It is with the twelfth century that we come to the greatest challenge confronting the historically naive Christian who may fondly suppose that his religion has been consistently faithful to the boundless philanthropy of its founder. For it is at this point in history ... that the Christian West, that is to say the Church itself, became what Professor Robert Moore has called a "persecuting society," the exact inversion of a martyr society. That society, often regarded in retrospect as Christianity in a state of religious and social perfection, now became a gross and habitual violator of human rights .38
It is difficult to say who, in this age of apology, might be those naive Christians who still have no inkling of the depressing persecutions of Jews and heretics during the Middle Ages, or the monstrous bloodletting of the Crusades. After all, there are regular reminders of these in mainstream news stories. In 1999, for example, on the 900th anniversary of the crusaders' conquest of Jerusalem, hundreds of Christians were on hand in that ancient city, fresh from a Reconciliation Walk begun in Germany, to apologize to one and all for their ancestors' frightful behavior. If there is ignorance among the faithful, it pertains to dark episodes from other eras, like Charlemagne's merciless conversion of the Saxons in the eighth century, a campaign so brutal that the Nazis would resurrect its memory twelve centuries later in order to justify their anti-Christian policies. But what historically naive Christians mainly fail to appreciate about medieval Christendom are not its moral lapses, but its extraordinary achievements.

They are unlikely to know, for example, that the Middle Ages were the incubator for representative and constitutional government, based on the principle that power must have clearly defined limits. They would perhaps be surprised to discover in this era the growth of enforceable property rights and taxation by consent. They are unlikely to have learned that the diffusion of the Bible's skeptical view of secular power — I Samuel 8 was an especially popular citation — helped to check the ambitions of would-be tyrants. They are probably unaware that the same popes who, to their ever lasting shame, introduced the Inquisition also helped throttle feudal lawlessness and humbled more than one monarch angling for absolute power.

The church's resistance to secular bullies was not merely a means of protecting its own power. Its humanitarian and civilizing mission was meant to benefit directly the mass of peasants as well. The barbarian challenge had largely been thrown back by the end of the tenth century, but habits of lawless pillage and private warfare endured. As David Landes writes, "The tenth and eleventh centuries were filled with baronial brigandage, eventually mitigated by popular, Church supported revulsion and outrage that found expression in mass `peace' assemblies; and from the top down, subdued by stronger central government allied with urban interests."39

These peace assemblies, which in some respects resembled modern mass demonstrations, were instigated in south and central France by local bishops, and they quickly spread. In every locale they were led by clergy. Bishop Fulbert of Chartres declared in his lyrical verses: "The spear is made into a pruning hook and the sword into a plowshare; peace enriches the lowly and impoverishes the proud. Hail, Holy Father, and grant salvation to all who love the quiet of peace."

The church's efforts to rein in the lingering warrior spirit even helped create the code of chivalry. Christopher Dawson explains, "The ancient barbarian motive of personal loyalty to the war leader was reinforced by higher religious motives, so that the knight finally becomes a consecrated person, pledged not only to be faithful to his lord, but to be the defender of the Church, the widow and the orphan.... In this way the knight was detached from his barbarian and pagan background and integrated into the social structure of Christian culture."40

The church also put checks on the greater powers. Medieval popes and bishops of a reformist bent, beginning with Gregory VII in 1073, never stopped badgering princely rulers with reminders of their duties to those who served them. Medieval kings did not usually possess the absolute powers that later monarchs would seize. And since kings were consecrated, it was believed, by God, they were expected to keep their oaths, meet their legal obligations, and recognize the prerogatives of the church. Gregory VII was adamant about this, and his hectoring was vital to what Paul Johnson describes as "the most important political development of the second millennium," the rule of law.41

The church had long been carrying the Roman tradition of law into barbarian backwaters, at first simply by writing down and organizing the customary rules of these illiterate tribes. But even the legalistic civilization of Rome, which guarded private property more successfully than most rival nations, fell far short of the rule of law in the modern sense. For one thing, not everyone was equally subject to the law. The emperor answered to no one. Most residents of the empire were not even citizens, and a huge number were slaves. Although descending from Roman tradition, church canon law under Gregory operated with a different purpose. As Johnson describes it, canon law provided a "refuge for the physically weak and oppressed — not just the clergy themselves but women, children, the poor and the sick — against the rule of force and fear in an age when the armored knight dispensed what law there was. Gregory won some battles, lost others.... But his successors carried on the struggle until churches and monasteries, nunneries and all consecrated ground, at least, were free from arbitrary sword."42

Thomas a Becket (1118-70) for a time even persuaded his fellow English bishops to qualify their traditional oath of obedience to the "ancient customs" of the kingdom. His murder in Canterbury Cathedral so shocked the Christian world that Henry 11, in a replay of Theodosius' humiliation, was forced into public penance. Unlike ancient and modern despots, medieval monarchs lacked either a divine or a legal right to do whatever they pleased.

