Dissection in Islam vs in Christianity

[Sauron]

Recently, Bede posted a boatload of poorly-formed strawmen about 10 "myths" that atheists hold. In that exchange, he claimed that Christianity did not oppose dissection, but actually was the first place in which it was practiced.

Nonsense.


originally posted by Bede
Sauron, I note your source does not say human disection took place in Islam.

Wrong, Bede. It does indicate that. In two places:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/islamic_medical/islamic_10.html

Systematic human anatomical dissection was no more a pursuit of medieval Islamic society than it was of medieval Christendom. It seems clear from the available evidence, however, that there were no explicit legal or religious strictures banning it. Indeed, many scholars in Islam lauded the study of anatomy, primarily as a way of demonstrating the design and wisdom of God, and there are some references in medical writings to dissection, though to what extent these reflect actual practice is problematic.


And the second source:

Arabic medicine and nephrology
Eknoyan G.
Am J Nephrol 1994;:270-8

During the Dark Ages following the fall of the Roman Empire, the Arabic world was instrumental in fostering the development of the sciences, including medicine. The quest for original manuscripts and their translation into Arabic reached its climax in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, and the dissemination of the compiled texts was facilitated by the introduction of paper from the East. Foremost among the Arabic physicians were Rhazes, Avicenna, Haly Abbas and Albucasis, who lived during the period 950-1050 AD. Their writings not only followed Hippocrates and Galen, but also greatly extended the analytical approach of these earlier writers. The urine was studied and the function and diseases of the kidneys described. Despite the fact that experimentation on the human body was prohibited by religion, some anatomic dissection and observation seems to have been undertaken, and the pulmonary circulation was described by Ibn Nafis. Anatomic illustrations began to appear in Arabic texts, though they did not have the detail and artistic merit of those of Vesalius.

Next time read more carefully.

However, even if it did this further undermines the claim that religion hindered science.

Bait-and-switch. Your original bogus strawman was about Christianity. You don't get any points for your argument by pointing to how Islam behaved differently.

The fact that Islam embraced science, instead of being afraid of it, is a well-known fact; indeed, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was set up specifically as a collection center for all kinds of knowledge - engineering, medical, astronomical, optical, etc.

My evidence does not help your argument, since you were discussing christianity, not islam. Unless you can show where any "atheists" around here have claimed that medieval islam was a hindrance to scientific discovery?


We already know Christianity did not prevent disssections.

Huh? We don't "know" that at all. What we know is what Evolutionist said earlier:

on the topic of the human cadaver though, for centuries, members of the Church forbade the dissection of a human cadaver, calling it "a desecration of the temple of the holy ghost."

You've failed to prove anything else.


This was my original point and stands unrefuted.

Clue phone - it's been refuted. Christianity did prevent dissections. Here's another source for it:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitem09.html

From the outset Vesalius proved himself a master. In the search for real knowledge he risked the most terrible dangers, and especially the charge of sacrilege, founded upon the teachings of the Church for ages. As we have seen, even such men in the early Church as Tertullian and St. Augustine held anatomy in abhorrence, and the decretal of Pope Boniface VIII was universally construed as forbidding all dissection, and as threatening excommunication against those practising it. Through this sacred conventionalism Vesalius broke without fear; despite ecclesiastical censure, great opposition in his own profession, and popular fury, he studied his science by the only method that could give useful results. No peril daunted him. To secure material for his investigations, he haunted gibbets and charnel-houses, braving the fires of the Inquisition and the virus of the plague. First of all men he began to place the science of human anatomy on its solid modern foundations--on careful examination and observation of the human body: this was his first great sin, and it was soon aggravated by one considered even greater.

Moreover, your secondary claim (about dissections at the request of the Bologna school) is likewise bogus:
Needless to say, the church didn't try and stop it although, as always, there were dissenters.

"Needless to say"? I'm afraid that there is great need to say, Bede. You have presented zero evidence to support this statement. The fact that the practice endured doesn't prove that the Church at that time didn't try to stop it.


However, you have presented evidence that Islam didn't hinder medical science in this way either! Thanks for taking the theist side for once.

My evidence does not help your argument, since you were discussing christianity, not islam. Unless you can show where any "atheists" around here have claimed that medieval islam was a hindrance to scientific discovery? I'd be interested in seeing such a claim - so be my guest.

[Bede]

Let's clear this up. We have two contentions.

On Islam:

Sauron has indeed supplied us with a source (on the internet) that implies that there were human dissections until Islam. But they do not actually say so (as I correctly stated). This is important because an interest in anatomy does not mean you are actually cutting up humans. Galen wrote extensively on anatmoy but based his work on pigs and monkeys which he assumed were the same as humans. It seems the Arabs did likewise as I quoted Toby Huff on another thread to Sauron:

In the meantime from Toby Huff "The Rise of Early Modern Science" CUP 1993 page 178:

Experts on the history of Arabic medicene assert that the dissection of human beings was strictly forbibben by religious law. As Professor Burgel puts it "Our sources do not contain the slightest indication of anybody having dared to trespass this custom. Yuhana Ibn Masawaih, a great physician of the earlier period who was a Christian and a freethinking rationalist in demeanor, dissected apes."

So we have Sauron's internet site implying Arabs allowed dissection (but not actually saying so) and my scholarly monograph denying it point blank. Perhaps Sauron could find a book or article by his source which states the case clearly. By the way, Burgel's work that Huff quotes from is called "Secualr and Religious Features of Medeival Arabic Medicene so hardly non-specialist. But it is quite old (1976) and if Sauron has explicit newer evidence I am very interested. But it must be explicit and not just say they were interested - I am interested in dissection and assure everyone that I have never done it.

On Christianity:

Sauron quotes Andrew Dickson White - a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

The Bull of Boniface VIII was issued in 1300 (dated 1298) and starts:

[quote]Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead barbarously boiling them in order that the bones, being separated from the flesh, may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very act, excommunicated.[quote]

It goes on in a similar vein for another couple of pages making it quite clear it applies only to treating bodies so they can be shipped home for burial. Now White claims that this was 'universally construed' to forbid dissection which is odd as we have not a single case of anyone being prosecuted under this bull by the inquisition or anyone else. And they were dissecting in Italy right under the inquisition's nose.

As David Lindberg writes (beginning or Western Science (Chicago University Press, 1992): "By 1316, Mondino dei Luzzi who taught at Bologna, had become sufficiently had become sufficiently skilled in human dissection to write a dissection manual entitled Anatomia which became the standard guide to human dissection in the next two centuries. In the course of the fourteenth century dissection became a regular part of medical instruction at Padua, Bolgna and a few other universities." Lindberg then treats us to a first hand description of a human dissection around 1350.

I know from my own research that one of the inquisitors in Bologna about this time, Lambertus de Cingulo, was quite happy to go after university staff and convicted and fined Cecco d'Ascoli, an astrologer, of heresy in 1324. Lambertus was an expert on Aristotle and knew the intellectual climate but did nothing to stop the dissections in Bologna or Padua. We find White was making up the idea that Boniface's bull, or any other church action, prevented human dissections. The actual historical resord records they got going just at the time he claims the church stopped them.

So, we await conclusive evidence about Islam to balance the clear statement of Huff that they forbade human dissection. And we have seen that, contrary to nineteenth century stuff culled from the net, that the Christian church did not prevent human dissections when they started.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
Let's clear this up. We have two contentions.

On Islam:

Sauron has indeed supplied us with a source (on the internet) that implies that there were human dissections until Islam.

Incorrect as usual. I provided two sources, that are quotations from professional sources, that such dissections did occur.

In addition to that, I also pointed to the Empire of Faith production (and the accompanying book) from PBS.

Finally, I also pointed you to "Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel" by the Gies.


But they do not actually say so (as I correctly stated).

Actually, they do say so - that is the area I included in bold red font. Your statement is incorrect - and given the number of times I've had to correct it, your statement amounts to lying.


This is important because an interest in anatomy does not mean you are actually cutting up humans. Galen wrote extensively on anatmoy but based his work on pigs and monkeys which he assumed were the same as humans.

It seems the Arabs did likewise as I quoted Toby Huff on another thread to Sauron:

The fact that they may have also dissected other animals does not refute the fact that the Muslims also dissected people. The two are not exclusive.

As for Huff - already responded to this.

Huff and Burgel are clearly deficient in their research. The NIH quotation I provided earlier, as well as the other citations, demonstrate a knowledge of dissection in Islamic science. Since Huff & Bergel's claim is formulated as an absolute, the claim is easily falsifiable.

As for Huff and Bergel - they're generalists studying the transmission of science to Western civilization. However, Savage-Smith's 40+ page article exploring the topic in detail -- written by an expert who specializes in the precise narrow area of the history of Islamic medicine - obviously trumps a one-paragraph citation. Here is Savage-Smith's bio information:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/arabic/about.html


The text for this Website was written by Emilie Savage-Smith, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, The Oriental Institute, University of Oxford, Pusey Lane, Oxford OX1 2LE, England. As one of the leading historians of medieval Islamic medicine, Dr. Savage-Smith has written extensively about the history of anatomy, surgery, dissection, pharmacy and ophthalmology. She has also published books and articles on Islamic cartography, technology, astronomical instruments, divinatory equipment, and magical techniques. At the present time she is preparing a descriptive historical catalogue of the numerous Islamic medical manuscripts held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, as well as a catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts, mostly astronomical, in St. John's College, Oxford.



So we have Sauron's internet site implying Arabs allowed dissection (but not actually saying so) and my scholarly monograph denying it point blank.

1. Both sources explicitly stated it.
2. Your monograph is wrong. The NIH quotation I provided above, as well as the other citations, demonstrate a knowledge of dissection in Islamic science. Since Huff & Bergel's claim is formulated as an absolute, the claim is easily falsifiable.



Perhaps Sauron could find a book or article by his source which states the case clearly.

Why would that be necessary? Sauron has already provided two such sources.


By the way, Burgel's work that Huff quotes from is called "Secualr and Religious Features of Medeival Arabic Medicene so hardly on-specialist. But it is quite old (1976) and if Sauron has explicit newer evidence I am very interested.

Savage-Smith's work is from 1995.
Eknoyan's work is from 1994.
Both sources I provided are newer as well as explicit.


But it must be explicit and not just say they were interested - I am interested in dissection and assure everyone that I have never done it.

Stop ignoring the bold red text I provided.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
[quote]
On Christianity:

Sauron quotes Andrew Dickson White - a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today.

Yawn. More ad hominems because you don't like the man's conclusions, but in reality, it's just your tired and desperate viewpoint. You know the rules - it's your claim that he's a "joke", so you need to provide proof that historians of science agree with your biased view of White's research. It's far more likely that you simply find his research uncomfortable and inconvenient.


His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

1. Not interested in your personal biases. Got facts?
2. You doubt White's honesty? That's OK; I started doubting your honesty long ago.
3. By the way - here is Britannica on White:




After graduation from Yale in 1853, White studied in Europe for the next three years, serving also as attaché at the U.S. legation at St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1854-55. He returned to the United States to become professor of history and English literature at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. In 1865 White's dream of a state university for New York--based on liberal principles with reference to religion, coeducation, race, and the teaching of science unhampered by religious dogma--was realized when Cornell University, Ithaca, was chartered. As Cornell's first president, White devoted his energies and much of his wealth to assure its success and future growth.

White served on numerous government commissions and was U.S. minister to Germany (1879-81) and Russia (1892-94) and ambassador to Germany (1897-1902). In 1899 he was president of the U.S. delegation at the Hague Peace Conference. The most outstanding of his works are A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) and Seven Great Statesmen in the Warfare of Humanity with Unreason (1910).


It's unlikely that Britannica would have referred to White's work as outsanding if it were as error-riddled and biased as you claim. No, my friends, this is just another example of Bede trying to poison the well by doing a character assassination on the individual.

Oh, and by the way - it's not just White who says that there was no dissection in medieval Christianity, and ties it to Boniface's decree. It's also part of the course work at Harvard:
http://icg.harvard.edu/~hsci161/lectures/Galen_Vesalius.doc


AS IN THE ROMAN WORLD, THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MIDDLE AGES POSSESSED AN ATTITUDE TOWARD THE DEAD THAT DID LITTLE TO ENCOURAGE HUMAN DISSECTION.
THERE ARE SCATTER REPORTS OF BRIEF EPISODES OF ANATOMICAL ACTIVITY DURING THIS PERIOD, BUT THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO SUSTAINED TRADITION IN HUMAN DISSECTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PHYSICIANS OF THE MEDICAL SCHOOL IN SALERNO IN THE 13TH CENTURY OPENLY DECLARED THAT THE DISSECTION OF THEHUMAN BODY WAS TO BE LOOKED UPON AS A HORRIBLE ACTION.
[b]THE CLOSEST THINGS TO DISSECTION WERE THE PRACTICES OF EMBALMING, LEGALLY MOTIVATED AUTOPSIES (TO DETERMINE CAUSE OFDEATH), AND THE DISMEMBERMENT, BOILING, AND REMOVAL OF BONESOF CRUSADERS WHO HAD DIED IN DISTANT LANDS.
THIS LAST PRACTICE MADE IT EASIER TO TRANSPORT THE REMAINS BACKTO THE CRUSADERS' HOMELAND FOR A PROPER CHRISTIAN BURIAL.
YET EVEN THIS PRACTICE WAS FROWNED UPON BY CHURCH AUTHORITIES, AND THERE WAS EVENTUALLY A PAPAL BULL (IN 1299 BY POPE BONIFACE VIII) PROHIBITING IT.


Your move, Bede.


The Bull of Boniface VIII was issued in 1300 (dated 1298) and starts:

Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead barbarously boiling them in order that the bones, being separated from the flesh, may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very act, excommunicated.

It goes on in a similar vein for another couple of pages making it quite clear it applies only to treating bodies so they can be shipped home for burial. Now White claims that this was 'universally construed' to forbid dissection which is odd as we have not a single case of anyone being prosecuted under this bull by the inquisition or anyone else. And they were dissecting in Italy right under the inquisition's nose.


