Listening to some old hippy music and this line crops up:
"It's a new age under science and love, joining together that's building a new age"
Which got me thinking, most scientists I've met seem like good, positive people. Whereas some of the religious people I've know have been somewhat judgemental and a few rather hate filled. Though that's not to say I don't know plenty of decent Christian folk.
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
No, but there might be a connection between the modern humanities and hate.
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
Yeah. They're called Jesuits.
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
Listening to some old hippy music and this line crops up:
"It's a new age under science and love, joining together that's building a new age"
Which got me thinking, most scientists I've met seem like good, positive people. Whereas some of the religious people I've know have been somewhat judgemental and a few rather hate filled. Though that's not to say I don't know plenty of decent Christian folk.
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
Generally speaking, I'd guess that to become a scientist one needs to have a decent upbringing.
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
I'm sure Mengele loved his work. :P
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
Listening to some old hippy music and this line crops up:
"It's a new age under science and love, joining together that's building a new age"
Which got me thinking, most scientists I've met seem like good, positive people. Whereas some of the religious people I've know have been somewhat judgemental and a few rather hate filled. Though that's not to say I don't know plenty of decent Christian folk.
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
I don't run into scientists on a regular basis. If they are like any other type of academic they often petty, vindictive, arrogant and more then a little crazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2014, 06:28:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
Listening to some old hippy music and this line crops up:
"It's a new age under science and love, joining together that's building a new age"
Which got me thinking, most scientists I've met seem like good, positive people. Whereas some of the religious people I've know have been somewhat judgemental and a few rather hate filled. Though that's not to say I don't know plenty of decent Christian folk.
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
I don't run into scientists on a regular basis. If they are like any other type of academic they often petty, vindictive, arrogant and more then a little crazy.
After what?
After they wake up. They are fine when they are asleep.
So, Raz's role models are academics. Who knew?
Yep, in fact I modeled my posting technique on a certain educator on this board.
:lol:
"Who taught you to post like this?" "You, grumbler! I learned it by watching you!"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2014, 01:16:31 PM
:lol:
"Who taught you to post like this?" "You, grumbler! I learned it by watching you!"
:D "You learned... poorly."
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.
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2014, 10:05:31 AM
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.
Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates. I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2014, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2014, 01:16:31 PM
:lol:
"Who taught you to post like this?" "You, grumbler! I learned it by watching you!"
:D "You learned... poorly."
I learned quite well. I learned that you have very thin skin and if contradicted enough will take your ball and go home.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2014, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2014, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2014, 01:16:31 PM
:lol:
"Who taught you to post like this?" "You, grumbler! I learned it by watching you!"
:D "You learned... poorly."
I learned quite well. I learned that you have very thin skin and if contradicted enough will take your ball* and go home.
I think you mean small, manoeuvrable, skiff-like water craft.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates. I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.
What about Christian Scientists eh? Oh they believe what? Nevermind.
Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre. How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates. I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.
What about Christian Scientists eh? Oh they believe what? Nevermind.
....
Yeah, that confused me too, especially as for years I only knew those words in the context of the 'Christian Science Monitor', which I thought was excellent, so I had assumed they were like some American version of socially active Quakers. :)
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
Listening to some old hippy music and this line crops up:
"It's a new age under science and love, joining together that's building a new age"
Which got me thinking, most scientists I've met seem like good, positive people. Whereas some of the religious people I've know have been somewhat judgemental and a few rather hate filled. Though that's not to say I don't know plenty of decent Christian folk.
So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? :unsure:
Anecdotal. Personally, I've known plenty of good folk who were Christian- they just tend to talk about "love" more in terms of "loving" God, which kind of gently creeps me out. Also, how about the Dawkins-esque atheists, who can get so obnoxiously self-righteous that it's fair to say it crosses the line into "hate?"
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
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/
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 03, 2014, 04:46:38 PM
Anecdotal. Personally, I've known plenty of good folk who were Christian- they just tend to talk about "love" more in terms of "loving" God, which kind of gently creeps me out. Also, how about the Dawkins-esque atheists, who can get so obnoxiously self-righteous that it's fair to say it crosses the line into "hate?"
Yeah, plenty of hateful atheists around. Some nice ones too.
Same for religionists.
Maybe it's a people thing?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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.
I agree. Aristotle was an enormous hurdle that nearly every field of science had to get past in the early modern era.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2014, 05:23:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Only if one was ignorant.
I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.
I agree. Aristotle was an enormous hurdle that nearly every field of science had to get past in the early modern era.
I think it was more of a mixed bag. Aristotle certainly was a headache, but exposure to many other ancient philosophers showed there was an intellectual world outside of religious belief.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 04:55:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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.