And while this was by no means solely the church's doing — diffusion of power in western Europe resulted from many factors, including a tough and militant nobility who resisted royal encroachments with their swords — the church clearly played a leading role.



Roots of Capitalism and Popular Consent

The medieval groping toward legal equality was far from complete, but its ultimate significance extended well beyond the treatment of the individual to the shape of the economy itself. Market economies depend upon the secure ownership of property, and property is secure only when the law treats everyone alike. In The Noblest Triumph, Tom Bethell's history of property rights, the author contends that the medieval world was still too highly regulated — thanks in part to the church — to nurture a thriving market economy. But he acknowledges that "something about the Christian teaching was essential to the emergence of the market order; in particular, belief in the underlying equality of human nature.43

Bethell explains, "Just as all were equal in the eyes of God, so it began to be recognized that all should be equal before the law. . . . The feature of law that is most conducive to the modern market system is equality before the law."44

In fact, a great deal more of Christian teaching undoubtedly came into play. A market economy thrives in a culture of invention and creativity. This too was a distinctive gift of the Christian West, which flowered in its first full glory during the medieval era. The Judeo-Christian belief in the dignity of manual labor also played a role. And although Christian culture has had its share of sybarites and showoffs, Christianity itself has always honored humility and modesty — something that cannot be said for either the pagan culture of imperial Rome or the barbarians who engulfed it. Finally, the "emergence of the market order" required a belief in progress and a sense of linear time, both of which achieved their fullest expression in a Christian context. At its core, the idea of progress is an expression of optimism, an embrace of human possibility.

It is no wonder that the first true renaissance in western Europe occurred not in the sixteenth century but in the twelfth, soon after the consolidation of Christian civilization. It was then that scholastic philosophers began their wholesale effort to retrieve and reinterpret the treasures of ancient learning, culminating in the brilliant work of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. "One of the curious things about the Middle Ages is that they were original and creative without knowing it," Bertrand Russell once noted. "The scholastics, however they might revere Aristotle, showed more originality than any of the Arabs — more, indeed, than any one since Plotinus, or at any rate since Augustine. In politics as in thought, there was the same distinguished originality."45

In the thirteenth century, representative assemblies became a common feature of civil government. "This probably owed something to the example of the church," concludes Professor Antony Black, "since representative church councils were the obvious and, indeed, the only precedent. "46 Any association between Christianity and early republicanism may seem surprising, given the church's history of alliances with various monarchical thrones. But early Christianity had embraced election of bishops and participatory decision making on a wide scale, even generating "the entirely new idea of a general consensus achievable by representatives of all peoples in an ecumenical council of bishops." If these republican habits had withered during the early Middle Ages, they had not been discarded. The medieval church continued to rely upon representative councils, while religious orders such as the Franciscans held elections and practiced a form of self-governance that required cooperative consent. Thomas Aquinas himself was no friend of either absolute secular power or papal theocracy, actually arguing, according to Black, that "divine law prescribed election."47

Far from being a dead or stagnant time, the Middle Ages must go down as an unusually fertile, creative and even liberating era, on a variety of fronts. And despite periods of almost stupefying turmoil, and leaders of sometimes stunning greed and cynicism, the Middle Ages could and did produce Christians of such unequaled moral example as St. Francis of Assisi, whose boundless love and high spirits made sure that even pigeons were not excluded from his sermons.



Endnotes:

Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 37.

Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1987), 311.
Rodney Stark, The Rise o f Christianity (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1997), 106.
Regine Pernoud, Those Terrible Middle Ages! Debunking the Myths (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 103.
Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 71.
Thomas Cahill, Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 141.
A. N. Wilson, Paul: The Mind of the Apostle (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997), 140.
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 124.
Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1993), 72.
Pagels, The Origin o f Satan, 115.
Quoted in Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1948), 350.
Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 54.
Wayne Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 2-3.
Fox, Pagans and Christians, 591.
Ibid., 668.
Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History o f European Unity (London: Sheed & Ward, 1932), 36.
Peter Brown, Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998), 24.
Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 201.
Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 602.
Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity (New York: H. Holt & Co., 1998), 30.
Dawson, The Making of Europe, 42.
Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, 29.
Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), 129.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Makings of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 131-33.
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent (New York: Random House, 1988), 117.
Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 65.
Chadwick, The Early Church, 222.
Garry Wills, Saint Augustine (New York: Viking, 1999), 102.
Paul Marshall, "Keeping the Faith: Religion, Freedom, and International Affairs," Imprimis, March 1999, 4.
David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty o f Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1998), 35.
Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, 45.
Chadwick, The Early Church, 248-49.
Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization, 181.
Quoted in Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1950), 57.
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1987), 149.
Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, 191.
H. R. Ellis Davidson, Gods and Myths of Northern Europe (London: Penguin Books, 1990), 71.
Patrick Collinson, "Religion and Human Rights: The Case of and for Protestantism," in Historical Change and Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures, 1994 (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 34.
Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, 40.
Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, 175.
Paul Johnson, "Laying Down the Law," Wall Street Journal, 10 March 1999.
Ibid.
Tom Bethell, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998), 85.
Ibid., 80.
Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 450.
Antony Black, "Christianity and Republicanism: From St. Cyprian to Rousseau," American Political Science Review, September 1997, 650.
Ibid.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett. "Christianity and the Foundation of the West." From Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2000), 1-23.

