Hey, Frank.
I'll try one last time to see if I can touch your prejudices. I'm a patient man :wink: , and this time I also hope to be clearer (if that's the problem) or you to be more self-critical (if that's the problem).
This is what I originally said:
Quote:Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages.
This is what you responded:
Quote:What are you smoking? Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years....
This is what Heilbron's book concludes:
Quote:"The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries
during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions."
Now, what should we do with Heilbron? Dismiss him, as you quickly do without citing
any evidence?
More importantly, which is the more prudent thing to do: to trust you, or to trust Heilbron? [in forums like these, historical controversies can only be resolved by deciding how trustworthy are our sources - and the least we can do is quote specific and reputable authors]
There is no way to respond to the question of trustworthiness a priori. It depends on such issues as
credentials, reputation, institutional backing, and such. I could lay out, step by step, in a comparative way, yours and Heilbron's credentials, etc.
But let's be brief: He is a reputable specialist, you are not.
You might say that you know of other specialist(s) that contradict him, but unfortunately you haven't brought one single name to this discussion. Instead, you declared "There is no need to do so", took the easy road, speculated about the real meaning of four words in Grant's passage (which is a waste of everybody's time), and neglected everything else he and the other authors I mentioned say (reminds me of the way you read the Bible). And you repeated this "argument" several times, as if you were proud of it! You're not giving new evidence, like the Galileo of legend. Instead, you play with words, like a disciple of a teen-level, grammar school, decadent scholastic. :wink:
Guess, then, who appears to be more trustworthy and grounded in his views (you, or Heilbron, Grant, etc.?).
Now, to your opinions:
1. Grant's phrase doesn't specify whose prevailing opinion he's talking about (the received opinion, the larger culture, the popular masses, the academia?).
2. More importantly, even if you were right about those four words, Grant could be a new Galileo, presenting fresh evidence that today's sclerotic establishment doesn't want to consider. To disprove him, the establishment's guardians (in this case, you) need far more than word-play. They need HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
Now, not one of the authors I've mentioned is as isolated a loner as you've implied. Let's see (I'm still a man of hope :wink: ):
Edward Grant: Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science and Professor Emeritus at Indiana University (he is therefore part of the establishment of a reputable university). Publisher: Cambridge University Press (should I say anything?):
"[T]he roots of modern science were planted in the ancient and medieval worlds long before the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century.
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 way Christianity developed in the West, and in the invention of the university in 1200.
David C. Lindberg, from the University of Wisconsing, published his opinion about this book: "The History of Science desperately needs
synthetic works, which will
communicate the results of specialized research to students and the general public. Grant's account of medieval science and its contributions to early modern developments is an outstanding contribution to this enterprise."
In other words, this book is grounded in the specialized work of many others, and provides a synthesis of this research. Doesn't sound too isolated.
McCluskey - Cambridge University Press:
Historians have long recognized that the rebirth of science in twelfth-century Europe
traditions of early medieval astronomy: one divided the year by observing the Sun; another computed the date of Easter Full Moon; the third determined the time for monastic prayers by watching the course of the stars; and the classical tradition of geometrical astronomy provided a framework for the cosmos.
J. L. Heilbron (Senior Research Fellow, Oxford - Harvard University Press): He "
challenges long-held views of the relationship between science and Christianity.
Heilbron's main point is
: "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries
during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions." the Church actively supported mathematical and astronomical research
Book reviews cited:
Quote:Scientific American, July 2000: ... a rich history of... the development of the calendar and the relations between the Church and science."
The New Yorker, October 18-25, 1999: In this elegant work, Heilbron recounts how
the Roman Catholic Church
handsomely supported astronomical studies, accepting the Copernican hypothesis as a fiction convenient for calculation...
Book News, Inc.: Heilbron (history of science, U. of California-Berkeley) weaves the history of science and the history of the Church together to show how interrelated they have been
.
Finally,
Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, and other well-known academic publishing houses have strict academic standards, and publish ONLY peer reviewed works. No marginal wacko can publish there. This means that those books:
1. Have been
selected by other academics with comparable credentials after a careful reading and critique;
2. Need to have a
support apparatus (the current status of the literature, academic journal articles, recent book-length works on the issue, and such - this points to many others academics doing research on the same issue);
3. Have been deemed to be
up to the standards of today's research.
