[Nazaroo]

Here is a new book on the Middle Ages:

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution.

In The Genesis of Science, Hannam debunks many of the myths about the medieval time period espoused by politically correct professors, scientists, and historians today.

For example, contrary to popular belief, people who lived during the Dark Ages did not think the earth was flat, the Inquisition didn't burn anybody for their scientific ideas, and the Church did not try to ban human dissection or the number zero. In fact, the Church supported science and was instrumental in helping pave the way for many advancements in chemistry, physics, and biology.

I really enjoyed editing this book, says Managing Editor Mary Beth Baker. My favorite chapter is chapter seven, ‘Bloody Failure: Magic and Medicine in the Middle Ages.' In that chapter, James argues that even though medieval people believed in magic, that belief didn't make them naive or unsophisticated. Their belief in magic was more indicative of their culture than their intelligence or reasoning abilities.

Want to know more about The Genesis of Science? Click here to read an excerpt from Mary Beth's favorite chapter "Bloody Failure: Magic and Medicine in the Middle Ages."


Enjoy
Nazaroo

[Stripe]

Cool.

[Stuu]

And the discoveries of the "christian middle ages" that have transformed our lives would be...?

They would be as good as or better than the discoveries of the Enlightenment that rolled back religious hegemony, or the achievements of modern times that, by the very nature of scientific methodology are secular, in what way?

Why did you advertise this book? Are you suggesting that the word "christian" is instrumental to science in some way? My understanding is that even this book shows it is incidental.

The Medieval plagues were overwhelmingly blamed on spirits and evil-doing. There were people doing a kind of science in trying to determine the causes of plague, some even enjoying limited success despite having no clue why, but they were isolated examples. To call this science would be wrong. The alchemists invented technology that is still used today, but they were not doing science because they had no theoretical basis for it.

Stuart

[chrysostom]

the dark ages started with the 7th century
and
the expansion of Islam

Gibbon has Omar in 641 saying this:

"if these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed"

as they were burning the library of Alexandria

[Alencon]

Well then, I'll be sure to let Galileo know that the church supports him 100%.

I doubt that anything could bring all human progress to a halt. Of course there were technilogical advance in the middle ages. That's not exactly a news flash. The problem is that science took a huge step backwards with the fall of Rome and European science had to sort of re-establish itself.

If it weren't for the imports from the Arabic Muslim countries, it's not clear it would have ever recovered.

Yes the church supported scientific investigation, as long as that investigation didn't conflict with the doctrine of the church, and that philosphy cannot help but hinder science.

The issue isn't what was discovered, it's what would have been discovered in a different climate. Obviously, that's a question we'll never be able to answer.

[Selaphiel]

Originally Posted by Alencon

Well then, I'll be sure to let Galileo know that the church supports him 100%.

I doubt that anything could bring all human progress to a halt. Of course there were technilogical advance in the middle ages. That's not exactly a news flash. The problem is that science took a huge step backwards with the fall of Rome and European science had to sort of re-establish itself.

If it weren't for the imports from the Arabic Muslim countries, it's not clear it would have ever recovered.

Yes the church supported scientific investigation, as long as that investigation didn't conflict with the doctrine of the church, and that philosphy cannot help but hinder science.

The issue isn't what was discovered, it's what would have been discovered in a different climate. Obviously, that's a question we'll never be able to answer.

That is a simplified view of history.

First of all: Yes, we recovered much that was lost during the fall of Rome from the Arab civilization, but where do you think they got it from? It did not appear from thin air, these works were preserved and expanded upon by the Byzantine empire which stood for another 1000 years after the fall of Rome. The people responsible for expanding on their works were mostly people considered to be church fathers.

