James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote on rasfc:

>If
> one says medieval Papism crushed science, inquiry, and
> strangled capitalism in its cradle, a flame will ensue,
> but if one says that Jesus was just another Jewish
> reformer with megalomaniacal claims in a land and time
> overrun with would be messiahs, everyone will nod
> politely and thank you for taking an interest.

That's because the first claim is a wild hyperbole of an exaggeration of
a caricature; whereas the second is an expression of your religious
beliefs to which you're entitled.

(Also, I'd agree with the second, albeit in the same way I'd agree that
the Mona Lisa is just another pretty face.)

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

--
James A. Donald
> > If one says medieval Papism crushed science,
> > inquiry, and strangled capitalism in its cradle, a
> > flame will ensue,

Zeborah
> That's because the first claim is a wild hyperbole of
> an exaggeration of a caricature;

Galileo was silenced. Copernicus did not publish until he was beyond
reach of the torturers. Roger Bacon was put under house arrest. The
papacy collaborated in the destruction of the banking system by terror
and torture.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Zeborah <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote:

> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote on rasfc:
>
> >If
> > one says medieval Papism crushed science, inquiry, and
> > strangled capitalism in its cradle, a flame will ensue,
> > but if one says that Jesus was just another Jewish
> > reformer with megalomaniacal claims in a land and time
> > overrun with would be messiahs, everyone will nod
> > politely and thank you for taking an interest.
>
> That's because the first claim is a wild hyperbole of an exaggeration of
> a caricature; whereas the second is an expression of your religious
> beliefs to which you're entitled.
>
> (Also, I'd agree with the second, albeit in the same way I'd agree that
> the Mona Lisa is just another pretty face.)

I don't think I agree that the Mona Lisa is a pretty face.

<g,d,r>

Hmmm. That raises some interesting sfnal questions -- which I might just
raise back on rasfc if it gets quiet enough to warrant a new topic. :-)

Jonathan
(And if I happen to remember it at such a time.)

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:23:13 +1000, "James A. Donald"
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:60os44tm04uc3ievjnbl6rfndtqvq9lt2a@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

> James A. Donald
>>> If one says medieval Papism crushed science,
>>> inquiry, and strangled capitalism in its cradle, a
>>> flame will ensue,

> Zeborah
>> That's because the first claim is a wild hyperbole of
>> an exaggeration of a caricature;

> Galileo was silenced. Copernicus did not publish until he
> was beyond reach of the torturers. Roger Bacon was put
> under house arrest. [...]

Of the three, the only one who qualifies as medieval is
Bacon, and there is disagreement over whether he was ever
actually imprisoned, and if so, whether it was for his
scientific or his (somewhat radical) specifically doctrinal
views. I suggest that you read a good history of medieval
science; David C. Lindberg, _The Beginnings of Western
Science_, is good. You should ignore the ancient but
ever-popular _History of the Warfare of Science with
Theology in Christendom_ by Andrew Dickson White, for
reasons that are adequately summarized at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis#Contemporary_views>.

It is not clear why Copernicus delayed publication of _De
revolutionibus orbium coelestium_; it seems likely that he
feared criticism, but quite possibly only scientific
criticism. At any rate _De revolutionibus_ provoked
relatively little religious controversy on its publication,
and it wasn't until Galileo that the Church took any
official position on the subject. (I might add that it was
the mathematician Rheticus who first published Copernicus's
ideas, and he seems not to have suffered for it in the
slightest.)

In point of fact, most of the great medieval natural
philosophers were clerics: Robert Grosseteste (bishop of
Lincoln), Albertus Magnus (Dominican friar and priest, for a
time bishop of Regensburg), William of Ockham (Franciscan
friar), Nicole Oresme (bishop of Lisieux), Jean Buridan
(secular cleric), Thomas Bradwardine (secular cleric,
briefly archbishop of Canterbury), etc.

James A. Donald
> > > > If one says medieval Papism crushed science,
> > > > inquiry, and strangled capitalism in its cradle, a
> > > > flame will ensue,

Zeborah
> > > That's because the first claim is a wild hyperbole of
> > > an exaggeration of a caricature;

James A. Donald:
> > Galileo was silenced. Copernicus did not publish until he
> > was beyond reach of the torturers. Roger Bacon was put
> > under house arrest. [...]

Brian M. Scott
> Of the three, the only one who qualifies as medieval is
> Bacon,

That is because theocratic persecution put an end to famous scientists
The persecution of science began with Roger Bacon, and science ended.
Valmes was burnt at the stake for discovering how to solve the quartic
equation, along with all books and records of his alleged solution, so
that no record of it remains.

