Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

I would submit the Revisionist History of which you speak is not exactly acaqdemically widespread, but rather is the product of religionists of much the same stripe as those who claim "Scientific Evidence" for Jonah's flood.

----

Man, you're very much fixed in your old prejudices, eh? You need to update a little bit your library.

Here's more EVIDENCE:

"Contrary to prevailing opinion, the roots of modern science were planted in the ancient and medieval worlds long before the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Indeed, that revolution would have been inconceivable without the cumulative antecedent efforts of three great civilizations: Greek, Islamic, and Latin. With the scientific riches it derived by translation from Greco-Islamic sources in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Christian Latin civilization of Western Europe began the last leg of the intellectual journey that culminated in a scientific revolution that transformed the world. The factors that produced this unique achievement are found in the way Christianity developed in the West, and in the invention of the university in 1200. A reference for historians of science or those interested in medieval history, this volume illustrates the developments and discoveries that culminated in the Scientific Revolution.

This is the book description of "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts", by Edward Grant, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science and Professor Emeritus at Indiana University. Cambridge University Press, November 1996. ISBN: 0521567629. You can find this information in Amazon.com

Do I hear an admission now??? :wink:

maliagar,

In my every post that I addressed to you I asked two simple questions that have not yet been answered.

Since I'm not ask stupid as I look I have not comtinued discussion with you on this and am still waiting on those answers.

Again:

Pick one of the following:

A) "I believe homosexuality is wrong"
B) "Homosexuality is wrong"

If A: "I agree, you do indeed believe homosexuality is wrong"
Else: "Please substantiate your earlier arguments that homosexuality is unatural"

If attempt made to substantiate is made: "let's bat this around"
Else: "I am waiting"

If bat this around: we eventually move to the establishment of a connection between unatural and wrong
Else: we give up

If connection between "unatural" and "wrong" is established: Your declaration will have validity
Else: it won't

You proclaim too many things without supporting your views...

Once again, there are many kinds of evidence. And since we don't have a time machine to travel to the Middle Ages, and since we're only a few decades old, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE CAN POSSIBLY HOPE TO HAVE IS THE RESEARCH OF HISTORIANS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS, AND SIMILIAR TYPES.

Understood?

The important thing is that you just admitted that we have to rely on the evidence provided by historians to make up our minds about such issues as the Church and science in the Middle Ages.

And since you've read so much, you probably know that the role of Christianity in the development of science has been under revision (by historians and philosophers of science) during the last 100 years or so. Many of the prejudices of the Rennaisance and Enlightenment have been proved wrong.

That's the evidence we have TODAY.

You can submit anything you want, but you need to provide EVIDENCE. (does the word "revisionist" have a negative meaning in your opinion???? :wink: )

Quote:

And whatever evidence you seek to provide, it would need to come from:

1. Historians (you already admitted this)

No admi9ssion involved, partner, simply a recognition of fact ... to claim it as a "Victory" forr "Your side is a telling admission in and of itself.

Quote:

2With at least the same academic credentials as the "religionists" you dismiss so quickly have.

Absolutely ... what are the credentials and general scientific or academic accomplishments of those whose writings you contend invalidate the writings of the accredited authors I have mentioned as having been influences on me? There is reason for the "Prevailing opinions" opposed by Grant and others ... that "reason" is REASON. I am reminded of one Bishop Usher, and of the celebrated Madame Blavatsky.

Quote:

Old prejudices die hard, eh??? Like I said, BELIEVE is much more widespread than many think.

That's pretty much the core of my argument with your assertions ... thanks for reitterating my point. The ancient prejudice of Religion clings tenaciously, indeed.

Quote:

Take care.

Thanks, and be assured I do so ... punctilliously and with great attention to pertinent detail. You take care too, however differently you may be inclined to do so.

maliagar wrote:

----

Man, you're very much fixed in your old prejudices, eh? You need to update a little bit your library.