Excerpted with permission from the publisher from Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry, by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Encounter Books, San Francisco, California (© 2000).

THE AUTHORS

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages at the Rocky Mountain News.

He lives in Denver. David C. Shiflett is a freelance writer living in Midlothian, Virginia. He is also author of The America We Deserve (with Donald Trump).

Copyright © 2000 Encounter Books



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Petr]

One more for the road:

http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n4p09.htm


The Judeo-Christian Cosmology and the Origins of Science

Paul Gosselin


If we refer to the history of science, modern science originated in Europe in a context (the 16th and 17th centuries) where Christianity was the dominant world-view, permeating all aspects of life[1]. Not only was the proverbial antagonism between 'science' and religion non-existent[2], but during this period scientific research itself was conceived (by scientists) as a religious task, a means of understanding the wisdom of God manifest in Creation and as a way to worship Him. Discussing this attitude among the Puritans, R.K. Merton remarks:


"This is the very motif that recurs in constant measure in the very writings which often contained considerable scientific contributions: these worldly activities and scientific achievements manifest the Glory of God and enhance the Good of Man. The juxtaposition of the spiritual and the material is characteristic and significant. This culture rested securely on a substratum of utilitarian norms which identified the useful and the true. Puritanism itself had imputed a threefold utility to science. Natural philosophy was instrumental first, in establishing practical proofs of the scientist's state of grace, second in enlarging control of nature; and third, in glorifying God. Science was enlisted in the service of individual, society and deity. That these were adequate grounds could not be denied. They comprised not merely a claim to legitimacy, they afforded incentives which cannot be readily overestimated. One need only to look through the personal correspondence of seventeenth century scientists to realize this."[3]


This attitude towards science was not, however, particular to Protestantism but was common (with a few variations) among other scientists and mathematicians of the time such as Galileo, Descartes and Father Mersennes. Merton points out that many renowned Seventeenth century scientists and mathematicians were also members of the clergy. Merton also notes that lay scientists such as Boyle, Nehemiah Grew and Isaac Newton all had a keen interest in matters religious.


Taking these facts into consideration, one must not be surprised then at science's present ideologically incomplete state, because at its birth science was thoroughly integrated in the period's dominant religious system: Christianity. There are good reasons to believe that during this period science operated as a sub-cosmology[4], that is, a sub-cosmology specifically oriented towards the systematic study of the physical world and equipped with a basic methodological technology. In this context Christianity provided the 'remainder' of meaning, a larger, overarching cosmology, which is required by people of all times. The 'remainder' of meaning provided by Christianity would include, among other things, insights into areas of morality, sexuality, general cosmology, eschatology, etc. Setting these considerations aside for a moment, it must be pointed out that the awakening to the fact of science's metaphysical[5] or cosmological aspects has had repercussions far beyond the field of the philosophy of science. This new awareness of science's metaphysical aspects has had an important impact on the debate on rationality presently taking place in Anglo-Saxon anthropology, where, among other things, a fair amount of attention has been paid to the following question: "Does the distinction between scientific and non- (or pre-) scientific thought have any basis? Is it meaningful?" As we will see later, the various views taken with regard to the origins of science play an important role in the formation of attitudes and determining positions adopted in the debate on rationality, specifically on the question of accepting or rejecting the distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought.