Plenty of other less famous scientists had their works suppressed and
were threatened with torture.

Albert the great was silenced without actually imprisoning him, but he
was accused of witchcraft, and had he not rejected and abjured science
and the scientific method, would surely have been burnt at the stake.
If he and others were not imprisoned, it was surely because the Church
had more drastic means at its disposal.

> and there is disagreement over whether he was ever
> actually imprisoned, and if so, whether it was for his
> scientific or his (somewhat radical) specifically doctrinal
> views.

You are reinterpreting past acts by the Church in accord with
twentieth century and nineteenth century apologetics.

His most radical doctrinal view *was* the scientific method - there
was no distinction or separation between science and doctrine in those
days. Such a distinction is a result of the modern retreat by the
church. Back in medieval times, spherical geometry was as much a
doctrinal issue as anything else.

Roger Bacon was suppressed as part of the proscription of the 219
theses - which prohibited, among other things, the scientific method,
of which Bacon was the most prominent proponent. It did not prohibit
his doctrines on the Franciscan order, on which he was an entirely
obscure proponent.

A target of the prohibition of the 19 theses was causality, an orderly
universe.

A target of the prohibition of the 219 theses was "Racionare ergo
super eum, et invenies" - reason itself.

Articles 67-69 prohibit the very idea of natural law, of physics, of
an orderly universe, as heresy.

> I suggest that you read a good history of medieval
> science; David C. Lindberg, _The Beginnings of Western
> Science_, is good. You should ignore the ancient but
> ever-popular _History of the Warfare of Science with
> Theology in Christendom_ by Andrew Dickson White, for
> reasons that are adequately summarized at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis#Contemporary_views>.

The attacks on "Warfare of Science" are legalistic and frivolous
nitpicking. The alleged errors either make no real difference, or are
questions impossible to know, interpretations of the human heart from
a distance, not facts. One man makes a judgment about what was in the
heart of someone who lived a nine hundred years ago that differs from
the judgment of Andrew White, and announces he has thereby proven
Andrew White wrong and unscholarly.

The argument that the Church sponsored science is the argument that
the Christian Church compromised with science, unlike Islam which
utterly crushed science. But that compromise was embodied in the
works of Thomas of Aquinas - a compromise that abandoned the
experimental method, and *still* came close to burning him at the
stake. It was a tossup as to whether to burn him or make him a saint.
That was a wholly ruinous and one sided compromise. Official science
did indeed prosper under Church sponsorship - but without the
dangerous heretical scientific method advocated by Roger Bacon.

> It is not clear why Copernicus delayed publication of _De
> revolutionibus orbium coelestium_; it seems likely that he
> feared criticism, but quite possibly only scientific
> criticism.

You give us the standard "rebuttal" of Andrew White. Recall what
happened to Valmes, and what the teacher of Thomas Aquinas was
threatened with.

Any man would be very afraid. To say that scientists were not afraid
is ludicrous nonsense Aquinas' teacher was threatened with burning at
the stake - obviously the doctrines of Aquinas represent a compromise,
showing people how scientific they were allowed to be without being
burnt at the stake.

> At any rate _De revolutionibus_ provoked
> relatively little religious controversy on its publication,
> and it wasn't until Galileo that the Church took any
> official position on the subject.

It was tolerated only on the pretence that it was a mere mathematical
method. It was banned as soon as the pretence was broken

> In point of fact, most of the great medieval natural
> philosophers were clerics: Robert Grosseteste (bishop of
> Lincoln), Albertus Magnus (Dominican friar and priest, for a
> time bishop of Regensburg), William of Ockham (Franciscan
> friar), Nicole Oresme (bishop of Lisieux), Jean Buridan
> (secular cleric), Thomas Bradwardine (secular cleric,
> briefly archbishop of Canterbury), etc.

You ignorantly repeat propagandistic lies:

Every scientist you list suffered suppression for his scientific
activities.

Albertus Magnus was threatened with burning at the stake. The others
were OK to the extent that they remained tightly corralled in the
barren pastures of the compromise of Thomas Aquinas, but were
forbidden to advocate or openly practice the scientific method.

William of Ockham was charged with heresy, for being dangerously
scientific, which cramped his style considerably.

Jean Buridan's works were banned as heresy and suppressed, implying
that he himself was in grave danger of being suppressed if he did not
shut up and stick to safer activities.

Thomas Bradarwine's speculation that the cosmos was infinite, and the
stars were suns, was banned as heresy and suppressed, implying that he
himself was in grave danger of being suppressed if he did not shut up
and stick to safer activities.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald