willhud9 wrote:Who on earth said Christianity created science? I said the philosophy of scholasticism paved the way for the modern scientific method (a process that did not exist in Roman and Greek times mind you).

That assertion is in conflict with the link I cited - they seem to skip right over the supposed contributions of scholasticism which allegedly 'paved the way' for modern science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... tal_method

Dr Carrier, whose especial field of study is the history of science, disputes the claim:

It is then false to claim that "the scholastic method...did encourage active investigation of the world, culminating in Francis Bacon and the Scientific Revolution." The Scientific Revolution was a rebellion against scholasticism. Bacon spends hundreds of words lambasting it in his treatises. So if this was an inspiration, it was inspiration in reverse: outrage at scholasticism propelled more sensible intellectuals into the stark reaction that is called the Scientific Revolution. This is in fact quite evident from the diatribes against scholasticism in nearly all early scientific writers, from Gilbert to Galileo.

So the notion that 'science owes a debt to scholasticism' is just fallacious.

Science has constantly evolved. This concept of Rome and Greece being epitomes of science, then the fall of Rome and then a drop of science is fallacious. The science and technology remained the same. And while there were no great scientific revolutions during this time, because scholasticism was more concerned with philosophy, theology, and applying the classics towards those fields, to say it was an age of ignorance is just ignorant. This information of course can all be gathered in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. A 13 volume encyclopedia all revolving around the medieval ages of the 5th and 15th centuries.

I didn't claim the Dark Ages was an age of total ignorance - just that from the fall of Rome to the birth of modern science practically zero advance in science took place. If christianity was 'helping things along' that's the kind of 'help' that should be avoided.

Rational thought and science was still considered important, the question in regards to nature was how does this relate to the Bible and theology? A common misconception is that the world was regarded by monks and priests to be flat. This is not true as we have many medieval textbooks which have demonstrated that the earth was taught to be spherical.

I didn't make that mistake - the spherical shape of the earth was known from pagan science.

The problem you seem to be having, and which Richard Carrier is not arguing against (unless you somehow read that article vastly different than I did), is that it was not the Christian church which caused a stagnation of educational development in the fields of science. It was the decline of a knowledge of Greek in the West, a Latin world. And aside from a few texts, many of the classical pieces of scientific literature were still in Greek and thus unable to be read by many in the Latin world. With the development of a political system of feudalism, and fear from invading Norsemen throughout the 5th to 11th centuries, the knowledge of Greek education was not needed. And again the concept of Scholasticism was applying the ways of the world (science and history) to theology and philosophy.

But, you see, I'm not having any problem distinguishing between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment. That's some other poster you must be confusing me with.

But with all these wonderful scholars in all those monasteries it's a miracle that Greek texts couldn't be translated. Some were, of course- works of theology, for example - just not secular scientific texts.

When the high middle ages began, the 11th century+, you see a change in agricultural technology, a time of peace, and a development of new political orders. With this new political order, and this new freedom, people start having time and the ability to educate themselves. This reached a pinnacle in the 14th century when the Renaissance began. It was a continued development in the West. The Renaissance was not simply an occurance, it slowly reached its stage through a slow development and reconnection to the Greek classics. A connection lost more so to the changing political system of the west more so than "Christianity."

I never argued that after the Dark Ages things didn't improve. Improvements inspired in large part by accessibility to pagan works long ignored and changes in christian theology to accommodate science.

That was all I said by that. And you will find, if you actually do your research, that a good majority of medieval historians are in agreement. Why? Because again this all comes from the Dictionary of the Middle Ages.

Sorry we got derailed into a sidebar on the Dark Ages - I was merely referring to the suppression of freedom of thought and conscience Weaver was alluding to.

proudfootz wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Who on earth said Christianity created science? I said the philosophy of scholasticism paved the way for the modern scientific method (a process that did not exist in Roman and Greek times mind you).

