Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Of course nobody is wholly good or bad, let alone organizations made up of good and bad people, so I got back to my point.

And that is an important fact to note.

Had to break this out on it's own thread...

The important fact to note ISN'T that some men are good and some men are bad, none of them wholly good or bad, and that organizations made up of good and bad people aren't wholly good or wholly bad.

The important fact to note is that this wasn't just one or two Popes handing down edicts prohibiting the laity from reading the bible or learning things that ran counter to church teachings, or only allowing prospective clergymen to learn in their schools. It was the church's doctrine to punish people for reading heretical writings, to NOT teach the laity, certainly there at the start of the church. In the 16-17-1800's they finally got around to teaching people outside the church, but only begrudgingly, and certainly with a heavy hand to controlling what people were allowed to learn or study.

 

[Augustus]

I have no religion...

And little grasp of irony either...

The problem with this nuanced argument is that if the church had, right from the get go, gone about educating everyone, they could claim that they were a force for good in the world trying to lift people out of poverty and suffering via education (as education is the only thing in this world that does this effectively)

They didn't do this, which to me means that they, at least initially, were a bad influence on society.

This is a remarkably bad argument.

It seems like you don't realise the difference between a feudal, agrarian society with the bulk of the population living in rural areas and working in agricultural labour, and a modern, urbanised, post-industrial society.

1. Most people worked in farming because people need food to eat and agriculture was inefficient. The Greeks and Romans had slaves to do this, so the rich could pursue intellectual pastimes. Educated people still need food, and someone had to grow it.
2. Children worked because they had to. I live in the developing world, and even today its true that some families here don't send their kids to school because they require their labour so they don't starve. Many of them also don't want to walk a 30 mile round trip to the nearest school every day.
3. Education is 5-10% of GDP in most countries. This is with the advantage of high population density in urban areas. Rural schooling is more expensive. You are surprised that the Church didn't spend more money than it actually had on doing something secondary to its primary role?
4. Education is important in a knowledge economy, less so in a labour intensive one. An educated farmhand gets paid the same as an illiterate one. The only education that was beneficial for most people would be learning a trade, not philosophy. The working folk had to focus on practical knowledge and skills, the fact that the clergy/monks could focus on the abstract and non-productive philosophy/science was due to their 'job' with the church. Working for the church gave you time and ability to study, and thus boosted the cause of science.
5. No one else in the world was doing this. How can they be a 'bad influence' re education when they were educating more than would have otherwise been educated? Universal, free education existed nowhere for another for another millennium.

You are basically saying the church wasn't a millennium ahead of its time, and wasn't the single most progressive organisation in human history, and wasn't able to conjure money out of thin air therefore it was bad.

Most of the time, according to William of Ockham, the simplest explanation is often the correct one.

Nothing bolsters the idea that religion repressed learning than approvingly quoting important historical figures like Friar William of Ockham, who likely wouldn't have got an education and wouldn't have become a pivotal figure in medieval philosophy had it not been for the church.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

And little grasp of irony either...



This is a remarkably bad argument.

It seems like you don't realise the difference between a feudal, agrarian society with the bulk of the population living in rural areas and working in agricultural labour, and a modern, urbanised, post-industrial society.

1. Most people worked in farming because people need food to eat and agriculture was inefficient. The Greeks and Romans had slaves to do this, so the rich could pursue intellectual pastimes. Educated people still need food, and someone had to grow it.
2. Children worked because they had to. I live in the developing world, and even today its true that some families here don't send their kids to school because they require their labour so they don't starve. Many of them also don't want to walk a 30 mile round trip to the nearest school every day.
3. Education is 5-10% of GDP in most countries. This is with the advantage of high population density in urban areas. Rural schooling is more expensive. You are surprised that the Church didn't spend more money than it actually had on doing something secondary to its primary role?
4. Education is important in a knowledge economy, less so in a labour intensive one. An educated farmhand gets paid the same as an illiterate one. The only education that was beneficial for most people would be learning a trade, not philosophy. The working folk had to focus on practical knowledge and skills, the fact that the clergy/monks could focus on the abstract and non-productive philosophy/science was due to their 'job' with the church. Working for the church gave you time and ability to study, and thus boosted the cause of science.
5. No one else in the world was doing this. How can they be a 'bad influence' re education when they were educating more than would have otherwise been educated? Universal, free education existed nowhere for another for another millennium.

You are basically saying the church wasn't a millennium ahead of its time, and wasn't the single most progressive organisation in human history, and wasn't able to conjure money out of thin air therefore it was bad.




Nothing bolsters the idea that religion repressed learning than approvingly quoting important historical figures like Friar William of Ockham, who likely wouldn't have got an education and wouldn't have become a pivotal figure in medieval philosophy had it not been for the church.

Talk about remarkably bad arguments...

 

[Augustus]

Talk about remarkably bad arguments...

 

[tempogain]

Interesting conversation. I've been thinking about these questions a bit lately mostly because of some conversations about the Enlightenment and its ultimate roots. There seem to be some different opinions about that What particularly strikes is how hard it is to tease out Christian influence from overall European history. When you are the dominant religious, social and moral force for well over a thousand years, you tend to be pretty well mixed up in all manner of things, good and bad. I'm equally suspicious of attempts to attribute all the bad to Christianity and all the good. It seems to me the record is decidedly mixed. On this note came across a pretty good book, The Enlightenment by Anthony Pagden. It's an informative historical treatment, not shying away from the philosophical themes but not getting bogged down in them. He does seem to relish detailing the anti-religious bent of some of the thinkers, which isn't really hurting my enjoyment of it. There's been balance in that area though, it's not like some arch-atheist screed or something. About a third through and looking forward to the rest.

 

[Augustus]

I've been thinking about these questions a bit lately mostly because of some conversations about the Enlightenment and its ultimate roots.

Even the term Enlightenment is somewhat misleading (as are Renaissance and Dark Ages). This creates reified epochs that arguably didn't really exist in any meaningful manner.

The 'rebirth' was really just a continuation of trends that had started in the Middle Ages, and the Enlightenment continuation of trend that had started in them both. The sciences developed significantly in all of these eras, and the Scientific Revolution is probably better thought as a Scientific Evolution that was assisted by numerous factors, both religious and secular, European and non-European.

Can also see some interesting parallels regarding periods that were particularly productive:

The Golden Age in the Islamic Empire coincided with much greater wealth; a revolutionary new technology (paper); vibrant trade and thus the mixing of cultures; an influx of new texts leading to significant translation, copying and greater access to scientific literature.

Europe: much greater wealth; a revolutionary new technology (printing press); vibrant trade and thus the mixing of cultures; an influx of new texts leading to significant translation, copying and greater access to scientific literature.

What particularly strikes is how hard it is to tease out Christian influence from overall European history. When you are the dominant religious, social and moral force for well over a thousand years, you tend to be pretty well mixed up in all manner of things, good and bad. I'm equally suspicious of attempts to attribute all the bad to Christianity and all the good. It seems to me the record is decidedly mixed.

I find it quite funny, how people who claim to value reason and rational enquiry often believe that in 1000+ years Christianity contributed literally nothing positive to European society. Even the clear demarcation between science and religion that exists today wasn't something that existed until the 19th C.

As Margaret Osler notes:

Despite the facts that some thinkers sought to differentiate between the pursuits of natural philosophy and theology and that the Royal Society excluded discussions of religion and politics from its meetings, the close relationship between natural philosophy and theology is evident in almost every area of inquiry about the natural world during the Scientific Revolution...

Science and religion did not have the same meanings then that they do today. The difference is particularly blatant with regard to science. There was no such creature as a scientist—the word did not even exist until the nineteenth century. The pursuit of knowledge about the world was called “natural philosophy.”

What was understood by this term? Seventeenth- century thinkers inherited this discipline from their medieval predecessors. Its scope derived from Aristotle’s classification of the sciences, which had become entrenched in the curriculum of the medieval universities. Physics, or natural philosophy, was one of the theoretical sciences and dealt with things that are inseparable from matter but not immovable. In the medieval universities natural philosophy was part of the undergraduate curriculum, and its subject matter was treated without specific reference to church doctrine. Theology, however, was taught in a separate, graduate faculty. The study of natural philosophy included the study of the first causes of nature, change and motion in general, the motions of celestial bodies, the motions and transformations of the elements, generation and corruption, the phenomena of the upper atmosphere right below the lunar sphere, and the study of animals and plants. These subjects included consideration of God’s creation of the world, the evidence of divine design in the world, and the immortality of the human soul.

Despite the fact that natural philosophy and theology occupied separate places in the medieval curriculum, medieval natural philosophy was conditioned by theological presuppositions, and its conclusions pertained to important theological issues.

 

[tempogain]

Even the term Enlightenment is somewhat misleading (as are Renaissance and Dark Ages). This creates reified epochs that arguably didn't really exist in any meaningful manner.

This is true. When we're talking about historical periods of this type, undoubtedly true. Sometimes labels help though. Kind of simplifies things a bit

The Golden Age in the Islamic Empire coincided with much greater wealth; a revolutionary new technology (paper); vibrant trade and thus the mixing of cultures; an influx of new texts leading to significant translation, copying and greater access to scientific literature.

I'd like to read up on this period a bit.

I find it quite funny, how people who claim to value reason and rational enquiry often believe that in 1000+ years Christianity contributed literally nothing positive to European society. Even the clear demarcation between science and religion that exists today wasn't something that existed until the 19th C.

That's my understanding. It's been around a pretty long time after all! For its flaws I don't count it as some kind of evil ideology personally. It would be pretty surprising if communities of people based on it never got around to doing anything positive

As Margaret Osler notes:

Is that from "Reconfiguring the World"? Looks good--been thinking about reading something like it. Will look it up for sure.

 

[Augustus]

That's my understanding. It's been around a pretty long time after all! For its flaws I don't count it as some kind of evil ideology personally. It would be pretty surprising if communities of people based on it never got around to doing anything positive

There's also a kind of assumption that studying science for sciences sake was the norm, and so when there were a few episodes where the church negatively affected scientific enquiry this meant it was a hinderance (and there were exponentially fewer than many people assume).

People fail to appreciate that studying unproductive sciences was not a major priority in the vast majority of human societies. Much of the drive was related to theological/mystical motivations, as was much of the necessary funding. Somewhere like China, for example, while technologically far more advanced than Europe for many centuries, science seems to have been valued only as much as it contributed to practical technologies. Education wasn't also about 'free enquiry' but creating a ruling class and tying people into this. As such it was very conservative, even though today many will assume that Confucianism was far more 'progressive' and favourable to science than a scriptural religion like Christianity.

Is that from "Reconfiguring the World"? Looks good--been thinking about reading something like it. Will look it up for sure.

It's actually from Galileo goes to jail, Ronald Numbers (ed.) which is really interesting.