Science and Love, Religion and Hate ?

[Valmy]

Yeah, it took another 500 years, isnt that the point. 

Another 500 years for what? 

[Malthus]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

Well, probably more of a combination of the Church adopting a philosophic and scientific view which supported its dogma which was then hard to challenge.  If the Church had not made the classical views part of its dogma then the classical legacy would have been much less of an obstacle.

I think it was more a question of the enormous prestige accorded to classical learning - even by those actively opposed to the influence of the Church. Consider the "humanism" of the early Renaissance - it lead (eventually) to great advances in science, but it was self-conciously a movement dedicated to 're-discovery' of classical learning, untainted by "Medieval" Christian meddling (the very term "Medieval" invented at that time, to describe and disparage the immediate past vs. the "Classical" world).

Problem was, that in according such prestige to classical thinkers, the tendency was to adopt them relatively uncritically - until the new sciences demonstrated their falability. An example of this was the huge influence of Galen on medicine - hugely influential in his own time, lost to the West, rediscovered by Islamic authorities, gradually re-introduced to the West, peaking in influence with the Reinassance, only to be questioned by (more accurate because based on human) dissections by Vesalius in the 16th century - remaining influential, really, until the 19th century in some ways.

[Sheilbh]

Well, probably more of a combination of the Church adopting a philosophic and scientific view which supported its dogma which was then hard to challenge.  If the Church had not made the classical views part of its dogma then the classical legacy would have been much less of an obstacle.

It was far more all-encompassing than that though. Literature and art were still trapped in an inferiority complex towards the Classical writers as well as philosophy and, honestly, who could blame them?

For me the real breakthrough wasn't any diminuition of religious sentiment but a growth in confidence that there were new discoveries to be made. The first step was to see the Classical world as other humans and our equals - Petrarch writing letters to Cicero. That in itself had a religious dimension; humanism can't be torn away from its clerical roots. The 17th century and the scientific revolution coincided with one of the most fervently, devoutly, fearfully religious periods in European history. Breaking the Classical mindset seems more important than breaking the religious which makes sense, the state of one's soul doesn't necessarily say much about science.

Yeah, it took another 500 years, isnt that the point.

500 years of interminable local warfare, social collapse and literal robber barons. It's a miracle any learning survived.

[Sheilbh]

I think it was more a question of the enormous prestige accorded to classical learning - even by those actively opposed to the influence of the Church. Consider the "humanism" of the early Renaissance - it lead (eventually) to great advances in science, but it was self-conciously a movement dedicated to 're-discovery' of classical learning, untainted by "Medieval" Christian meddling (the very term "Medieval" invented at that time, to describe and disparage the immediate past vs. the "Classical" world).

And I think that self-consciousness lingers in how we view this. Our opinion has been shaped by very self-conscious movements - the Renaissance disparaging the Medieval, the Philosophes 17th century Europe, the Romantics the Augustan ages. None of those views necessarily bear out.

Edit: Or the twentieth century disdain for the moralistic, hypocritical Victorian world.

[Razgovory]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

Well, probably more of a combination of the Church adopting a philosophic and scientific view which supported its dogma which was then hard to challenge.  If the Church had not made the classical views part of its dogma then the classical legacy would have been much less of an obstacle.

Of course, it has to be the churches fault.

[crazy canuck]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

Well, probably more of a combination of the Church adopting a philosophic and scientific view which supported its dogma which was then hard to challenge.  If the Church had not made the classical views part of its dogma then the classical legacy would have been much less of an obstacle.

Of course, it has to be the churches fault.

I dont fault the Church for adopting ideas that supported its position.  Is their something contraversial about that?

[Sheilbh]

What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy?

What the Church did was far more interesting than adoption.

[Siege]

No all religions are equal.
Some are used as a conduct to channel hatred into outsiders and justify their failed ideology.

Are all religions ideologies?
Not sure. Islam certainly is.

Anyway, the only reason the West had the renaissance and the industrial revolution is because western religions, which shaped western culture, were far more pro-science than any other religions and cultures.

Don't believe all that communist crap about the conflict between religion and science.
That's a modern construct.
If it were true, there would have not been any scientific progress in the West and there would be a shitload of scientists killed by whatever church was in power.
Instead, we got Giordano Bruno, one guy, which by the way was half crazy in ways not related to science.

Whoa, languish is so fucked up and so liberal that even I find myself defending the fucking church, the cradle of anti-Semitism.
Amazing.

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Well, is all comparative.
My argument is that western culture and religion was far more pro-science than any other culture/religion on the planet.
This is the reason why the renaissance and the industrial revolution happened in the West.

Ok, there are other factors, but minor in comparison in my opinion, like conflict and competition, property rights, individualism vs collectivism, etc.

[Viking]

Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre.  How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?

In the backward West one needed to be a cleric to be educated.  The Muslims had non religious centres of learning far earlier than the West.  As a result they were able to produce such thinkers as http://www.famousscientists.org/muhammad-ibn-musa-al-khwarizmi/

Oh come on, while that was true at some point that had not been true for 500 years by the time Copernicus came along.

The Islamic "Golden Age" ends usually at either the sacking of beit al hikma or the publication of the tahafud (incoherence of the philosophers). At that point it is over, it has ended, it has ceased to be, it is a former golden age. If that is a definition of a Golden Age then the Christian/Western Golden age started with Bacon's Novum Organum and continues to this day.

It's a bullshit argument to claim that Islam is somehow to be commended for only needing 300 years to destroy ALL of the legacy of the Classical world. That's about how long it took for the process to complete itself in the West.

[Razgovory]

Have you actually read the "Incoherence of the Philosophers?"

[grumbler]

It's a bullshit argument to claim that Islam is somehow to be commended for only needing 300 years to destroy ALL of the legacy of the Classical world. That's about how long it took for the process to complete itself in the West.

There's bullshit associated with this argument, for sure; Islam didn't "destroy ALL of the legacy of the Classical world" at all, let alone do it in 300 years or whatever.

[crazy canuck]

It's a bullshit argument to claim that Islam is somehow to be commended for only needing 300 years to destroy ALL of the legacy of the Classical world. That's about how long it took for the process to complete itself in the West.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here but all possibilities seem to be "bullshit"

One argument you seem to be making is that the West destroyed ALL of the legacy of the Classical world in 300 years.  I am not sure what 300 year period you are thinking about.  Can you please identify when you think all of the legacy of the Classical world was destroyed by the West.

The other argument you seem to be making is that even though ALL legacy had already been destroyed by the West somehow Islam also destroyed ALL of the legacy of the Classical world.  Ignoring the paradox of destroying ALL of what had already been destroyed please let us know when you say this 300 years of prodigous destruction was wrought by the Muslims.

[crazy canuck]

What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy?

What the Church did was far more interesting than adoption.

You're not suggesting that various thinkers within the Roman Catholic Church havent adopted and applied Aristotle and Plato are you?

[Jacob]

What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy?

What the Church did was far more interesting than adoption.

You're not suggesting that various thinkers within the Roman Catholic Church havent adopted and applied Aristotle and Plato are you?

I got the impression that Sheilbh implied that the RCC's use of Aristotle and Plato was less "adopting and applying" and more "wholesale reorganization to use for own purposes."

[crazy canuck]

What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy?

What the Church did was far more interesting than adoption.

You're not suggesting that various thinkers within the Roman Catholic Church havent adopted and applied Aristotle and Plato are you?

I got the impression that Sheilbh implied that the RCC's use of Aristotle and Plato was less "adopting and applying" and more "wholesale reorganization to use for own purposes."

I am not sure what the difference is between adopting and applying vs using for their own purposes.  That is essentially my point.