That assertion is in conflict with the link I cited - they seem to skip right over the supposed contributions of scholasticism which allegedly 'paved the way' for modern science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... tal_method

Dr Carrier, whose especial field of study is the history of science, disputes the claim:

It is then false to claim that "the scholastic method...did encourage active investigation of the world, culminating in Francis Bacon and the Scientific Revolution." The Scientific Revolution was a rebellion against scholasticism. Bacon spends hundreds of words lambasting it in his treatises. So if this was an inspiration, it was inspiration in reverse: outrage at scholasticism propelled more sensible intellectuals into the stark reaction that is called the Scientific Revolution. This is in fact quite evident from the diatribes against scholasticism in nearly all early scientific writers, from Gilbert to Galileo.

So the notion that 'science owes a debt to scholasticism' is just fallacious.

1) Wikipedia is not a scholarly source and therefore not authoritative in the slightest, 2) Roger Bacon is a monk from the Middle Ages, raised in the philosophy of scholasticism and before the Italian Renaissance of the 14th century. Yet you conveniently ignore him from the very Wikipedia link you provided.

2) Richard Carrier is a historian with a focus on ancient history. Just because he is a member of a society for the history of science does not make him a voice of authority in regards to medieval history and the developments of the time. But again Richard Carrier is not saying anything I am not. The Renaissance and thus the scientific revolution that followed was indeed a rebellion against scholasticism. Why? Because there was a shifting paradigm, a shift in focus of study. Where before, in scholasticism the focus was on using the things of the world to understand God, the focus became using the things of the world to understand man and life. The issues of God were considered done with at this point. As well, the Renaissance saw a shift in how education was conducted. Again, I am not denying that. But to make the claim that there was no scientific thought, or progress in the time from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Italian Renaissance is baseless. The term dark ages is generally not accepted by the historical community unless it refers to a neutral definition in which little in the ways of literary, scientific, and political actually occured. If that is all one means with the concept of dark ages, then yes, one would be correct. But to use the term as being synonymous with ignorance and stupidity, and thus negative, historians do not use.

3) Again, I never said science owes a debt to scholasticism. I said that the processes of inquiry steadily led to people branching out there inquiry PAST the limited scope of scholasticism. When studying the natural world, scholars would not just ask how does this fit in with the people, but would investigate why something is happening in the first place. There was rational thought and investigation within scholasticism and nothing you have linked has said otherwise. Again, this is most likely a case of you reading into something a conclusion that is not present.

Science has constantly evolved. This concept of Rome and Greece being epitomes of science, then the fall of Rome and then a drop of science is fallacious. The science and technology remained the same. And while there were no great scientific revolutions during this time, because scholasticism was more concerned with philosophy, theology, and applying the classics towards those fields, to say it was an age of ignorance is just ignorant. This information of course can all be gathered in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. A 13 volume encyclopedia all revolving around the medieval ages of the 5th and 15th centuries.

I didn't claim the Dark Ages was an age of total ignorance - just that from the fall of Rome to the birth of modern science practically zero advance in science took place. If christianity was 'helping things along' that's the kind of 'help' that should be avoided.

There are many periods of time such as this. The reason why there was hardly any advances in science is because the reasons I listed below. Feudalism + people did not care for education when they were more concerned with food and surviving raids. Then Lords would have wars, and battles, and thus people did not have time for proper education. Education was reserved for the church men. Again this changed with the High Middle Ages and the subsequent Renaissance of the 14th century.

Rational thought and science was still considered important, the question in regards to nature was how does this relate to the Bible and theology? A common misconception is that the world was regarded by monks and priests to be flat. This is not true as we have many medieval textbooks which have demonstrated that the earth was taught to be spherical.

I didn't make that mistake - the spherical shape of the earth was known from pagan science.

Yes, but I am saying that people still hold that misconception that the church was plain and ignorant about science.

The problem you seem to be having, and which Richard Carrier is not arguing against (unless you somehow read that article vastly different than I did), is that it was not the Christian church which caused a stagnation of educational development in the fields of science. It was the decline of a knowledge of Greek in the West, a Latin world. And aside from a few texts, many of the classical pieces of scientific literature were still in Greek and thus unable to be read by many in the Latin world. With the development of a political system of feudalism, and fear from invading Norsemen throughout the 5th to 11th centuries, the knowledge of Greek education was not needed. And again the concept of Scholasticism was applying the ways of the world (science and history) to theology and philosophy.

But, you see, I'm not having any problem distinguishing between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment. That's some other poster you must be confusing me with.

Then our discussion is a discussion of talking past one another. Since I did not claim scholasticism invented science, I said it helped lead to the development of the scientific method. Which it did. It provided a framework for investigative thought, which developed into the thinkers of the Renaissance who disregarded the concept of Scholasticism and instead went to the concept of Humanities. There are many ways of contributing, did it directly formulate the scientific method, no, and I did not claim that. Did it provide a ground work? Yes. Again, nothing of which you quoted, goes against that either.

But with all these wonderful scholars in all those monasteries it's a miracle that Greek texts couldn't be translated. Some were, of course- works of theology, for example - just not secular scientific texts.

Language barriers are often a big gap to cross.

When the high middle ages began, the 11th century+, you see a change in agricultural technology, a time of peace, and a development of new political orders. With this new political order, and this new freedom, people start having time and the ability to educate themselves. This reached a pinnacle in the 14th century when the Renaissance began. It was a continued development in the West. The Renaissance was not simply an occurance, it slowly reached its stage through a slow development and reconnection to the Greek classics. A connection lost more so to the changing political system of the west more so than "Christianity."

I never argued that after the Dark Ages things didn't improve. Improvements inspired in large part by accessibility to pagan works long ignored and changes in christian theology to accommodate science.

Er? Scholasticism is I quote from wikipedia (mainly because I am lazy and tired to find a quote from one of my books) "As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers: to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism"

Those "pagan" works were accessible and were used by scholastic universities and monasteries. So those pagan works were not long ignored. They were constantly involved with Christian theology and philosophy. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps one of the greatest names from the Scholasticism period, wrote several commentaries on Aristotle's works. Again the focus of Scholasticism was knowledge in relation to God. The focus of the humanities is knowledge in relation to man. But the development of rational thought and deduction can be glimpsed by the writings of scholasticism. Logical sequences, and deductions are seen in the writings. Aquinas's literature is swamped with it. These scholarly patterns had an influence on the methods of investigation done during the Renaissance and scientific revolutions.

That was all I said by that. And you will find, if you actually do your research, that a good majority of medieval historians are in agreement. Why? Because again this all comes from the Dictionary of the Middle Ages.

Sorry we got derailed into a sidebar on the Dark Ages - I was merely referring to the suppression of freedom of thought and conscience Weaver was alluding to.

[/quote]

Again, I think we were just talking past each other. Since I don't technically disagree with what you said, because you are not technically saying that the dark ages were a time of ignorance and irrational thought.

But yeah this is kind of a derail. : s

I was taught in school that the term "Dark Ages" referred to nothing more than that modern historians had little information about the period, hence the period was 'dark' to them; they couldn't 'see' it. That has changed since the term was coined.

willhud9 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Who on earth said Christianity created science? I said the philosophy of scholasticism paved the way for the modern scientific method (a process that did not exist in Roman and Greek times mind you).

That assertion is in conflict with the link I cited - they seem to skip right over the supposed contributions of scholasticism which allegedly 'paved the way' for modern science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... tal_method

Dr Carrier, whose especial field of study is the history of science, disputes the claim:

It is then false to claim that "the scholastic method...did encourage active investigation of the world, culminating in Francis Bacon and the Scientific Revolution." The Scientific Revolution was a rebellion against scholasticism. Bacon spends hundreds of words lambasting it in his treatises. So if this was an inspiration, it was inspiration in reverse: outrage at scholasticism propelled more sensible intellectuals into the stark reaction that is called the Scientific Revolution. This is in fact quite evident from the diatribes against scholasticism in nearly all early scientific writers, from Gilbert to Galileo.

So the notion that 'science owes a debt to scholasticism' is just fallacious.

1) Wikipedia is not a scholarly source and therefore not authoritative in the slightest, 2) Roger Bacon is a monk from the Middle Ages, raised in the philosophy of scholasticism and before the Italian Renaissance of the 14th century. Yet you conveniently ignore him from the very Wikipedia link you provided.

You seem to be confusing the Middle Ages with the Dark Ages. You conveniently ignore the difference.

2) Richard Carrier is a historian with a focus on ancient history. Just because he is a member of a society for the history of science does not make him a voice of authority in regards to medieval history and the developments of the time. But again Richard Carrier is not saying anything I am not. The Renaissance and thus the scientific revolution that followed was indeed a rebellion against scholasticism. Why? Because there was a shifting paradigm, a shift in focus of study. Where before, in scholasticism the focus was on using the things of the world to understand God, the focus became using the things of the world to understand man and life. The issues of God were considered done with at this point. As well, the Renaissance saw a shift in how education was conducted. Again, I am not denying that. But to make the claim that there was no scientific thought, or progress in the time from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Italian Renaissance is baseless. The term dark ages is generally not accepted by the historical community unless it refers to a neutral definition in which little in the ways of literary, scientific, and political actually occured. If that is all one means with the concept of dark ages, then yes, one would be correct. But to use the term as being synonymous with ignorance and stupidity, and thus negative, historians do not use.

What you say about the Dark Ages being universally ignorant may be true. But I was neither saying nor implying that.

One of the reasons I suspect early scientists excoriated scholasticism was because they perceived it to be unhelpful for the new paradigm informed by Classical thought.

It would be helpful if there were some specifics about why in your opinion Carrier's professional judgement that there was virtually no significant progress in science during the Dark Ages is supposedly 'baseless'.

3) Again, I never said science owes a debt to scholasticism. I said that the processes of inquiry steadily led to people branching out there inquiry PAST the limited scope of scholasticism. When studying the natural world, scholars would not just ask how does this fit in with the people, but would investigate why something is happening in the first place. There was rational thought and investigation within scholasticism and nothing you have linked has said otherwise. Again, this is most likely a case of you reading into something a conclusion that is not present.

Although Dr Carrier presented some particulars as to why he concludes scholasticism was not a factor in the development of science I don't see any particular reason why anyone should disagree with that assessment.

Science has constantly evolved. This concept of Rome and Greece being epitomes of science, then the fall of Rome and then a drop of science is fallacious. The science and technology remained the same. And while there were no great scientific revolutions during this time, because scholasticism was more concerned with philosophy, theology, and applying the classics towards those fields, to say it was an age of ignorance is just ignorant. This information of course can all be gathered in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. A 13 volume encyclopedia all revolving around the medieval ages of the 5th and 15th centuries.

I didn't claim the Dark Ages was an age of total ignorance - just that from the fall of Rome to the birth of modern science practically zero advance in science took place. If christianity was 'helping things along' that's the kind of 'help' that should be avoided.

There are many periods of time such as this. The reason why there was hardly any advances in science is because the reasons I listed below. Feudalism + people did not care for education when they were more concerned with food and surviving raids. Then Lords would have wars, and battles, and thus people did not have time for proper education. Education was reserved for the church men. Again this changed with the High Middle Ages and the subsequent Renaissance of the 14th century.

Yes, apparently among the educated few only religious issues were of significance. While this may not be 'total ignorance' neither is it interest in or development of science.

Rational thought and science was still considered important, the question in regards to nature was how does this relate to the Bible and theology? A common misconception is that the world was regarded by monks and priests to be flat. This is not true as we have many medieval textbooks which have demonstrated that the earth was taught to be spherical.

I didn't make that mistake - the spherical shape of the earth was known from pagan science.

Yes, but I am saying that people still hold that misconception that the church was plain and ignorant about science.

The problem you seem to be having, and which Richard Carrier is not arguing against (unless you somehow read that article vastly different than I did), is that it was not the Christian church which caused a stagnation of educational development in the fields of science. It was the decline of a knowledge of Greek in the West, a Latin world. And aside from a few texts, many of the classical pieces of scientific literature were still in Greek and thus unable to be read by many in the Latin world. With the development of a political system of feudalism, and fear from invading Norsemen throughout the 5th to 11th centuries, the knowledge of Greek education was not needed. And again the concept of Scholasticism was applying the ways of the world (science and history) to theology and philosophy.

But, you see, I'm not having any problem distinguishing between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment. That's some other poster you must be confusing me with.

Then our discussion is a discussion of talking past one another. Since I did not claim scholasticism invented science, I said it helped lead to the development of the scientific method. Which it did.

Did it?

It provided a framework for investigative thought, which developed into the thinkers of the Renaissance who disregarded the concept of Scholasticism and instead went to the concept of Humanities. There are many ways of contributing, did it directly formulate the scientific method, no, and I did not claim that. Did it provide a ground work? Yes. Again, nothing of which you quoted, goes against that either.