Due to the debt owed by a number of prominent participants in the debate on rationality to the works of Karl R. Popper, we will briefly discuss his contribution. In an article entitled Back to the Presocratics[6] (pp.136-165) Popper has postulated, as have most philosophers and historians of science, that the West owes it's scientific heritage to the philosophers of ancient Greece. According to Popper, the Greek's greatest contribution was that of establishing a tradition of critical discussions which made possible the review of contemporary religious beliefs and opened up opportunities for innovation in matters cosmological[7]. In a fascinating article by Robin Horton[8] we find one of the first discussions bearing on the parallels and discontinuities between scientific and non-scientific thought (specifically, African traditional thought). Horton underlines the fact that African cosmologies propose (or presuppose), quite in the same manner as modern scientific theories, a certain number of beliefs with which it is possible to explore and classify the world around us and also that both systems rely on the use of metaphors. Horton is of the opinion that the difference between scientific and non-scientific thought is due to social circumstances, what he calls 'open' and 'closed' predicaments (concepts borrowed from Popper). Horton remarks that societies characterized (at least to some extent) by scientific thought involve an 'open' situation, that is, the population in general is aware of more than one cosmology or world-view. Traditional (or 'closed') societies involve situations where there is no developed awareness of cosmological alternatives and are usually characterized by one cosmology or world-view. Horton believes that the presence of cosmological alternatives is a crucial factor for the birth of science permitting, in the long run, the development of critical attitudes towards current (religious) conceptions. In a 'closed' situation people will tend to accept the dominant world-view simply because there are no alternate world-views available with which they could develop a critique. The scientist, however, is capable of going beyond common sense perceptions due to the fact that he has access to more than one cosmology. A number of critiques have been leveled at Horton's approach to the origins of science and the science\ non-science distinction. Ernst Gellner (1973), for example, remarks that the 'poor savage' living in a monolithic society with no access to alternate cosmologies, that is without contact with other societies having different cosmologies, is practically non-existent. Furthermore, access to cosmological alternatives will not automatically result in the development of a western form of science. Gellner notes[9] that many traditional societies transcend their common conceptions of the world simply by the syncretistic addition of beliefs from other cosmologies. Nothing is eliminated. Thus, a situation where cosmological pluralism is an established fact cannot, then, be held to be 'modern' or 'scientific' and will not necessarily bring about the development of a critical tradition as required by Popper and Horton. Looking at another point, Paul K. Feyerabend expresses doubts about the 'essential scepticism' that Horton holds to be characteristic of science. The average scientist, as far as Feyerabend is concerned[10], has a much more 'closed' attitude than is commonly believed. Quite like the 'primitive', the average scientist keeps scepticism to a minimum as...

"...it is directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one's own ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic beliefs evokes taboo reactions which are no weaker than are the taboo reaction in so-called primitive societies."[11]


Pursuing this further, the average over-specialized scientist, doing normal research (à la Kuhn), works within one single paradigm (often without any idea of alternate theories), yet we will all admit this still amounts to science! In a recent essay; The domestication of the savage mind, Jack Goody has brought his attention to bear on problems initially discussed by Horton. Goody, agreeing with Gellner, notes that the presence of alternative cosmologies in a society is not a sufficient condition for the development of science, much less a constraining condition. Goody, as does Horton, holds to the critical tradition view of the origin of science, but taking into account the weaknesses of cosmological pluralism hypothesis, Goody proposes the hypothesis that it is the introduction of writing which will be crucial for the accumulation of critical thoughts and alternative cosmologies. Writing, then, in Goody's view, provides the conditions necessary for the establishment of the critical tradition, which in its turn is a prerequisite for the birth of science. One might ask "Why pay so much attention to writing?" Goody answers:

"Because when an alternative is put in writing it can be inspected in much greater detail, in its parts as well as its whole, backwards as well as forwards, out of context as well as in its setting; in other words it can be subjected to quite a different type of scrutiny and critique than is possible with purely verbal communication. Speech is no longer tied to an 'occasion'; it becomes timeless. Nor is it attached to a person; on paper, it becomes more abstract, more depersonalized.[12]"

Goody understands, however, the difficulty of establishing a radical dichotomy between societies with or without writing, a single dichotomy supposedly accounting for the development of science[13], but remains convinced that to a large extent western science owes its development to writing. Ironically, there are a number of ethnographic facts not only known to Goody but published by him which contradict the idea that writing constitutes a causal factor determining the development of science. In Literacy in Traditional Societies, Goody (pp.11-16) and others cite many cases of societies where writing exists, but where nothing resembling western science has developed. The Tibetan case[14] is particularly striking. There, writing has been restricted to religious uses and printing often associated with the accumulation of spiritual merit. As I understand it, then, writing inevitably constitutes one of the conditions necessary for the development of science, but, and in agreement with Kathleen Gough[15], I must insist on the fact that a number of ethnographic facts contradict the idea that writing might be considered, by itself, a causal or constraining factor. I would then advise that if we are to attain a proper understanding of the development of science we must look elsewhere taking into account the inhibiting and stimulating effects that cosmological presuppositions can have on the comprehension and the exploration of the physical world around us. In anthropology, to a large extent, there has been little interest in the origin of science and in the effects that cosmological presuppositions may have on its development. Nonetheless it must be pointed out that some authors have at least touched on the issue.

