|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 29, 2008 10:23:20 GMT
I'd be intereted to see what Noah Efron is going to argue. If I were him it would be that the key concepts theological concepts for the development of modern science - A free, rational creator God, original sin, laws of nature etc - are concepts that come from within Judaism, not specifically Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Nov 29, 2008 12:09:24 GMT
Yes, as biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Melvin Calvin writes in Chemical Evolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 258: “The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.”
Obviously, the atheist Melvin Calvin was much more open-minded to facts than the New Atheists are.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 29, 2008 12:23:58 GMT
I orderes the book as soon as it was announced on Amazon, so good to see the content;-) A bit puzzled though about some of the myths: Myth 9. That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science Noah Efron What kind of myth is this? And who really helds it? The closest I have come here are people like Jaki who argues that a particular kind of theology contributed - not to the birth - but to the survival. Jaki talks about all the other births (or stillbirths as he calls it), though his real issue is why the child grew up at all. Myth 15. That the Theory of Organic Evolution Is Based on Circular Reasoning Nicolaas A. Rupke OK, then, so you also include creatonists myths. Myth 9 may be among those in some creationst circles, I guess. Myth 19. That Darwin and Haeckel Were Complicit in Nazi Biology Robert J. Richards Well, I am curious about that one ;-) I guess it may be about the definition of the word complicit... Myth 24. That Creationism Is a Uniquely American Phenomenon Ronald L. Numbers Who believes that?! With all the local creationists all over the world, not to mention the islamic ones eagerly spreading books in Europe... Well, all in all looks like a good read! Best Bjorn Are
|
|
|
Post by kendalf on Dec 25, 2008 5:44:59 GMT
Regarding Myth 9. That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science:
Loren Eisley in Darwin's Century states that, “We must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.”He at least seems to subscribe to this idea, although he seems to admit to this statement rather grudgingly. As for who else actually believes that Christianity gave birth to modern science, I count myself as one of them! So I'm curious to find out what Noah Efron has to say to try to debunk this "myth". I've recently posted in my blog regarding why I believe this to be true, rather than a myth: The Conflict Thesis Between Christianity and ScienceA question regarding Andrew Dickson White's account of the "warfare of Columbus" over the shape of the Earth: a friend of mine posted a review on Amazon of A history of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom which led to an interesting discussion on the historicity of White's account. I tried to show how White had cited Washington Irving's The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus as the "historical source" for his account, to which "Howard Howland" responded with these statements: It is certainly true that Washington Irving's account of Columbus's difficulties with the church are in accord with A.D. White's. The fact that Irving is also known for his humor, as well as for his biographies of Columbus and George Washington, does not make him any less of a historian, however. His biography of Columbus is praised in the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His fluency in Spanish and his access to historical materials regarding Columbus's life were both excellent-much better than those of many of the current historians writing a century and a half later. He notes in his Preface to "The life and voyages of Christopher Columbus" (revised edition, Putnam 1868) that he had access to the library of the bibliophile, O. Rich, American Counsul to Spain, to the Royal library of Madrid, to the library of the Jesuits' college of San Isodoro, to the collections of Don Martin Fernandez de Navarette, and to the archives of the descendent of Columbus, the Duke of Veragus. In the passage on the Council at Salamanca Irving cites Remesal's "Historia de Chiapa", and Fernando Colon's "Historia del Almirante". It is worth quoting Colon (Columbus's son) on the arguments of the "Council of Geographers". He writes "Finally they all repeated the Spanish saying that is commonly used of any doubtful statement `St. Augustine doubts...' because of chapter 9 of book XXI of the `City of God' the saint denies the existence of the antipodes and holds it impossible to pass from one hemisphere to the other".
All his goes to support the position that Irving was a historian with exceptional sources on Columbus, that his account is not a myth, but is supported, among other references, by a work by Columbus's son; that, while A.D. White's account resembles that of Irving, it is unlikely that he got it from Irving, as he does not cite Irving but does cite four other sources. And lastly that, while many persons of Columbus's time believed in a spherical globe, it is not clear that this belief was maintained by the highest circles of the Catholic Church, and, by implication, some of the savants who examined Columbus. (Howard C. Howland) My question is, how valid are these "exceptional sources on Columbus" that Howland cites as proof that Irving's account is not myth? My gut feeling is that Irving made up those sources just as he made up the rest of his account, but I'm not familiar enough with the historical record to be able to back that up. Howland also cites four other authorities for White's statements about Columbus. Here is the link to the review and subsequent comments for the full context to the discussion. ~Ken
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 26, 2008 21:36:41 GMT
Hi Ken,
Just a quick note that might be enough to answer your question.
The doctrine of a flat earth and the antipodes are in no way related. Augustine was not a Flat Earther but he rejected the antipodes being inhabited. The reason was because some Greek thinkers claimed that the equator was too hot to cross, thus man and animals could never have made their way through it to colonise the southern hemisphere.
However, this has nothing to do with Columbus. He was sailing east, not south. Besides, the Portugeuse had already crossed the equator to reach South Africa. The idea of a burning zone at the equator is not a Christian idea but one found in Pliny and other classical sources.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes
James
PS: Your best bet would be to find an up to date scholarly biography of Columbus. Avoid anything 'popular.'
|
|
|
Post by kendalf on Dec 28, 2008 20:00:26 GMT
Hi James, Thank you for making an important point regarding Columbus' voyage and antipodes. I'm hoping if you and the others on this board can also help me in regard to these "other sources" that Howland cites as ones that help corroborate Washington Irving's account of Columbus warfare with church officials over the shape of the Earth. I've included Howland's response and bolded the sources that he mentions. I want to thank Ken Yeh for his interesting reply to my posting. He states that White's description of "the warfare of Columbus"..."does indeed come from the book 'Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus part 1' ...". Against this statement is the fact that, while White does not cite Irving, he does give four other authorities for his statements about Columbus including Justin Winsor who wrote "Christopher Columbus, how he received and imparted the spirit of discovery" published in 1891 by Houghton Mifflin, Charles Kendell Adams who wrote "Christopher Columbus, his life and his work" published in 1892 by Dodd, Meade & Co. and Humbolt's "History of the geography of the new continent." To me, citing these other contemporary sources doesn't necessarily validate anything that White wrote, since the question remains whether these other historians had access to any actual primary source documents describing Columbus' conversation. I'm also still wondering about the sources that Irving himself cites for his book on Columbus, including (quoting from Howland): "the library of the bibliophile, O. Rich, American Counsul to Spain, to the Royal library of Madrid, to the library of the Jesuits' college of San Isodoro, to the collections of Don Martin Fernandez de Navarette, and to the archives of the descendent of Columbus, the Duke of Veragus. In the passage on the Council at Salamanca Irving cites Remesal's "Historia de Chiapa", and Fernando Colon's "Historia del Almirante". Has anyone heard of any of these documents, especially Colon's (supposedly Columbus' son)? Or are these just as made up as The Legend of Sleepy Hollow?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 29, 2008 19:15:45 GMT
Hi Ken,
Frankly, someone citing secondary sources that are over one hundred years old is a waste of time and space. Tell him to cite an up-to-date academic book that says Columbus's critics thought the earth was flat.
It is true that the Salamanca council said that the antipodes were unhabited, but as I've mentioned, this had nothing to do with the flat earth.
A tip - never ever allow your opponent to make you do his research. Just tell him that in history, as in science, he'll need recent scholarship. Books from the nineteenth century only tell us what people in the nineteenth century thought about Columbus. Interesting, but beside the point.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by kendalf on Dec 30, 2008 5:39:02 GMT
Thank you James! Great tip! It's definitely reasonable that the other person should have the burden of proof to justify his claim.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 30, 2008 8:57:05 GMT
Thanks Ken. By the way I PMed you on a matter from your blog. Have a look at the top of the screen.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 30, 2008 15:49:03 GMT
Regarding As for who else actually believes that Christianity gave birth to modern science, I count myself as one of them! So I'm curious to find out what Noah Efron has to say to try to debunk this "myth". I've recently posted in my blog regarding why I believe this to be true, rather than a myth:I think Efron is going to argue that the key concepts for the development of modern science come from within Judasim, and are therefore present in the three great monotheisms.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 30, 2008 15:57:46 GMT
It is certainly true that Washington Irving's account of Columbus's difficulties with the church are in accord with A.D. White's. The fact that Irving is also known for his humor, as well as for his biographies of Columbus and George Washington, does not make him any less of a historian, however. His biography of Columbus is praised in the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His fluency in Spanish and his access to historical materials regarding Columbus's life were both excellent-much better than those of many of the current historians writing a century and a half later. He notes in his Preface to "The life and voyages of Christopher Columbus" (revised edition, Putnam 1868) that he had access to the library of the bibliophile, O. Rich, American Counsul to Spain, to the Royal library of Madrid, to the library of the Jesuits' college of San Isodoro, to the collections of Don Martin Fernandez de Navarette, and to the archives of the descendent of Columbus, the Duke of Veragus. In the passage on the Council at Salamanca Irving cites Remesal's "Historia de Chiapa", and Fernando Colon's "Historia del Almirante". It is worth quoting Colon (Columbus's son) on the arguments of the "Council of Geographers". He writes "Finally they all repeated the Spanish saying that is commonly used of any doubtful statement `St. Augustine doubts...' because of chapter 9 of book XXI of the `City of God' the saint denies the existence of the antipodes and holds it impossible to pass from one hemisphere to the other".