Apparently the early scientists did not think scholasticism was a sound basis for their work, which is likely why they argued against it and for a different way of investigating the world, based largely on Classical thought which was previously disregarded.

But with all these wonderful scholars in all those monasteries it's a miracle that Greek texts couldn't be translated. Some were, of course- works of theology, for example - just not secular scientific texts.

Language barriers are often a big gap to cross.

When the high middle ages began, the 11th century+, you see a change in agricultural technology, a time of peace, and a development of new political orders. With this new political order, and this new freedom, people start having time and the ability to educate themselves. This reached a pinnacle in the 14th century when the Renaissance began. It was a continued development in the West. The Renaissance was not simply an occurance, it slowly reached its stage through a slow development and reconnection to the Greek classics. A connection lost more so to the changing political system of the west more so than "Christianity."

I never argued that after the Dark Ages things didn't improve. Improvements inspired in large part by accessibility to pagan works long ignored and changes in christian theology to accommodate science.

Er? Scholasticism is I quote from wikipedia (mainly because I am lazy and tired to find a quote from one of my books) "As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers: to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism"

Those "pagan" works were accessible and were used by scholastic universities and monasteries. So those pagan works were not long ignored. They were constantly involved with Christian theology and philosophy.

Their value was for purposes of theology, not science. I think that's rather the point.

Thomas Aquinas, perhaps one of the greatest names from the Scholasticism period, wrote several commentaries on Aristotle's works. Again the focus of Scholasticism was knowledge in relation to God. The focus of the humanities is knowledge in relation to man. But the development of rational thought and deduction can be glimpsed by the writings of scholasticism. Logical sequences, and deductions are seen in the writings. Aquinas's literature is swamped with it. These scholarly patterns had an influence on the methods of investigation done during the Renaissance and scientific revolutions.

I'm not familiar with Aquinas's contributions in the field of science. Is there a reliable source where I can learn more?

That was all I said by that. And you will find, if you actually do your research, that a good majority of medieval historians are in agreement. Why? Because again this all comes from the Dictionary of the Middle Ages.

Sorry we got derailed into a sidebar on the Dark Ages - I was merely referring to the suppression of freedom of thought and conscience Weaver was alluding to.

Again, I think we were just talking past each other. Since I don't technically disagree with what you said, because you are not technically saying that the dark ages were a time of ignorance and irrational thought.

But yeah this is kind of a derail. : s

Well, we can call a close to the derail. [/derail]

The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire. ~Wikipedia.

And with that last word (:P). I end my derail.

Wait, wait. What about my question?

What question? You made a statement? I have gone into detail in past threads over the entire Ephesians passage. And while anti-feminists use it to keep people in place, the verse on the whole is discussing the unity of marriage. Paul sums up that passage with quoting the one flesh comment. The husband and wife is to be considered equal. The love a husband is to show is a submissive love, just as Christ loved the church to die for it. The husband places the wife before himself.

It was suppose to be a question.

See, I'm not seeing how that verse shows an equal relationship, I see the unity part, but not the equal part. Link to those other threads if you have time.

Imagination Theory wrote:It was suppose to be a question.

See, I'm not seeing how that verse shows an equal relationship, I see the unity part, but not the equal part. Link to those other threads if you have time.

If I can find them. But I will look

Onyx8 wrote:I was taught in school that the term "Dark Ages" referred to nothing more than that modern historians had little information about the period, hence the period was 'dark' to them; they couldn't 'see' it. That has changed since the term was coined.

I was taught it was to do with the collapse of the Roman Empire, leading to pretty chaos and no unified stated that would have tracked history or progress. Well that does lead to no information in a sense for historians.

talkietoaster wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:I was taught in school that the term "Dark Ages" referred to nothing more than that modern historians had little information about the period, hence the period was 'dark' to them; they couldn't 'see' it. That has changed since the term was coined.

I was taught it was to do with the collapse of the Roman Empire, leading to pretty chaos and no unified stated that would have tracked history or progress. Well that does lead to no information in a sense for historians.

Of course this doesn't account for christianity in the orthodox half of the empire, which suffered no such collapse...