Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[Florestan]

Or when I lived in Berlin, I learned that a great number of the skinheads that are so xenophobic and mindful of German identity are in fact ethnic Germans that came from Eastern Europe and sometimes can barely speak German.
(Not that I am implying any parallel between you or anyone here with a skinhead. It is just an interesting sociological case I once saw -- if you still feel that is the implication please let me know and I will strike it out)

I don't have any objections other than this being irrelevant to the topic at hand --- my position in Christianity and Europe, as you admitted yourself in the highlighted part.

[DavidRoss]

I know that these are facts that the radical secularists will never accept because they contradict their ideological fanaticism, which is, curiously, very similar in spirit actually with the fervor that Aristotelean theologians displayed in trying to suppress or silence the nascent modern science. It is, in fact, amusing to see how the lipservice paid to reason and logic makes way for ignoring them altogether when their inferences are at variance with the secularist credo.

How sad, but how true.  Is bigotry always handmaiden to ideology?

[mozartsneighbor]

You keep repeating this mantra without offering the least evidence.

That the Chinese invented and used compass-rose, powder gun, paper and printing press long before their advent in Europe is a well-known fact. It is also a well-known fact that nothing even remotely similar to the European scientific revolution and Enlightenment occured in China, revisionist propaganda or plain hoaxes notwithstanding. It is not enough to have at one's disposal several techological gadgets in order to create and develop science. What one needs is first and foremost a mindset, a Weltanschauung if you wish, that allows you to imagine, devise and pursue a systematic, thorough and carefully planned program of scientific research aimed at discovering and using nature's mode of operation, i.e. its principles and laws--- and it is precisely this mindset that the Chinese lacked conspicuously, unless you mean to imply that the divinations of Tao-Te-Ching are a sort of Novum Organon and the omens that the imperial astrologers read in the skies  are equivalent to Astronomia Nova.

One of two books you enthusiastically recommended is a hoax, debunked by historians long-ago --- a fact that  apparently you weren't aware of, thus ruining the credibility of the other one as well.  I address to you the same question I addressed to another poster here: please show us, based on concrete  and  credible reference, the Kepler, the Galilei, the Newton and the Francis Bacon of China, along with their achievements.

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. I did not say China had a Scientific Revolution, I said that it might perhaps have reached it or something like it under different circumstances or at a later date. Therefore, obviously China did not have a Galilei, a Newton, etc., because these were the people who "made" the Scientific Revolution.
What seems to me is that it could be argued that the Chinese had reached a stage similar to that in Europe preceding the Scientific Revolution -- the stage when quasi-scientists like Leonardo da Vinci showed remarkable curiosity and understanding of many phenomena in a way that can be called quasi-scientific, without yet having a true Scientific Method.
A good example of the existence of this spirit in China is Shen Kuo. Look him up and you will see what I mean.
Could they have made that leap from there as Europeans did? I don't know, but it is impossible to definitely rule it out.
I still feel that the factor of navigation, exploration, and colonization of other lands, which exposed Europeans to a more varied view of the world and its phenomena, induced them to develop better technology to be able to reach and conquer these lands, and which of course then initiated a massive transfer of wealth from these other areas to Europe, was vital in helping Europe to reach that stage (as do many historians -- particularly I remember hearing a very interesting talk by Dr. Kenneth Pomeranz in the US on this subject some years ago).
Even if Menzies' book is a hoax, the underlying history without any revisionism agreed upon by historians, that Zheng He's fleet reached the East coast of Africa at the very least, shows that the Chinese were at least on a logistic and material level able to have perhaps also engaged in further maritime exploration and colonialism. They didn't continue on that course due to political infighting that disgraced the admiral class and saw China's navy destroyed -- would they have continued otherwise anyway? Again, I can't say for sure, but neither can I just affirm with proud certainty that they wouldn't.

[Florestan]

I did not say China had a Scientific Revolution, I said that it might perhaps have reached it or something like it under different circumstances or at a later date.

To this I have no objection whatsoever. They might perhaps, nay, they would surely have reached it, had their mindset been conducive to it. Unfortunately for them and for the world at large, it was not.

Therefore, obviously China did not have a Galilei, a Newton, etc., because these were the people who "made" the Scientific Revolution.

Thank you for your straight answer.

I think that the Chinese did not have a Newton or a Galilei because they did not have a paradigm shift from the organic, pantheistic and cyclic view of nature and natural phenomena to a linear-mechanistic one. In short, there was no Chinese Galilei or Newton because there was no Chinese Oresme or Buridan.

What seems to me is that it could be argued that the Chinese had reached a stage similar to that in Europe preceding the Scientific Revolution -- the stage when quasi-scientists like Leonardo da Vinci showed remarkable curiosity and understanding of many phenomena in a way that can be called quasi-scientific, without yet having a true Scientific Method.
A good example of the existence of this spirit in China is Shen Kuo. Look him up and you will see what I mean.