"The idea of natural order, a basic assumption of the scientific method, is probably essential to most religious interpretations of the nature of things, but it s weakened by the hypothesized existence of malicious spirits or deities capable of souring milk, ruining crops or sending pestilence for no particular reason whatsoever. Individuals who believe that they may at any time be objects of unprovoked and unavoidable misfortune almost certainly lack the confidence and security afforded to those who live in a safe world guarded by benevolent and predictable deities.[16]"

Previously we have pointed out the intimate relationship existing between science (at the time of its birth) and Christianity. Might this simply be one among many trivial details in the history of science or, rather, might it be evidence of a deeper relationship ? Data now turning up from various directions indicate that the relationship is anything but trivial. In an essay published initially in 1925 Alfred North Whitehead, an English mathematician, has made the following remarks on the origins of science.

"I do not think, however, that I have even ye brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: that there is a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted on the European mind? When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must have come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality. Remember that I am not talking about the explicit beliefs of a few individuals. What I mean is the impress made on the European mind arising from the unquestioned faith of centuries. By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not mere creed of words. In Asia, the conceptions of God were of a being who was either too arbitrary or too impersonal for such ideas to have much effect on the instinctive habits of mind. Any definite occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot, or might issue from some impersonal inscrutable origin of things. There was not the same confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.[17]"

Strange though it may seem, the 'deeper relationship' discussed earlier between the origins of science and Christianity is related to the borrowing of Judeo-Christian metaphysical components which, with time, came to serve as science's "hard core", its implicit ideo-logic to some extent. More specifically, these components constitute a set of beliefs now designated by the term scientific realism. As Leatherdale points out here, realism is related to a number of metaphysical components central to Judeo-Christian cosmology.

"A belief in the certainty of science was no doubt supported by the belief in a God-ordered universe. We see this in Descartes' belief that God would be no deceiver,in relation to empirical knowledge, and the belief of Newton, for example, and indeed the whole Deistic bias of Enlightenment thought, in a God-designed orderly universe capable of being understood by man's reason. It was to knowledge of a God-given and therefore real existent order of real things that man's reason was to win through. The order of things could be known with certainty, and reason leads to certainty, and therefore the literally true. This conviction is only slightly eroded by the advent of hypotheticalism, and, in some quarters, an awareness of the analogical or metaphorical nature of the new philosophy.[18]"

Pierre Thuiller too points out that Newton's scientific works were based on Judeo-Christian presuppositions[19]. Discussing the works of Galileo, Stanley Jaki underscores the fact that, historically, the explicit postulation of certain Judeo-Christian presuppositions made the development of scientific realism possible:

"Nature, here, stood for God, not of course in a naturalistic sense, but in the sense made possible by the belief that nature was the work and faithful symbol of a most reasonable Supreme Being. Therefore nature, in analogy to her Maker, could only be steady and permeated by the same law and reason everywhere. From the permanence and universality of the world order followed, for instance, that the same laws of motion were postulated for the earth and the celestial bodies (against Aristotelian metaphysics - P.G.). It also followed that regularly occurring phenomena, such as the tides, baffling as they might appear, should not be assigned a miraculous cause. The most important consequence of the permanence and universality of the world order anchored in the Christian notion of the Creator was the ability of the human mind to investigate that order. Such was an inevitable consequence that if both nature and the human mind were products of one and the same Creator. As to the human mind Galileo most emphatically stated that it was a "work of God's and one of the most excellent". The rapid survey of man's various intellectual achievements, which closed the First Day, served indeed for Galileo as proof of precisely such a theologically oriented conclusion.[20]"

A historian by the name of Lynn White, better known perhaps for his research incriminating the Christian world-view regarding environmental issues, points out certain aspects of Judeo-Christian cosmology that had a positive effect on the rapid development of technology in the West.

"In 1956 Robert Forbes of Leyden and Samuel Sambursky of Jerusalem simultaneously pointed out that Christianity, by destroying classical animism, brought about a basic change in the attitude towards natural objects and opened up the way for their unabashed use for human ends. Saints, angels and demons were very real to the Christian, but the genius loci, the spirit inherent in a place or object, was no longer present to be placated if disturbed.[21]"

Another scholar bringing somewhat unexpected support to the idea of a causal relationship between Judeo-Christian cosmology and scientific realism is Joseph Needham, who as a marxist historian has spent many years studying the development of Chinese civilisation and technology (ancient and contemporary). Needham, who for the most part considers that environmental and socio-economic factors have played a predominant role in the non-development of a theoretical science in China, seems to have been forced by simple facts out of the orthodox (marxist) theoretical framework to pay attention to the effects that certain metaphysical presuppositions may have had on the birth of science. He notes:

"My colleagues and I have engaged in a rather thorough investigation of the concepts of laws of Nature in East Asia and Western culture. In Western civilization the ideas of natural law in the juristic sense and of the laws of Nature in the sense of the natural sciences can easily be shown to go back to a common root. Without doubt one of the oldest notions of Western civilization was that just as earthly imperial law-givers enacted codes of positive law to be obeyed by men, so also the celestial and supreme rational Creator Deity had laid down a series of laws which must be obeyed by minerals, crystals, plants, animals and the stars in their courses. There can be little doubt that this idea was intimately bound up with the development of modern science at the Renaissance in the West. If it was absent elsewhere, could that not have been one of the reasons why modern science arose only in Europe; in other words, were medievally conceived laws of Nature in their naïve form necessary for the birth of science?[22]"

Needham, in the following discussion on the God concept in Chinese cosmology, exposes at least one obstacle to the development of scientific realism among the Chinese:

"But in any case three things are clear: (a) that the highest spiritual being known and worshipped in ancient China was not a Creator in the sense of the Hebrews and the Greeks; (b) that the idea of the supreme god as a person in ancient Chinese thought, however far it went, did not include the conception of a divine celestial law-giver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature; (c) that the concept of the supreme being very early became impersonal. It was not that there was no order in Nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no guarantee that other rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their own earthly languages the pre-existing divine code of laws which had been previously formulated. There was no confidence that the code of Nature's laws could be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read. One feels indeed, that the Taoists, for example, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve to be adequate to the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it.[23]"

One cannot hope, for obvious reasons, to produce in one short article all the proofs necessary to establish irrefutably the hypothesis of the Judeo Christian origin of scientific realism, but I believe the evidence cited above demonstrates at least that such an explanation is plausible and should be taken seriously. The best research touching on this subject that I have come across so far is a volume by Stanley L. Jaki: Creation and Science (1974). In this essay, the author explores a number of major ancient civilizations among which we find the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Indians, the Chinese and the three major civilizations of the New World (plus a look at modern Western science) assessing the various effects that their respective cosmologies had on the development (or non-development) of science in these societies. Jaki observes that only in the West, where the concept of a transcendent (that is not limited to the physical world) and omniscient creator God had become an essential and central component of the cultural ideo-logic, that a theoretical and experimental science did appear:

"The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.[24]"

Seeing it would be inappropriate here to bury the reader under a flood of quotations from the works of Jaki, I can only suggest that the curious or the sceptics interested by the issues surrounding the origins of science take a look for themselves. The amount of historical research that has gone into Jaki's essays is rather astounding.

I am of the opinion that the fundamental issue taken up by Jaki touches on a crucial (and 'sticky') point; are the various ideologico-religious systems of the world of indifferent epistemological value or are some better suited as a basis for the development of an empirical science? Though it may be conceded that a large variety of ideologico-religious systems can give rise to reasonably harmonious societies (as far as is possible in this fallen world), but the data presented above indicate that they cannot all serve as a basis for a vigorous science. Feyerabend complains that we in the West are too quick to proclaim the superiority of our science, that we should let many traditions (or cosmologies) develop side by side in order to see if some other tradition might not do 'much better'[25]. 'Unfortunately' the experiment that Feyerabend demands has, in historical and anthropological terms, already taken place. Of the numerous ideologico-religious systems of the world that have had, in some cases, thousands of years to develop, only one has given birth to a theoretical and experimental science capable of a prolonged autonomous development.

The preceding data cast some doubt on the 'standard' version of the origin of Western science, presupposed by most historians of science, attributing the origin of this institution to certain components of Greek natural philosophy. It must be pointed out, moreover, that a number of historical facts contradict the 'standard' view. Jaki notes that the 'standard' version of the origin of science generally fails to underline the fact that the Greeks themselves only took their science to a certain point, from whence it then went into stagnation and decline[26] and that the Greeks never paid much attention to experimentation. The 'experimental tendency' was born and was popularized on a large scale only in 17th century Europe. Jaki remarks that outside of the West, for example in the Byzantine Empire, in India, among the medieval Arabs and the Chinese[27], the arrival of Greek science did not provoke the birth of an independent social institution whose accomplishments rapidly eclipsed those of the Greeks as was the case in 17th century Europe. It would seem quite clear then that the Greek origins hypothesis is a dead-end.

Curiously, if one does allow for the Judeo-Christian origins of our Western scientific cosmology, this casts new light on the fact that Popper has attributed scientific realism not to the Greek 'critical tradition' but to 'common sense'[28]. What Popper fails to emphasize is that the 'common sense' in question here is Western 'common sense', a body of beliefs and presuppositions that has, over the centuries, become saturated with Judeo-Christian metaphysics. Outside the West the attitudes vis-à-vis the world (and the ideo-logics underlying them) were unable to sustain the confidence that we live in a rational and ordered world.