Here's more EVIDENCE:

"Contrary to prevailing opinion, the roots of modern science were planted in the ancient and medieval worlds long before the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Indeed, that revolution would have been inconceivable without the cumulative antecedent efforts of three great civilizations: Greek, Islamic, and Latin. With the scientific riches it derived by translation from Greco-Islamic sources in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Christian Latin civilization of Western Europe began the last leg of the intellectual journey that culminated in a scientific revolution that transformed the world. The factors that produced this unique achievement are found in the way Christianity developed in the West, and in the invention of the university in 1200. A reference for historians of science or those interested in medieval history, this volume illustrates the developments and discoveries that culminated in the Scientific Revolution.

This is the book description of "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts", by Edward Grant, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science and Professor Emeritus at Indiana University. Cambridge University Press, November 1996. ISBN: 0521567629. You can find this information in Amazon.com

Do I hear an admission now??? :wink:

You've got to be kidding, right?

First of all -- this is not "more" evidence regarding the science part of your original assertion -- it is the first and only "evidence" (I use that term very loosely there) thus far provided.

And as Timber has already given several cogent rebuttal arguments to this one man's opinion -- I'll leave it at that.

If you truly have something of substance to offer -- please do. But this way-off-the-main-stream didactic does not pass the laugh test.

Grant's first words tell everything I think should be said about this bit of fluff: "Contrary to prevailing opinion..."

Far and away, the prevailing opinion of scholars is that the early Church, far from being an institution furthering scientific study and research, was an implacable and unrelenting enemy to scientific inquiry.

It still is.

If there is an "admission" due, I think you are the one who should 'fess up.

MY ADVICE: This particular issue is a major loser for you. Pick another one for debate.

1. Historians (you already admitted this)

No admi9ssion involved, partner, simply a recognition of fact ...

Look, Frank:

The "prevailing opinion" was shaped during the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment by intellectuals. Little by little this opinion became common currency among "the people" (read again Encarta and Britannica, who speak of the invidious nature of these scholars views on the Middle Ages).

But research did not stop in the 18th century. And the "prevailing opinion" among today's experts on the Middle Ages (historians and philosophers of science) is very different from the "prevailing opinion" the masses have been led to have (still influenced by modernist ideas). Will this "revisionism" reach the masses and become their "prevailing opinion"? Perhaps in a century or so.

In the meantime, you've shown that you're totally unaware of the developments in the philosophy and history of science, so I'll have to accept that you cannot debate this topic (but you won't admit it and stick to your 19th century prejudices).

Since I'm a generous person, I'll give you a couple of clues:

1. I'm sure you have in your library Thomas Kuhn's very influential "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Read it and think of its implications.

2. I'm sure you've heard of "Monsignor" Karl Popper. Become familiar with his views on the influence of religion on science. Go to his book "Conjectures and Refutations" (which I'm sure is part of your collection) and take a look at his treatment of the Galileo controversy. You'll be surprised.

Bonus clue: Think of the implications of the second Wittgenstein and take a look at Paul Feyerabend.

Take care.

Will this "revisionism" reach the masses and become their "prevailing opinion"? Perhaps in a century or so.

In the meantime, you've shown that you're totally unaware of the developments in the philosophy and history of science, so I'll have to accept that you cannot debate this topic (but you won't admit it and stick to your 19th century prejudices).

The worst effect of Kuhn, and the one taken up both most unthinkingly and most forcefully across the whole range of disciplines he influenced, has been the frivolous discarding of the way things are as a constraint on theory about the way things are.

maliagar wrote:

...research did not stop in the 18th century. And the "prevailing opinion" among today's experts on the Middle Ages (historians and philosophers of science) is very different from the "prevailing opinion" the masses have been led to have (still influenced by modernist ideas).

That's why Britannica and other encyclopedias are nowadays forced to have a more balanced view of the Middle Ages. But I can tell that you haven't noticed any changes anywhere.