Secondly, Galileo did not contradict a doctrine of the church, he contradicted the dominating world view. The Ptolemaic system wasn't a doctrine at all, but a way of explaining observations at the time. Galileo was not hated by the church at all, in fact he was revered as an excellent scholar by the astronomers of the day which were mostly Jesuits. The unfortunate ending of the story was the result of personal conflict which escalated to become the tragedy that was his house arrest. Galileo was not exactly Mr.Reason himself either, he was wildly selfish and vindictive and refused to credit others and he denied the observations of his colleagues out of spite. He called Horatio Grassi's and Tycho Brahe's observations of comets for optical illusions.

So it is simply inaccurate to set up Galileo as some sort of lone pillar of reason versus the irrational tyranny of the church. That is a myth told by the enlightenment enthusiasts to defend the superiority of this revolution. Of course, I do not oppose the enlightenment, but to defend it with such biased versions of history seems somewhat ironical.
It was preposterous to place him under house arrest, but it such drastic actions were the results of escalated personal conflicts. In fact, Pope Urban VIII was the one to encourage Galileo to write the "Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the Ptolemaic and Copernican" in 1632 and Galileo responded with writing the work in a mocking tone, mocking the man who encouraged him to write it in the first place.

It has been recommended on this forum many times, but I will do it again: I recommend the book "Atheist delusions" (a horrible title...probably forced by the publisher rather than the author for sales purposes) by David Bentley Hart, published by Yale University Press. He deals with a lot of these historical misconceptions and simplifications.

[SpiritualSon]

Test

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by SpiritualSon

Test

Did you pass?

[Alencon]

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

That is a simplified view of history..

But an accurate one. I'm not about to go beyond a summary in a forum post.

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

First of all: Yes, we recovered much that was lost during the fall of Rome from the Arab civilization, but where do you think they got it from? It did not appear from thin air, these works were preserved and expanded upon by the Byzantine empire which stood for another 1000 years after the fall of Rome.

Yes we did. You will notice I said Europe. Perhaps I should have said Western Europe. I just didn't think it was necessary given the subject.

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

Secondly, Galileo did not contradict a doctrine of the church, he contradicted the dominating world view. The Ptolemaic system wasn't a doctrine at all, but a way of explaining observations at the time. Galileo was not hated by the church at all, in fact he was revered as an excellent scholar by the astronomers of the day which were mostly Jesuits.

Cardinal Paul Poupard in the results of the papal-requested Pontifical Academy study of the 1633 trial of Galileo reported that the study’s conclusion was that at the time of the trial, "theologians…. failed to grasp the profound non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the physical structure of the universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith…(and) to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo ‘had much to suffer.’"

Please explain to me what "transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith" means then?

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

So it is simply inaccurate to set up Galileo as some sort of lone pillar of reason versus the irrational tyranny of the church. That is a myth told by the enlightenment enthusiasts to defend the superiority of this revolution. Of course, I do not oppose the enlightenment, but to defend it with such biased versions of history seems somewhat ironical.

I don't recall setting up Galileo as a "lone pillar of reason." I just said I'd let him know that the church supported him 100%. They placed him under arrest for contradicting what they taught for crying out loud. If that's not tyranny, then what is?

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

It was preposterous to place him under house arrest,...

It certainly was.

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

...but it such drastic actions were the results of escalated personal conflicts. In fact, Pope Urban VIII was the one to encourage Galileo to write the "Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the Ptolemaic and Copernican" in 1632 and Galileo responded with writing the work in a mocking tone, mocking the man who encouraged him to write it in the first place..

Actually, most historians agree that Galileo did no such thing and was genuinely surprised by Urban's reaction since it appeared to be all over a misunderstanding about "Simplicius" and "Simplicio."

The bottom line is that Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" and of defending opinons that had been declared contrary to Holy Scripture and his "Dialogue" WAS BANNED!

Yeah, sounds like the church was a BIG supporter of science.

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

It has been recommended on this forum many times, but I will do it again: I recommend the book "Atheist delusions" (a horrible title...probably forced by the publisher rather than the author for sales purposes) by David Bentley Hart, published by Yale University Press. He deals with a lot of these historical misconceptions and simplifications.

What misconception? The man was arrested, tried, found guilt and imprisoned and his book was banned. Where's the misconception here?