It is quite possible that some will object to the preceding explanation of the origins of Western science in that it will be likely to give strength to Western prejudices about 'other' people's inferiority, encouraging paternalism, perhaps (let's be optimistic) even racism. Who knows? Maybe it might. In any case narrowmindedness will always find fuel for fire. However, looking at this question a little open-mindedly, one may draw rather different conclusions. For example, thinking back to my first impressions of the works of J. Needham I remember being particularly impressed by the level of Chinese medieval technology, on many points surpassing that found in Europe at that time. I was also struck by the contrast drawn by Needham between the semi-retarded[29], barbarian and non-innovative Europeans (during the Middle Ages) and those ingenious medieval Chinese. The contrast is such that one is tempted to ask: Why is it that the ingenious Chinese did not invent science whereas 'those'... Europeans did (at least it was born there) ?!


It seems to me quite evident that such an event was not due to some intrinsic superiority of the Western 'races', but rather to a happy 'coincidence' which made them heirs to a cosmology encouraging a confident attitude towards the rational exploration and study of the world. This cosmology, it must also be pointed out, was not native to Europe but had been imported from the Middle East.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes



[1]- Christianity during this period had successfully permeated most of its host cultures, but as regards Biblical standards of behavior the 'success' was most often only skin-deep. One has only to think of the wars between 'Christians' and the persecution of the Jews and other minorities to see this.


[2]- In Scepticism, Theology and the Scientific Revolution in the Seventeenth Century. Richard Popkin provides evidence that this antagonism belongs more to positivist mythology than to real history (pp. 1-28 in Problems in the Philosophy of Science. Lakatos and Musgrave (eds.) North-Holland Amsterdam 1968 448p.).


[3]- Merton, Robert K. The Sociology of Science. U. of Chicago Press Chicago 1973 p.232


[4]- Popper, at least, would hardly be put off by such an affirmation. Some time ago he himself wrote:


"I, however, believe that there is at least one philosophical problem in which all thinking men are interested. It is the problem of cosmology: the problem of understanding the world including ourselves, and our knowledge, as part of the world. All science is cosmology, I believe, and for me the interest of philosophy as well as science lies solely in the contributions which they have made to it." (p.15)


in Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. U. of Toronto Press Toronto 1959 480p.


[5]- See Popper, Karl R. Objective Knowledge. Clarendon Press London 1973 p.40, Gilkey, Langdon Religion and the Scientific Future. Harper and Row New York 1970 p.53-54, and Bunge, Mario Les Présupposés et les Produits métaphysiques de la science et de la technologie contemporaine. pp.193-206 in Science et Métaphysique Dockx, Settle, et al. Ed. Beauchesne Paris 1976 254 p.


[6]- In Popper, Karl R. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul London 1965 pp.148-151.


[7]- Ibid. pp.148-151


[8]- Horton, Robin African Traditional Thought and Western Science. in Africa Vol.37 no.1 pp.50-77 1967 Vol.37 no.2 pp.155-187 1967


[9]- See Gellner, Ernst The Savage and Modern Mind. pp.162-181 in Horton and Finnegan (eds.) 1973 (p.166-167)


[10]- Feyerabend, Paul K. Against Method. Verso London 1975\79 339p. (see pp.294-300)


[11]- Ibid. p.298


[12]- Goody, Jack The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge U. Press London 1977 p. 44


[13]- Ibid. pp.50-51.


[14]- Goody, Jack (ed.) Literacy in Traditional Societies. 1968 (see pp.15-16)


[15]- Gough remarks:


"My discussion of literacy in traditional Kerala thus tends to bear out conclusions reached from a general consideration of China and India. (...) Literacy is for the most part an enabling rather than a causal factor, making possible the development of complex political structures, syllogistic reasoning, scientific enquiry, linear conceptions of reality, scholarly specialization, artistic elaboration, and perhaps certain kinds of individualism and of alienation." (p.153)


in Gough, Kathleen Literacy in Kerala 1968 pp.130-160 in Goody, J. op. cit. On this subject one might also consult an interesting article by Ruth Finnegan; Literacy versus Non-Literacy: The Great Divide. (in Horton, Robin and Finnegan, R. eds. Modes of Thought Faber and Faber London 1973 399p.)


[16]- Beals, Beals and Hoijer (eds.) An Introduction to Anthropology. 1977 p.492


[17]- Quoted from Whitehead, Alfred N. Science and the Modern World. Free Press New York 1967 pp.12-13 Immediately after this sentance Whitehead weakens these affirmations by casting doubt on the idea that the logic of Judeo-Christian cosmology could justify such faith in rational and ordered world. It is somewhat difficult to assess just what Whitehead means by this as his own pronouncements (in the quote) explain quite readily how the order in nature can be understood in relation to the rationality of the Creator... unless one refuses to accept the concept of a omniscient and omnipotent God as central to Judeo-Christian cosmology!! I would tend to suspect that Whitehead's doubts on this point are largely concessions to the positivistic era in which he wrote. Incidently, Whitehead never persued the point any further, at least in the essay under consideration.


[18]- Leatherdale, The Role of Analogy, Model and Metaphor in Scinece. North-Holland Amsterdam 1974 p.231-232


[19]- Thuiller, Pierre Jeux et enjeux de la science: Essai d'épistémologie critique. 1972 pp. 46-47


[20]- Quoted from Jaki, Stanley L. Science and Creation. Academic Press New York 1974 p. 278


[21]- White, Lynn Medieval Religion and Technology. U. of California Press Berkeley 1978 p. 237


[22]- Needham, Joseph The Grande Titration. U. of Toronto Press Toronto 1969 p. 35-36


[23]- Ibid. p.327. Also see Jaki, Stanley L. op. cit. p. 41


[24]- Jaki, Stanley L. op. cit. p. VIII


[25]- Feyerabend, Paul K. Science in a Free Society. NLB London 1978 p. 106-107. It's hard to tell what Feyerabend means here by "do much better". Should we take this in speculative\theoretical, technological or moral terms? Feyerabend doesn't say.


[26]- For more information on this question see Jaki The Role of Faith in Physics. in Zygon Vol.2 no.2 1967 p.195, Jaki op. cit. p.102-137, id. The Road of Science and the Ways to God. U. of Chicago Press Chicago 1978 p.19-33 and Hooykaas, R. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science. Scottish Academic Press Edinburgh 1972 p.29-30.


[27]- See also Needham op. cit. p.21


[28]- Popper, Karl R. op. cit. 1973 p. 32-44


[29]- At least this is the picture Needham draws. He really seems to enjoy telling stories about 'bright' medieval Europeans hauling into court of law roosters suspected of having laid eggs and other animals suspected of having broken the 'laws of nature' (see Needham op. cit. p.328-330).



Go to [url]www.creationism.org[/url] Go to CSSHS Archives - Main Page

[Ambrosio Spinola]

For my recent trip to Turkey I had the pleasure of reading the great Runciman and his fall of Constantinople. We do forget how much the west owes this gone Empire that held the trenches for almost a thousand years against the heathens.

http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Constantinople-1453-Canto/dp/0521398320/sr=8-4/qid=1168340050/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/104-2730395-3852756?ie=UTF8&s=books

Cudos to that gone great author who took the battle against the old Gibbonistic view of a dark Byzantium.

[HrodbertPalatinus]

"An honest Christian" indeed. You know as much about me personally as I know about you, "Fade". You cannot rubricize me and dismiss me as some typical ignorant Bible-thumping fundamentalist. I am slightly younger than you, but I have already gone through the various stages of identity and wisdom you are still struggling through... If your intelligence and moral instincts are as sound as mine, your path of intellectual evolution will eventually lead you to exactly where I am right now, i.e. to a heightened appreciation of what actually matters in life, the MORAL IMAGINATION.

The church fathers rightly attacked vulgarized scientific speculation and experimentation divorced from all ethical knowledge. If you studied the original Platonists and Stoics, you would find the same objections against the mundane arts as the Christians later used. Scientific progress is a RELATIVE good in the context of a sanely ethical and balanced society; scientific progress is not an absolute good in itself. Contra the pagan and Rousseauistic doctrine of natural human benevolence and terrestrial paradise, humanity is essentially bestial and self-destructive, and religious sanction is what keeps in check this innate necrophiliac instinct.

So what comes first, the materialistic progress of the community or the inward progress of the soul? Should we worry about astronomical equations, the improvement of railroads, computer systems, travel to other planets etc. if our souls on this planet are vile?

The schizophrenic mentality of modernity is embodied in America. We Americans have mass-communication, rapid transportation, medical efficiency, industrial greatness, an extensive mass media, etc. On the other hand, our country is unfathomably corrupt across all social levels. Americans now spend billions and billions of dollars to sustain the subhuman pornography industry. Outward material scientific progress can indeed coincide with civilizational decadence. The American generality is well-fed, well-clothed and well-housed, but it is still a BARBARIC MOB. Prostitution and child sex rings and other satanic phenomena infect the highest levels of power. This is NIHILISM. America is a ZOMBIE society, as it seems to be functional in an outward, administrative and juridical sense, but our country is rotten to the core, and we are putrescent, only seemingly alive.

You have studied Carl Schmitt, so you should know better about these matters. Carl Schmitt was no mindless "Bible-thumper", and he celebrated the traditional Church as a mainstay of public order amid fallen men against the criminally naive liberal rationalisn which believes in technical progress without prescriptive public morality. Schmitt contrasted the civilizing discipline of Catholicism with the modern nihilistic worship of the economy which "serves any demands, always with the same precision, whether the public clamors for silkworms or poison gas." The traditional Church, which would limit man's innate tendency toward selfishness and self-destruction in its warnings and prohibitions against naturalistic science, displays the higher rationality.