|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 13, 2010 0:49:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chuff on Nov 13, 2010 1:15:40 GMT
As a complete bystander, I have to say this is great entertainment. First of all, I'm glad Ms. Benson finally did nail down James' last name. It only took her about a year to accomplish that so she does deserve to be congratulated on that front.
Second of all, I do enjoy reading about this conspiring Christian cadre of history professors that has infiltrated all of these top notch secular, public universities and won plenty of awards and prestige from their peers. It's even more impressive how they managed to accomplish all of this while being in Big Templeton's back pocket.
Third, I love how Ms. Benson thinks she's scoring points by mentioning that Humphrey is trying to hide his association with this blog. I don't want to speak for Humphrey here, but I'm sure if he really cared about Ms. Benson not knowing his identity, he could have always just created a sock puppet. Seriously here, is Benson supposed to be a somebody? I scanned through her wikipedia page, but it doesn't look like she has much of an academic background. I'm a little thankful for that because her main argument tactic looks like nothing more than Bulverism, ad hominems, and red herrings. Why she thinks bringing up the backgrounds of a few people engaged in an argument destroys the views of pretty much an entire academic field, I have no idea. She hasn't come close to tying together all of her so-called evidence in a convincing fashion.
Finally, I do like how Charlie admitted he has been watching James' facebook page. Again with how much attention he seems to have paid to James' webpage and facebook page, it's a little shocking that he has so much trouble finding what historians of science think of James' book.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Nov 13, 2010 1:57:47 GMT
Goodness gracious me.
According to Locutus7 on that very page:
Why Mr. O'Neil! I had no idea! LOL
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 13, 2010 3:02:06 GMT
I love the internet !!! . This comment is an absolute gem. And there is a Tim who is an ardent catholic apologist who claims to be an atheist for street cred on atheist websites. This faux-atheist credits the catholic church with not only the advancement of science but also as the engine of the Enlightenment, and he relentlessly bashes any actual atheist that attempts contradictory comentary.
BTW, I read (but have no cite, sorry) that certain religious organizations employ a key word search program that notifies them when internet postings are made that might warrant their response. If true, this would explain how when discussions on the Dark Ages occur, apologists so quickly appear on the threads to defend the church’s revisionist version of history. I’d be interested if anyone else has heard of this.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Nov 13, 2010 4:40:09 GMT
I love the internet !!! . This comment is an absolute gem. BTW, I read (but have no cite, sorry) that certain religious organizations employ a key word search program that notifies them when internet postings are made that might warrant their response. If true, this would explain how when discussions on the Dark Ages occur, apologists so quickly appear on the threads to defend the church’s revisionist version of history. I’d be interested if anyone else has heard of this.Nobody expects the Holy Internetiquisition!
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 13, 2010 8:50:36 GMT
Off to Waterstone's, then. By the way, depending on where you live, you might have better luck at Blackwells where it is on 3 for 2. Best wishes James Thanks, but Waterstone's had 7copies, one of which I have just bought, and I am reading now. The first chapters are essentially the argument (by example) that nothing happened in the middle ages. Most of this stuff (as I think you will agree) is pretty well known. Although I found quite a few things I didn't know! I am not an expert in the early middle ages. Indeed, for us philosophers, that period really was a 'dark age' in the Latin West. Things only really start happening from Anselm onwards, and particularly after Abelard. By the way, I don't understand any of the 'arguments' that have just appeared on this thread. Nearly all of them seem to be comments about personalities, or derogatory remarks. Why aren't people looking at arguments and reasons? Why is the internet like this?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 13, 2010 9:00:55 GMT
Third, I love how Ms. Benson thinks she's scoring points by mentioning that Humphrey is trying to hide his association with this blog. I don't want to speak for Humphrey here, but I'm sure if he really cared about Ms. Benson not knowing his identity, he could have always just created a sock puppet. Seriously here, is Benson supposed to be a somebody? I scanned through her wikipedia page, but it doesn't look like she has much of an academic background. I'm a little thankful for that because her main argument tactic looks like nothing more than Bulverism, ad hominems, and red herrings. Why she thinks bringing up the backgrounds of a few people engaged in an argument destroys the views of pretty much an entire academic field, I have no idea. She hasn't come close to tying together all of her so-called evidence in a convincing fashion. It's the usual guilt by association tactic and I think she is mad at me for quoting her correctly. Charles is on a bit of a rant here O’Neill runs a semi-redundant (no new postings since May) website called Armarium Magnum. No surprises that a certain God’s Philosophers is given a five star review and a certain Closing of the Western Mind a two star review. In the ensuing discussion of the latter in which I got some support, O’Neill showed the quality of his academic mind as follows:
‘And if anyone pops their head over the Freeman parapet and tries to defend his crap, please let me know. I’ll be primed and ready to kick the living nuts out if it.’
It is a comment I treasure.
If you want to see how the team works, go to Amazon.co.uk and look up Hannam’s God Philosophers and its reviews. One Iain Mott was unwise enough to give it a two star review. The first response was,surprise, surprise, from one Humphrey Clarke. When Mott refused to back down, in comes one Tim O’Neill to do the heavy work. I am glad Mott held his own! God’s Philosophers fails on academic grounds alone ,which is why I have tried to keep the debate at that level, but there are murky waters here too. Thanks goodness the Royal Society judges did not give it their prize- they would have been humiliated when all this came out, as surely it would.