So Science would have been better served if all the writings of the Greeks and Romans had all been lost?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 05:31:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 04:55:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
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.
Yeah, it took another 500 years, isnt that the point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 05:36:53 PM
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 wasn't really that big of an obstacle. By the time scientific discoveries got going there were plenty of Protestant countries who would support you if you got in trouble with the Church.
QuoteYeah, it took another 500 years, isnt that the point.
Another 500 years for what?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 05:36:53 PMWell, 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.
QuoteYeah, 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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2014, 05:51:15 PMI 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2014, 06:34:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
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. :rolleyes:
I dont fault the Church for adopting ideas that supported its position. Is their something contraversial about that?
What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy? :P
What the Church did was far more interesting than adoption.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2014, 10:05:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 05:31:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2014, 04:55:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
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.
Have you actually read the "Incoherence of the Philosophers?"
Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2014, 09:04:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2014, 09:04:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 06:49:14 PM
What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy? :P
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 06:49:14 PM
What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy? :P
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."
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2014, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 06:49:14 PM
What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy? :P
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates. I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.
What about Christian Scientists eh? Oh they believe what? Nevermind.
Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre. How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?
Calling Copernicus one "for religion" is a bit of a stretch. He was denounced by the Church and his works were put on the Index Libri Prohibitorum.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 05:08:36 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 03, 2014, 04:46:38 PM
Anecdotal. Personally, I've known plenty of good folk who were Christian- they just tend to talk about "love" more in terms of "loving" God, which kind of gently creeps me out. Also, how about the Dawkins-esque atheists, who can get so obnoxiously self-righteous that it's fair to say it crosses the line into "hate?"
Yeah, plenty of hateful atheists around. Some nice ones too.
Same for religionists.
Maybe it's a people thing?
I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.
Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2014, 09:04:41 AM
The Islamic "Golden Age" ends usually at either the sacking of beit al hikma or the publication of the tahafud (incoherence of the philosophers).
This is an oft-cited view but wrong. Al-Ghazali is often cited, but very rarely read. The Incoherence is in many respects a modern work of philosophy that takes a skeptical approach to some of the extravagant claims of Aristotelian metaphysics. He also distinguishes such claims from claims of natural science (e.g. astronomy) which he argues are coherent and consistent with revelation. It is also clearly mistaken to suggest that the Incoherence cut off further inquiry as ibn Rushd was writing radical Aristotelian tracts years later.
I don't think one can say with any certainty why scientific inquiry in the Islamic world declined, but it is interesting to note that many of the most famous scientists and philosophers were from Iran or its immediate environs (like Basra) and that inquiry does seem to peak in the early 900s and drop off by the 1100s. As it happens, Iran enjoyed a period of economic growth and rapid urbanization from around 800-1000 but that a deep decline had set in by the late 11th century, possibly due in part to climatic factors. If I had to guess I would surmise that the rise and fall of Islamic science is related to these demographics and economic phenomena.
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2014, 03:25:33 PM
Calling Copernicus one "for religion" is a bit of a stretch. He was denounced by the Church and his works were put on the Index Libri Prohibitorum.
I was just making a joke about how many of our famous scientists were actual members of the clergy. Whether or not it is a stretch or not depends on which facts one prefers to dwell on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2014, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2014, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2014, 06:49:14 PM
What in Aristotle or Plato supported the position of Romanised Jewish heresy? :P
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.
Exactly what Jacob says. They didn't just adopt and apply, rather there was a synthesis - which in my view was a pretty impressive intellectual system (from what little I've read). It's the difference between a sort of deduction where they get their support from antiquity and a creative process that ends up producing something new.
They didn't adopt the philosophy that supported their views, because Plato and Aristotle couldn't possibly have done that. They took the great intellectual legacy of the Classical world and argued with and reshaped and merged it with their own intellectual tradition. To call Renaissance neo-Platonism for example just an adoption of something for the Church's own purpose is a very narrow way of looking at it.
QuoteI think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.
I'm betting that someone wasn't from the Eastern Bloc.
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2014, 03:26:52 PM
I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.
I disagree with that someone. Any kind of entrenched moral, social, or political system can cause otherwise good people to do bad things.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2014, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2014, 03:26:52 PM
I think as someone once put it, you have bad religious people doing bad things, you have bad non-religious people doing bad things, you have good non-religious people doing good things and you have good religious people doing good things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.
I disagree with that someone. Any kind of entrenched moral, social, or political system can cause otherwise good people to do bad things.
Yup. And the history of the last century is absolutely rife with 'otherwise good people doing bad things' out of sincere, non-religious conviction.
Example: sincere Communists supporting Stalin's atrocities as 'necessary for Soviet society to advance'. Sincere scientific eugenicists supporting sterilizing "inferiors". Etc. etc.