}When we look back on things like the Spanish Inquisition and insane shit like
}the Nazi "scientists", there may indeed be some advances"caused" by such
}evil, but one doesnt deduce that science depends on destructive, illusionary
Not now, no; I was arguing that science might have been caused by
Catholic thinking. The Church is not a monolith; Aquinas, Bacon and the
Inquisition can be aspects of the same thing.
On Jan 2, 12:03pm, Max More wrote:
} >Wrath? What wrath? After medieval times many thinkers started viewing
} >natural philosophy as due homage to God, by studying His greatest work,
} >Creation. I think Francis Bacon had this view; Thomas Paine (after
} Don't give credit for that to Christianity! That was the Greek influence,
} specifically Neoplatonism. Christianity absorbed that but didn't creat it.
} If Christianity hadn't been around, we don't know what outlook might have
} arisen instead. Possibly something which, overall, would have encourage
} science and reason more strongly (rather than killing it for a millennium).
Fair point, I think. Yet unless you give X-nity most of the credit for
the Roman fall, Greek influence in Europe was probably in sharp decline
anyway, waiting in Alexandria and the later Islamic empire for a
resurgence. As you say, it's unclear what a pagan and Churchless Europe
would have accomplished. I note that the Church did at least maintain a
literate class and a common educated language, although that's tangential
at best to my original argument about motivations to science.
Hmm. It's be amusing to convince myself that the Church had no net
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
Paranoia is what the lazy call wisdom.