All his goes to support the position that Irving was a historian with exceptional sources on Columbus, that his account is not a myth, but is supported, among other references, by a work by Columbus's son; that, while A.D. White's account resembles that of Irving, it is unlikely that he got it from Irving, as he does not cite Irving but does cite four other sources. And lastly that, while many persons of Columbus's time believed in a spherical globe, it is not clear that this belief was maintained by the highest circles of the Catholic Church, and, by implication, some of the savants who examined Columbus. (Howard C. Howland) My question is, how valid are these "exceptional sources on Columbus" that Howland cites as proof that Irving's account is not myth? My gut feeling is that Irving made up those sources just as he made up the rest of his account, but I'm not familiar enough with the historical record to be able to back that up. This guy deserves kudos for heroically attempting to defend Washington Irving's account as history when it has been comprehesively rubbished in contemporary historiography. In Irving's defence, his account was written to add a bit of extra spice to the character of Columbus. Its also refreshingly quaint to see Nineteenth century secondary sources being cited. If I had written an essay at university, ignored all recent scholarship on the subject and cited Lord Acton, Macauley Trevelyan and Gibbon as my authorities I would have been laughed off my course.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 14, 2009 10:28:06 GMT
I have had a chance to read Noah Efron's essay and I think it is fair and balanced. It is really meant as a minor corrective and a rebuke of people like Rodney Stark who vastly overstate the case. He argues that Christianity and Christian institutions did make an indelible mark on modern science, saying "one cannot recount the history of modern science without acknowledging the crucial importance of Christianity" - in particular he highlights the work of people like Peter Harrison and Margaret Osler on the influence of religion on early modern science - but that this shouldn't overshadow the earlier contributions of the pagan Greeks and Islamic natural philosophers, nor the later contributions of enlightenment deists, atheists and people from other religious traditions. The intellectual sources are simply too diverse for one religious tradition to claim all the credit. Science he stresses, is a human endeavour, for better or worse; a point with which I heartily agree. The last point, importantly, is that science is a somewhat ambiguous achievement morally; advances in medicine and improvements in our standard of living, but also climate change and hydrogen bombs. Is it really something you would want to claim exclusive credit for.
Of course one comes away from reading that feeling warm and fuzzy, but I can't help thinking its a case of 'every child gets a prize'.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 14, 2009 17:10:07 GMT
I have had a chance to read Noah Efron's essay and I think it is fair and balanced. Thanks for this Humphrey. Most enlightening. What's the rest of the book like? Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 14, 2009 17:58:43 GMT
Thanks James, I have only skim read it as I only just got a chance to look at it today.
I have enjoyed it so far but its a little lacking in depth for my liking (it is really a series of short refutations of myths aimed at people who are new to the science-religion area). The first two to get clobbered are the idea that Christianity destroyed ancient learning and tried to suppress science. Lindberg cites Charles Freeman and Carl Sagan as particular culprits and proceeds to take them to task. Shank's essay was dripping with sarcasm and a joy to read. Another gem was Danielson's essay on how the Copernican worldview actually promoted the earth to the heavens. A succession of quotes from people like Aquinas and Michel de Montaigne deploring the lowly nature of the earth, followed by Kepler extolling the fact that the earth had been moved from the centre of the universe spoke volumes. I was interested to see that natural theology was really put out of favour by people like Karl Barth; not Darwin. In fact it flourished after 'On the Origin of Species'. I remember reading somewhere else that some professor in the late 19th century actually wrote 6 volumes of natural theology just on the properties of water.
If I have a criticism, its that I wish the essays were longer, and that they hadn't wasted time on the creationist myths, although I should really blame the creationists for perpetuating them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Apr 18, 2009 5:15:19 GMT
Humphrey, I intend to buy this book and have been waiting for a while. It may be disappointing for people with Phd. Cantab. after their name but for the average punter who works on the factory floor, like myself, it will be a handy resource. Is the book well documented in terms of primary sources?
|
|