I am sure that there were individuals in China that had a quasi-scientific mindset and were even free from the metaphysical background of the Chinese thought. But their number never reached a critical mass, their works and writings never  germinated, their thought and method never prevailed among philosophers and the explanation for this fact boils down to the same mindset: the majority of the Chinese thinkers were so entrenched in their ages-old ideas and practices and so proud of the heritage of their ancestors that they regarded with suspicion the slightest attempt at a paradigm shift. (The tribulations of the Jesuit scholar and missionary Matteo Ricci in China are very instructive in this regard). In the perpetuation of this extreme conservatism, nay, immobilism of thought, Confucius played a central role and I really don't see how he can be reconstructed as a possible forerunner of a possible scientific revolution.

I still feel that the factor of navigation, exploration, and colonization of other lands, which exposed Europeans to a more varied view of the world and its phenomena, induced them to develop better technology to be able to reach and conquer these lands, and which of course then initiated a massive transfer of wealth from these other areas to Europe, was vital in helping Europe to reach that stage

No doubt. But the question arises immediately: why did Europeans set about navigating, explorating and colonizing the four corners of the world? Why it was the Europeans that discovered America, and not the American Indians that discovered Europe? Why it was the Portuguese that colonized Africa, and not the Africans that colonized Portugal?

Because they had the technology, knowledge and desire to do that; and all these were gained by them following that paradigm shift I'm talking about: away from the immobilism, fatalism and resignation of the pagan worldview (of which the ill-fated Chinese decision to burn their fleets is a most illustrative example) to the mobility, curiosity and activism inspired by the Judeo-Christian mindset.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that the subsequent birth and development of science took place at once, or that it was embraced enthusiastically by all Christians, or that it had full and unconditional approval and support of the Church authorities. On the contrary, it was a long and painstakingly process, it met the stubborn resistance of many influent Christian scholars and, because the Christian-Aristotelian synthesis of St. Thomas Aquinas was proclaimed, in an ill-thought and ill-fated decision, as an infallible dogma of the Church, many of the high clergy of the Catholic Church regarded it with suspicion, when they didn't reject it outright. (In all fairness it must be added that many others of them were either practitioners or supporters of this new method). But these facts should not blind a rational person to the historical truth that the shift had its origins in the Christian refutation of Pagan worldviews and it never appeared outside Christendom.

As a matter of fact, I am convinced that the Jews would have been undoubtedly along the Christians in the forefront of the advancement of science, because they shared all the Christian science-conducive theological presupositions --- or, more accurately, the Christians borrowed those presupositions from them. Unfortunately, they lacked a country of their own in which they could find peace and tranquility, away from the absurd injunctions and persecutions to which they were subjected.

One final point: that the Chinese or Indians or Muslims are not racially inapt for scientific thought and achievements is clearly shown by the fact that after they adopted the European scientific paradigm the number of their succesful scientists and engineers increased dramatically. This paradigm, although originating in the Judeo-Christian mindset, has universal validity.

[Florestan]

Is bigotry always handmaiden to ideology?

So it seems.

[drogulus]

Aristotle held, in regard to the natural world, pagan ideas: that the Heavens were itselves divine; that celestial bodies were animated, incorruptible and eternal; that their motion were caused by something similar to animal desires; that they had influence over the fate of the individuals. (Coincidentally --- or rather not --- besides being pagan these ideas are patently false as well).

Now, the Judeo-Christian theology says something completely different: that the Heavens were created at a specific moment in time; that they are not divine; that they are inanimated, corruptible and will have an end; that their motion is caused by God setting them in an orderly motion; and that they have no influence over the individuals. (Coincidentally --- or rather not --- besides being Judeo-Christian these ideas are also scientifically true, the God part notwithstanding).

(Aristotle held yet more false ideas, such as heavy bodies fall faster than light ones, or organisms are spontaneously generated, but these were not in manifest contradiction to Christian theology).

Now, those Aristotelean views were rejected (most vigorously by Etienne Tempier, bishop of Paris) on strict theological ground, specifically because they were at variance with the Christian doctrine regarding the natural world --- not because they were scientifically unsound. And having been rejected, they made way for the orthodox ideas which assisted the birth, and nurtured the childhood, of rational-empirical science.

"If the motion of celestial, or terrestrial bodies, is governed by immutable God-given laws, not by whims and desires; if God, Who is rational, made us in His image, thus imparting to us reason too; and finally, if God, Who gave us a true book of morals, cannot give us a deceiving book of nature --- then it is possible, nay, desirable, for us to investigate nature and try to discover its functioning principles and governing laws." Such was the reasoning of truly orthodox Christians as Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan, Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste and William of Ockham, whose works spelled, in the long run, the doom of Scholasticism.

Incidentally, Buridan came close to formulate Newton's First Law; judge for yourself:

"Also, since the Bible does not state that appropriate intelligences move the celestial bodies, it could be said that it does not appear necessary to posit intelligences of this kind, because it would be answered that God, when He created the world, moved each of the celestial orbs as He pleased, and in moving them He impressed in them impetuses which moved them without His having to move them any more except by the method of general influence whereby He concurs as co-agent in all things that take place[...]. And these impetuses which He impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased nor corrupted afterwards, because there was no inclination of the celestial movements for other movements. Nor was there resistance which could be corruptive or repressive of that impetus."

"[...]after leaving the arm of the thrower, the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion".

Thus, eventually the theological refutation of Aristotle went hand in hand with its scientific rejection, but the latter would not have been possible without the former.

     

     This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ideas that had scientific implications were discussed within the all embracing context of theology. Whatever was wrong with Aristotle's mechanics would naturally be attributed to some cause palatable to Christians. You also need a better concept of the transmission of ideas and how they pass through a reigning ideology. Ultimately you can't say theology corrected Aristotle unless you place it over the process of scientific discovery itself, a bigger error than any Aristotle made. The essential part is that which survived its former theological context, not the context within which the ideas were expressed. That context has been dethroned even among Christians to a large extent, and though they play at believing, they aren't much interested in the supposed substance of what they believe. It's beyond reason, you see, a very good way of expressing disinterest.

     On the point that some features of Christian theology made the transmission of Greek scientific/philosophical ideas more likely, this is true, and should prompt you to agree with me about the value of preserving the pagan tradition. which included the ability to question the reigning ideas which it's very likely Christianity would have been even worse at if historical circumstances we have discussed here hadn't occurred.

     The short way to deal with your point is simply that when all the theology is subtracted from the scientific speculation nothing of value has been removed. From the Enlightenment onward science has proceeded, and so has ethics and politics, largely outside the old context. And the hellholes of the world are precisely those where this process is unknown. You want the Middle Ages back? It's still here if you want it. The Christians got dragged out by a revolution they couldn't control, and now benefit from their defeat. The Muslims are not so lucky.

     Finally, it may very well be true that rejecting the divinity of nature harmonized well with progressive ideas in materialism, though the Church never went far enough. Rejecting the concept as entirely useless and agreeing with Lucretius and the other materialists would have been even better. Christian dualism, like the Platonic version that they adapted for their own use, was something that took centuries to work through. I expect it will take more centuries to work through in the Diner. Are you down with that?

     

Thus, eventually the theological refutation of Aristotle went hand in hand with its scientific rejection, but the latter would not have been possible without the former.

     Of course it did! How awful if the scientific refutation was unaccompanied by a "theological refutation". What value is nonsense if it can't occasionally be associated with sense, however fancifully.

[drogulus]

     Florestan, if my interpretation is false (scientific propositions can't be rendered false by theological refutation) then something else must be the case, presumably that only those scientific ideas authorized by correct theology can be allowed to be true. Otherwise your point about Aristotle and hand-in-hand theological and scientific refutation is an empty assertion. It may be a good historical claim to make that this is how it actually went down (as I say, it could hardly have happened otherwise) but you seem to understand this the way the Churchmen themselves may have, with the same top down authority of dogma over discovery they professed. If you want Christianity to be credited with scientific advancement, though, you would have to credit the Church with losing this debate decisively. Is that the credit you wish to claim?

[Florestan]

     Ultimately you can't say theology corrected Aristotle unless you place it over the process of scientific discovery itself

You make a gross mistake here. You speak as if "the process of scientific discovery" itself was already up and running during the time when Aristotle was theologically refuted, and it was more convenient for the "scientists" to wrap up their scientific rejection of Aristotle's false claims in a theological armor. That is simply not true. Neither Aristotle, nor its Pagan or Christian followers and defenders had the slightest idea about scientific discovery. As a simple but striking example, I draw your attention to the fact that the idea of scientific experiment, which is at the core of the scientific method was so completely alien to their mindset that they didn't care to make the simplest of the experiments: let two bodies of different weights fall and see what happens. The "science" of Aristotle consisted of a mixture of facts based on direct observation (especially in the field of what only about a millenium later came to be known as biology, and this is precisely the part which he had right in some respects) and theories based on Pagan metaphysical presupositions (his physics and astronomy, in particular, resulted flawed or outright absurd because of that). That's all. No method, no experiment, no linear-mechanistic worldview. This is what the Christians inherited as "science" from the Pagan world and this is what they stubbornly clinged to for centuries, due to the infallible authority that the Church invested --- wrongly --- Aristotle with. It is precisely during the times when Aristotelian "science" and worldview prevailed unquestioned in Christendom that no true science developed, even in primitive forms. More: centuries after the rejection of Aristotle allowed science to appear and develop, those academic and scholarly centers which held fast to his doctrines remianed scientifically sterile all along and often strongly opposed the new methods. "Aristotelian science" is just an euphemism for no science at all.

To summarize: reconstructing the scientific rejection of Aristotle as being simultaneous with, or even preceding,  his theological refutation is an anachronism at best and an attempt at distorting history at worst.

You want the Middle Ages back? It's still here if you want it.

If this is what you really infered from my posts, then you have serious reading comprehension problems. I am more than willing, though, to give you the benefit of a strawman.

[Florestan]

If you want Christianity to be credited with scientific advancement, though, you would have to credit the Church with losing this debate decisively. Is that the credit you wish to claim?

I appreciate that you make a distinction between Christianity and the Church in its historical incarnations. This mean that you actually did understand my point.

[Florestan]

The essential part is that which survived its former theological context, not the context within which the ideas were expressed.

In respect with the topic at hand, this assertion boils down to claiming that the grandson is essential, not the grandfather. This might be true in some respects, but at least the grandfather must be given credit for engendering the grandson's father and thus, ultimately, the grandson itself. Recognizing this simple historical fact would not mean from the radical atheist camp a conversion or a surender, but a homage paid to the reality (to which they pretend to be so reverent). Why it is so hard to accept it I can only too well understand in the case of ideological fanatics, but why it is so hard to accept it for reasoning and intelligent people like you and others here, it's beyond me.

[Wanderer]

...due to the infallible authority that the Church invested --- wrongly --- Aristotle with.

Allow me to clarify that this would be the western Roman Church, particularly after the Schism. The eastern (Orthodox) Church always held Plato in far greater esteem.

[Florestan]

Allow me to clarify that this would be the western Roman Church, particularly after the Schism. The eastern (Orthodox) Church always held Plato in far greater esteem.

Of course. All I said applied to the Roman Catholic Church.

[Wanderer]

Of course. All I said applied to the Roman Catholic Church.

I know, but I'm also sure that most of those reading or contributing to this thread wouldn't be able to make the distinction.

[Bu]

Allow me to clarify that this would be the western Roman Church, particularly after the Schism. The eastern (Orthodox) Church always held Plato in far greater esteem.

St. Augustine held Plato in higher respects (he states so in the City of God), and from what I know of the early Church (East and West) a similar appraisal was held. Only later in the scholastic period did Aristotle trump Plato in esteem (maybe this was due to the intellectual/religious brawl with the Muslims over Aristotle). 

[Florestan]

BTW, it's interesting to note, as an aside, how the Platonism of the Orthodox Church crossed the sea with the Greek scholar refugees after the catastrophy of 1453 (the move began in fact earlier, with the Council of Florence-Ferrara, 1437-39) and landed in Italy, lending the support and authority of the original Platonic texts and their competent commentaries to the nascent neo-Platonism of Renaissance. Georgios Gemisthos Plethon, the leading Greek Platonist scholar of the time, was instrumental in this respect, inspiring Cosimo de Medici in founding the Academia Platonica and heavily influencing Marsilio Ficino.

[Bu]

An often overlooked fact, Florestan.  I suppose the memory is bittersweet, thought.   

[Florestan]

An often overlooked fact, Florestan.  I suppose the memory is bittersweet, thought.   

There are many bittersweet memories in the Orthodox-Catholic interactions (some of them more bitter than sweet). 

And certainly there are many oftenly overlooked facts about the history of the Christian Churches, be they Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. The current discussion is about one such fact.

[karlhenning]

Reconciliation: that's an aspect I love about the Christian religion.

[bwv 1080]

BTW, it's interesting to note, as an aside, how the Platonism of the Orthodox Church crossed the sea with the Greek scholar refugees after the catastrophy of 1453 (the move began in fact earlier, with the Council of Florence-Ferrara, 1437-39) and landed in Italy, lending the support and authority of the original Platonic texts and their competent commentaries to the nascent neo-Platonism of Renaissance. Georgios Gemisthos Plethon, the leading Greek Platonist scholar of the time, was instrumental in this respect, inspiring Cosimo de Medici in founding the Academia Platonica and heavily influencing Marsilio Ficino.

Doesn't the (neo)platonism of the RCC start at least with Augustine and go through Aquinas?

[Florestan]

Doesn't the (neo)platonism of the RCC start at least with Augustine and go through Aquinas?

Augustine, Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite were the most important Christian neo-Platonic theologians. They all lived or wrote before the closure of the refounded School of Athens by Justinian in 529. While the Eastern Church (Orthodox) continued to hold Plato in high esteem, much more than Aristotle, in the Western Church (Roman Catholic) Aristotle won gradually the upper hand. It's the Renaissance that brought about a strong revival of interest in Platonism, and Plethon played an important role in that.