On Templeton. Take a book that acknowledges that it has Templeton Foundation backing, ;Galileo Goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion, edited by one Ronald Numbers, Harvard University Press (!), 2009. Among the authors of essays are Messrs. David Lindberg, John Hedley Brooke, Jon Roberts, Peter Harrison, Ronald Numbers and Michael Ruse. Take the Cambridge Companion to Religion and Science and you find as editor Peter Harrison from the Templeton-funded Ian Ramsey Centre in Oxford ( part of the Faculty of Theology) and essays by every one of the above named.I shall have a more detailed read of it but there does not seem to be a single essay that argues for the incompatibility of religious and scientific approaches to knowledge. So it should not be in this normally excellent series. Shame on Cambridge University Press for not issuing it under Theology.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 13, 2010 9:06:30 GMT
Peter,
I hope you enjoy the book. I would be very grateful if you let me know if you spot any mistakes. I doubt the treatment of philosophy is as rigorous as you would like, but you don't have long to go to reach Anselm and Abelard.
If anyone can tell us why the internet is like this, they will also have some profound things to tell us about human nature. However, the discussion at Butterflies has got a lot better since a libertarian American stepped in and started asking a few questions. That's the weird thing. You can have an intelligent conversation going on around a fruitcake who thinks that Jesus was Julius Caesar.
Best wishes
James Best wishes
James
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2010 9:17:30 GMT
Indeed, for us philosophers, that period really was a 'dark age' in the Latin West. How could you forget Boethius and Eriugena?
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 13, 2010 9:30:00 GMT
I have in fact just reached Abelard. I am a bit disappointed that a whole page is devoted to the 'Fulbert affair' but that is true of many reference works. On the difficulties of sweeping historical claims, I have a post here today ocham.blogspot.com/2010/11/ockham-founder-of-european-empiricism.html I will of course let you know in the nicest possible way if I see anything wrong! But my basic competence is in a very narrow area, so you have more to teach me than the other way round. I checked out the Butterflies and Wheels site, which is interesting and one to add (with the New Humanist) to my 'favourites'. Indeed, for us philosophers, that period really was a 'dark age' in the Latin West. How could you forget Boethius and Eriugena? I hadn't forgotten them. Is Boethius (you mean the Roman one) a medieval philosopher?
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 13, 2010 12:25:38 GMT
I hadn't forgotten them. Is Boethius (you mean the Roman one) a medieval philosopher? It depends on definitions, of course. However, writing in the 500's and being one of the most read philosophers for hundreds of years (even making the case for the consolation of philosophy), could make him a candidate
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 13, 2010 12:34:34 GMT
By the way, I don't understand any of the 'arguments' that have just appeared on this thread. Nearly all of them seem to be comments about personalities, or derogatory remarks. Why aren't people looking at arguments and reasons? Why is the internet like this? I think it is a lot easier to respond by suspicious reflexes than real reflection. The first comes rather automatically and is a standard ploy of Nu Atheism (and Creationism and bigotery in general), while the latter may require people to study the subject matter for years. I think a hermeneutics of suspicion has driven atheism for generations (whether Nietszche or Russell minded). My experience from debating NA's is the tendency to have made up their mind and just knowing that all and any alleged opposite fact is part of a conspiracy from faith heads. So it's not really needed to argue "facts" that only deluded godders believe anyway. And if some non-godders say they believe them as well, that is positive proof they really are the worst of the deluded (and deluders), namely Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Nov 13, 2010 13:26:57 GMT
Oh. My. God.
Ms. Benson can always be trusted to deride anything that portrays religion ("irrationality" as she would say) in a positive light. She and her ilk are forever stuck in the certainties of late nineteenth/early twentieth century, and object to anything that casts doubt on the sanctity of reason, science and philosophy - of the analytical kind only. That odd blend of cultural conservatism and political liberalism is what gave us the New Atheists.
I think James will not correct me if I say that none of the facts in his book is controversial among serious scholars; they may eventually dispute his assessment of the Church's role in the advancement of science, but not his facts. If The Medieval Review didn't see anything wrong with the book, who are Benson and Freeman to complain? (But I guess to them any historian that moved beyond Victorian-Edwardian perspectives is a closeted fundamentalist trying to sabotage Enlightenment values) As for the Templeton bogeyman, please. If they're really trying to subvert science and history of science, then it's fair game since it's now clear that Freeman's work is as agenda-driven as theirs.
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Nov 13, 2010 13:29:58 GMT
Also, and while I ordinarily object to ad hominem, Freeman (a non-academic) making himself a judge of who is, or is not, an academic is very hard to take with a straight face.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 13, 2010 13:39:05 GMT
I'm a bit disappointed in Charles Freeman I have to say. He usually comes across as a decent gent but there seems to be a lot mean-spirited and 'below the belt' stuff.
Mind you; if you type 'Closing of the Western Mind' into google the first 3 results that come up are James's and Tim's reviews both of which are overwhelmingly negative. I can see how, being a writer that might be a bit irritating - but there are wrong and right ways to handle things like that.
|
|