So, up to this point, it looks like we have a community of scholars conducting innovative research, not widely known by the general public, and who hold views that directly contradict the "common sense" of the times (which you just expressed here). This community has been building on the work of other academics from the last century or so.
Final blow: Encarta and Britannica are encyclopedias.
Encyclopedia editors have the responsibility of ensuring that articles are not just loose bullets of a lone ranger, but that those articles reflect the status of a field.
Britannica's article said:
Quote:"The term and its conventional meaning were introduced by Italian humanists with invidious intent
notion of a thousand-year period of darkness and ignorance
. The Middle Ages nonetheless provided the foundation for the transformations of the humanists' own Renaissance. ... The Roman Catholic church was able to play an essential role in preserving literacy and even some classical learning in its liturgy and literature, in maintaining some of the forms of public administration in its diocesan government, in perpetuating the tradition of corporate responsibility for peace and the relief of want, and perhaps most of all in creating a new universal society to replace that once provided by the fallen empire... The only schools of Europe in the 8th century
were those attached often to monasteries and more rarely to bishoprics.
... In the 12th century, the lawyers of Bologna, the doctors of Salerno, and, above all, the theologians of Paris were becoming organized bodies
; by the 13th century, the universities possessed their own statutes ... The crown of studies was the pursuit of the highest knowledge, theology.
Encarta's article said (excerpts):
Quote:Since the Carolingian period, churches and monasteries had run schools... In the 11th and 12th centuries new types of schools were developed in some cities.
usually located in city cathedrals rather than in monasteries,
dedicated to more advanced studies ... they attracted students and teachers
from all over Europe who were interested in studying subjects such as philosophy, medicine, and law.
Italy and southern France were famous for their schools of law and medicine. Northern France, especially Paris, was known for its schools of philosophy and theology. In the 13th century many of these schools were organized into universities... By the end of the Middle Ages, there were nearly 80 universities throughout Europe... They were largely self-governing... Students and teachers often clashed with city authorities. if students were arrested they were tried by church courts, not royal courts. As church courts tended to be lenient...
Almost all universities taught the so-called seven liberal arts.
trivium: grammar
, rhetoric
, and logic.
quadrivium
mathematical and scientific subjects: arithmetic (what would now be called number theory), geometry (number relations), music (proportions and harmonies), and astronomy.
At Salerno, also in Italy, students studied medical treatises, observed dissected animals, and learned current theories about the body
(written by Barbara H. Rosenwein, Ph.D. - Professor of History, Loyola University Chicago. Author of Negotiating Space: Power, Restraint, and Privileges of Immunity in Early Medieval Europe. Editor of Anger's Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages.),
Both articles are saying that the Church created the institutional framework that made the scientific revolutions possible. And the other authors dealt with the
direct ways in which the Church sponsored scientific research.
However, you had said:
Quote:Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years...
So, who's more likely to reflect the
current views of this specialized field? You? Or Heilbron, Grant, McCluskey, Rosenwein and the establishments they are part of?
I wouldn't mind bringing even more EVIDENCE, but since you haven't brought even "ONE author of comparable credentials" to sustain your "thesis"", I'll leave it at that.
Nobody denies that periodic conflicts between Holy Mother Church and some scientists became more frequent during the early modern period (not the Middle Ages). This happened whenever:
a. The Church unduly invaded the growing realm of scientific research, or
b. The scientist unduly invaded the shifting realm of religious doctrine.
In other words,
sometimes it was the fault of the Church, and sometimes the fault of the scientist (check any detailed account of the Galileo incident - not the politics of the situation, but the scientific, methodological, epistemological, and theological issues involved. See Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations").
Granted,
it took a while for both theologians and scientists to delineate their own spheres of competence. This alienated the Church from some forms of scientific research (during Modern times), and also alienated some scientists from the Church's views. But this certainly does not support the broad generalization you indulged on the Middle Ages.
The fact is: The Church supported various kinds of scientific research during the Middle Ages. Monasteries and cathedrals got involved in the study of astronomy, and the establishment of universities, in the academic practice of medicine, etc. Sometimes bishops and monasteries supported research, sometimes they didn't. But overall, the flame of classical knowledge and research was kept in church-sponsored institutions (monasteries, cathedrals, universities).
A thousand years is a long time, and Europe is a big place. Any contemporary expert on these things knows that
broad generalizations about the Church and science during the Middle Ages are possible only in the realm of propaganda.
Take care.
P.D. I'll try to deal one final time with your "Biblical interpretation" issues over the weekend.
)
