"Galileo Goes to Jail" reviewed on EvolutionBlog

[timoneill]

Jason Rosenhouse on EvolutionBlog has reviewed Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion by Ronald Numbers and found bits of it not to his taste. He made an earlier comment while he was reading it entitled "Science as Religion's Rebellious Child" in which White and Draper are invoked in the comments and so is my old pal Charles Freeman.

Someone responded to the mention of Freeman with a link to my lengthy critique of Freeman's thesis. And right on cue, up pops Freeman himself with some rather feeble whining about what a big meanie I am but how he's far too busy to bother responding to my criticisms.

I tried to resist the urge to reply, but failed.

PS Carrier's recent ranting about the wickedness of the Middle Ages is in there as well. Fun and games all around ...

[merkavah12]

Uh oh...looks like the hornet's nest has been poked.

Let's see what Charlie does this time.

[perplexedseeker]

Sigh. I love the way these guys always say something equivalent to "yes, but..." whenever their beloved conflict thesis is revealed to be empty of content. If you confront them with evidence to the contrary, they just claim it had a "chilling effect" or some such nonsense. I think it really shows that their views are ideological rather than rational. One can disagree violently with every point of Christian doctrine without having to resort to mudslinging about the fictional "Christian Dark Ages". I truly don't understand all the hate on Ruse either.

[humphreyclarke]

Just read his first post in which he says:

The other thing that struck me relates also to a common theme through many of the essays in the book. The contributors are keen to emphasize that the Roman Catholic Church did much to spread the advance of science, for example by establishing the first modern universities complete with science faculties, and by encouraging many scientists, including Galileo initially, in their work. There was no shortage of medieval scholastics arguing that a serious study of nature could only distract one from the important truths of theology, so this willingness to fund scientific research is not to be brushed aside lightly. I have no problem with that, though I would add that while the Church did much to promote the advance of science it also did much to stand in its way.

like ?....

The handmaiden view might be a necessary step in the transition from a society in which knowledge is carefully policed by religious authorities to one where the spirit of free inquiry reigns, but anyone espousing it today would be considered profoundly anti-science. That science emerged from a religious backdrop, and in most cases was pioneered by people who held deep religious convictions is not controversial. Given the political and financial dominance of the Church in Europe during the relevant time period it is hard to imagine from where else science was supposed to emerge.

Yet in Noah Efron's essay which Rosenhouse cites approvingly he says that 'Christians, christian beliefs and christian institutions played crucial roles in fashioning the tenets, methods and institutions of what in time became modern science'. Efron is actually arguing against the idea that Christianity was the single most important factor in the rise of science. So the religion isn't just a superfluous 'backdrop'.

[turoldus]

A commenter on James' blog brought books by Simon Goldhill and Edmund Watts as corroborating the Freeman-Amenabar view of Late Antiquity "culture wars" and their devastating effects on reason, science and the ilk. Reviews of these books on the Bryn Mawr website suggest a more nuance vision, however:

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-02-25.html

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-02-34.html

The latter's conclusion is worth quoting in full:

"Christianity established itself at an early stage in Alexandria--in contrast to Athens. It is evident that the earliest known leaders of the catechetical school (Pantaenus, Clement, Origen) had taken advantage of the teaching offered by the pagan philosophers and scientists. Christians of the upper classes were regularly attending the philosophy classes in the third and fourth centuries, but in the decades around AD 400 there came to a crisis. The most spectacular events were the destruction of the Serapeum in 391 and the lynching of the philosopher Hypatia by a Christian mob in 415. Hypatia had represented the scientific and religiously more neutral orientation among the pagan teachers. She was more acceptable to Christians--as e.g. to her devotee Synesius of Cyrene, the future bishop of Ptolemais--than the orthodox Neo-Platonists, who had established themselves in Alexandria too. With Hypatia gone, the Christians had few uncontroversial options when seeking traditional learning, and the Neo-Platonists found it wise to leave Alexandria for Athens. When they returned in the latter half of the century, they brought with them the Iamblichean variety of Neo-Platonism, with its focus on religious belief and ritualistic practices; the scene was set for new conflicts with the Christian establishment of Alexandria. Conflicts did occur, but what eventually came out of it in the 490's was a concordat between the orthodox patriarch Peter Mongus and the leader of the philosophical school (probably Ammonius, Hermeias' son). The precise stipulations of that agreement cannot be ascertained, Watts points out, but the important consequence of it was that Christian students could acquire philosophical schooling of the highest level, with time establish themselves as first-rank philosophers, and efficiently defend both the importance of philosophical schooling against their Christians detractors and their Christian interpretation of Platonism against pagan adversaries. John Philoponus is the best example of those Christian Platonists of the sixth century, and Watts, in the concluding chapter on Alexandria, portrays his person with due detail.

This is an important book. The above summary has given only a fragmentary picture of its rich contents. What impresses the reviewer most is Watts' seemingly complete mastering of the rich and variegated literary sources of the history he tells: not only does he find significant details in all sorts of texts, he also succeeds in integrating the information gathered from the sources to form a coherent and believable representation of the historical totality. On some individual points a reviewer may feel inclined to hesitate but, considering the evidence brought forward and Watts' analyses of it, it is hard to disagree with his universal conclusion: "Pagan philosophy in late antiquity lived and died based upon the abilities of its teachers to adapt to the religious climate of the city around them" (p. 259)."

[davedodo007]

Just bookmarking, sorry.

[davedodo007]

perplexedseeker.

'I truly don't understand all the hate on Ruse either.'

Ruse is an accommodationist as in he claims to be an atheist but sucks up to the religious in ways that make him lower than a snakes belly. He handed over email correspondence between him and Dennent to the ID clowns (liars for Jesus.) He's one of the religion and science can co-exist so please Templeton Organisation send me the check now brigade. He deserves all the vitriol he gets.

[bjorn]

Jan 11, 2011 6:02:16 GMT davedodo007 said:

perplexedseeker.

'I truly don't understand all the hate on Ruse either.'

Ruse is an accommodationist as in he claims to be an atheist but sucks up to the religious in ways that make him lower than a snakes belly. He handed over email correspondence between him and Dennent to the ID clowns (liars for Jesus.) He's one of the religion and science can co-exist so please Templeton Organisation send me the check now brigade. He deserves all the vitriol he gets.

This is again not argument, it is vitriol. If you thrive on ad hominems, please find another forum.

It has always puzzled me why some kind of people prefer abuse and anger to actually showing what Ruse has written that is wrong (as he has written a lot, it should not be difficult at all to find passages to argue against).

[humphreyclarke]

Ruse - i'm afraid - is far more of a politician than Dawkins, Dennett and Coyne and is likely to be much more effective in the battle against creationism. Coyne might delude himself that he has an impact by throwing tirades on his little blog but the reality is he has little or no influence. Dawkins and PZ have more of a following but their influence is pejorative. Dawkins for example argued that God is a scientific hypothesis, thus playing into the hands of those who want to have intelligent design taught in the science classroom. Both of them go to great lengths to link evolution and atheism and make fringe Christian views the mainstream. So Ruse may be arguing that science and religion can co-exist - but the 'anti-accommodationist' crowd need to wake up; the USA is a very religious country and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. The ID crowd may be small in number but they are highly effective at spreading their message and using the modern techniques of advertising to win people over. Not only that but the world outside of Europe is getting more religious and ID is spreading fast - even to the Islamic world.

[davedodo007]

Jan 11, 2011 8:24:42 GMT bjorn said:

Jan 11, 2011 6:02:16 GMT davedodo007 said:

perplexedseeker.

'I truly don't understand all the hate on Ruse either.'

Ruse is an accommodationist as in he claims to be an atheist but sucks up to the religious in ways that make him lower than a snakes belly. He handed over email correspondence between him and Dennent to the ID clowns (liars for Jesus.) He's one of the religion and science can co-exist so please Templeton Organisation send me the check now brigade. He deserves all the vitriol he gets.

This is again not argument, it is vitriol. If you thrive on ad hominems, please find another forum.

It has always puzzled me why some kind of people prefer abuse and anger to actually showing what Ruse has written that is wrong (as he has written a lot, it should not be difficult at all to find passages to argue against).

Hang on bjorn I was just explaining to perplexedseeker why the science bloggers don't like Ruse. I didn't like the fact that he handed over personal correspondence to a third party, especially when that third party was the ID institute, that hardly a ad hom as I give my reasons. Other than that I have no dog in this hunt.

Explaining that Ruse soft soaps the creationist while attacking the 'new atheist/science bloggers' so they attack him back is hardly my fault. Don't shot the messenger.

[davedodo007]

Jan 11, 2011 12:26:40 GMT humphreyclarke said:

Ruse - i'm afraid - is far more of a politician than Dawkins, Dennett and Coyne and is likely to be much more effective in the battle against creationism. Coyne might delude himself that he has an impact by throwing tirades on his little blog but the reality is he has little or no influence. Dawkins and PZ have more of a following but their influence is pejorative. Dawkins for example argued that God is a scientific hypothesis, thus playing into the hands of those who want to have intelligent design taught in the science classroom. Both of them go to great lengths to link evolution and atheism and make fringe Christian views the mainstream. So Ruse may be arguing that science and religion can co-exist - but the 'anti-accommodationist' crowd need to wake up; the USA is a very religious country and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. The ID crowd may be small in number but they are highly effective at spreading their message and using the modern techniques of advertising to win people over. Not only that but the world outside of Europe is getting more religious and ID is spreading fast - even to the Islamic world.

I mostly agree with this though I don't think accommodation works, where my opinion differs from the 'new atheist/science bloggers' is that having two different strategies is better than one.

[wraggy]

Feb 22, 2010 0:31:41 GMT timoneill said:

Jason Rosenhouse on EvolutionBlog has reviewed Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion by Ronald Numbers and found bits of it not to his taste.

And Thony C (Anthony Christie) takes Jason Rosenhouse to task over his comments on Giordano Bruno.

Bruno was not scientific

Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog has been reading Ronald Number’s Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion and is unhappy about the following statement made by Numbers

No scientist, to our knowledge, ever lost his life because of his scientific views, though, … the Italian Inquisition did incinerate the sixteenth century Copernican Giordano Bruno for his heretical theological notions.

(Emphasis in original)

Jason thinks that this claim is evasive because as he says:

It is absurd to pretend that Bruno’s theological views can be treated as completely separate from his scientific views. That the stated reasons for Bruno’s execution involved his heretical theology does not mean that he was not also killed because of his scientific views. One suspects that for Bruno, as for so many modern thinkers, his science and theology complemented each other, to the point where it is difficult to say which aspect of his thinking was scientific and which part was theological.

Now this is an interesting standpoint that Jason is defending because by his own standards Bruno didn’t have any scientific** views! A strong statement on my part but one that I think is fully justified when one actually examines Bruno’s work..................

thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/bruno-was-not-scientific/


Clearly the Templeton Foundation has got to this bloke.

And he dares to call himself an atheist.

[humphreyclarke]

My pitch here

www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/even-galileo-was-free-to-believe-what-he-wanted/

Was that Bruno wasn't doing anything like science as we understand it and he should rather be seen as a martyr for religious toleration. Of course the people on the thread didn't like that.