As I said:

Quote:

you've shown that you're totally unaware of the developments in the philosophy and history of science, so I'll have to accept that you cannot debate this topic (but you won't admit it and stick to your 19th century prejudices).

I stand by this. You haven't brought any supporting evidence to your claims, other than the common prejudices you find in 19th century Anglo-Saxon history textbooks.

Frank says:

Quote:

Maliagar, you have submitted the words of one individual to substantiate your position...

No Frank. I have proved you wrong. And I've done that by quoting Encarta, Britannica, Edward Grant (who must be out of his mind, right? ), and by suggesting you become aware of 20th century philosophy and history of science (not just "my favorite author). I've mentioned Kuhn, Popper, Wittgenstein, and Feyerabend. I could also talk about Duhem, Bachelard, Crombie, and many others in Europe and Anglo-America.

Now, if you don't see (or don't want to admit) this, the problem is not in my arguments, but somewhere else. Like I said, old prejudices die hard.

I understand: It must be a scary thing, after all these years, to at least open up to the possibility that the Catholic Church was RIGHT! No problem, you can end up following the path of people like Jean Paul Sartre and Oscar Wilde (or should I say Bob Hope? :wink: ), who got rid of their prejudices towards the end of their lives (when they were wiser) and RETURNED TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

You have not disproved my argument. The only thing you've done is to reassert your prejudice about the church and learning during the Middle Ages' 1000 years. You haven't brought new evidence to this discussion. You've just said "Nonsense" to the evidence I provided. Not too convincing (maybe among your admirers, but not here).

Quote:

Drop out of this discussion if you choose...

That would be so convenient for you. However, I can see that we've reached your limit...

Quote:

...have the sense of decency and the every day ethics to acknowledge it is because you have bitten off much more than you can chew...

No, my dear. You're the one who is talking about something that is beyond his scope. I haven't seen one drop of evidence from you (just the "authority" of your titles).

Quote:

not because of any lack of knowledge or understanding on my part...

I know, I know. That's inconceivable. After all, you served mass for Pius XII, have an undergrad on a bunch of things from a Lutheran college, and such.

I'll repeat myself:

1. I'm sure you have in your library Thomas Kuhn's very influential "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Read it and think of its implications.

2. I'm sure you've heard of "Monsignor" Karl Popper. Become familiar with his views on the influence of religion on science. Go to his book "Conjectures and Refutations" (which I'm sure is part of your collection) and take a look at his treatment of the Galileo controversy. You'll be surprised.

Bonus clue: Think of the implications of the second Wittgenstein and take a look at Paul Feyerabend.

TAke care.

Frank, Please don't suggest changing the subject just yet. We're still waiting for maliagar to answer Craven's questions on homosexuality. If need be, I'll keep reposting until he "sees" it, and responds. c.i.

I have responded to all of Craven's concerns to the best of my abilities.

maliagar,

In my every post that I addressed to you I asked two simple questions that have not yet been answered.

Since I'm not ask stupid as I look I have not comtinued discussion with you on this and am still waiting on those answers.

Again:

Pick one of the following:

A) "I believe homosexuality is wrong"
B) "Homosexuality is wrong"

If A: "I agree, you do indeed believe homosexuality is wrong"
Else: "Please substantiate your earlier arguments that homosexuality is unatural"

If attempt made to substantiate is made: "let's bat this around"
Else: "I am waiting"

If bat this around: we eventually move to the establishment of a connection between unatural and wrong
Else: we give up

If connection between "unatural" and "wrong" is established: Your declaration will have validity
Else: it won't

maliagar, It's a simple choice between A or B. How about it? You do understand the question. c.i.

Popper's great and tireless efforts to expunge the word induction from scientific and philosophical discourse has utterly failed. Except for a small but noisy group of British Popperians, induction is just too firmly embedded in the way philosophers of science and even ordinary people talk and think.

Confirming instances underlie our beliefs that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that dropped objects will fall, that water will freeze and boil, and a million other events. It is hard to think of another philosophical battle so decisively lost.