Nonsense. Univ of Pennsylvania:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/Contexts/dissect.html
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/People/vesalius.html

The Renaissance saw a resurgence in interest in anatomy, in part urged by the studies of such artists as Leonardo da Vinci, who (in 1510) demonstrated the homology of muscular structures in humans and animals -- Leonardo, however, did not publish these drawings in his lifetime. The taboo against dissecting human cadavers continued well past the Middle Ages; Andreas Vesalius, for instance, one of the founders of modern anatomy, received death sentence under the Inquisition for his dissections (1564). His experience, gained by performing dissections himself rather than relying on assistants, led him to question classical medical authorities; recognizing that such figures as Galen had been forbidden by Greek and Roman religious law from studying human anatomy directly, he discovered that their work was a pastiche of guesswork and analogy from animal anatomy. In 1543 he published his masterpiece, De corporis humani fabrica, in seven volumes, providing the first accurate drawings of human anatomy.

Vesalius's dissection of human bodies -- and not merely by students, as was common practice, but by himself -- was condemned by the authorities, still subservient to the authority of Galen, and brought upon him the death sentence for grave-robbing under the Inquisition, a penalty commuted only upon his pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

Vesalius served as physician to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and to Spain's Philip II. His pupil, Realdo Columbus, continued his work and made important discoveries about the circulation of the blood and respiration.


Another claim, framed as an absolute, easily shot down.


As David Lindberg writes (beginning or Western Science (Chicago University Press, 1992): "By 1316, Mondino dei Luzzi who taught at Bologna, had become sufficiently had become sufficiently skilled in human dissection to write a dissection manual entitled Anatomia which became the standard guide to human dissection in the next two centuries.
Well, in actuality, Modino's work appears to be totally derivative of Galen. Harvard again:

THE FIRST WESTERN MONOGRAPH ON ANATOMY WAS WRITTEN IN 1316 BY MODINO DA LUZZI, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA IN ITALY.
IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT MODINO HIMSELF ENGAGED IN DISSECTION OF HUMAN BODIES, THOUGH IT APPEARS ONLY TO EXPERIENCE FOR HIMSELF WHAT HE WAS READING IN GALEN.
INDEED, THE ENTIRE WORK IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON GALEN AND MODINO'S RECOURSE TO DISSECTION WAS CERTAINLY NOT INTENDED AS A CHALLENGE TO GALEN'S AUTHORITY IN ANATOMY.

Apparently you were making more out of Modino than he really contributed to the science. And the fact that he supported Galen may have gotten him off the hook with the Church; who knows?

In the course of the fourteenth century dissection became a regular part of medical instruction at Padua, Bolgna and a few other universities." Lindberg then treats us to a first hand description of a human dissection around 1350.

None of which is relevant. The statement is that the Church opposed dissection. No one is surprised to find that some people ignored the Church and did it anyhow. But the fact that it may have been practiced by a few open-minded and brave souls doesn't change the Church's opposition to the practice.


So, we await conclusive evidence about Islam to balance the clear statement of Huff that they forbade human dissection.
You're awaiting something you already have - in red bold font, which you've ignored three times now.

Huff is simply incorrect, as I've pointed out before. Since his claim (and his source's) is an absolute, all it takes is a single example. I've provided two.


And we have seen that, contrary to nineteenth century stuff culled from the net, that the Christian church did not prevent human dissections when they started.

No, what we saw is that some dissections occurred, but we also saw that the Church remained opposed to them. The fact that such dissections occurred is not proof that the Church approved of the practice.

Moreover, the fact that they took SO LONG TO START in the first place is something attributable to the Church.

[Bede]

I have stated the facts with references. I am not interested in arguing with someone who only give me unattributed internet quotes, TV programmes(!) and cannot read. When refencing book, give a quote and page number.

On Islam, I may be wrong but Sauron's source doesn't say so. His allegation of lying has been reported to the Mods. On Christianity, I have shot down the myth and simply finding more instances of it on the net won't help. As for Whilte, here is a link from two distinguished contemporary professors whose book Family Man, even now, is reading: Beyond War and Peace (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html) and my own effort (http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Vorkosigan]

Bede, you've been soundly spanked. Soundly. Sauron has one cite from a recognized expert, and another from a peer reviewed journal.

What, by the way, is Toby Huff's religious stance?

Vorkosigan

[Bede]

Vork,

Sorry you think I have been spanked. No idea what Huff's religious stance is - he betrays none in his book. He may be wrong but we need something explicit. Note Sauron hasn't actually read the peer reviewed journal and his expert source says that human dissection was not part of Islamic culture. I will look up Savage Smith's article and I would be pleased to find that Islam didn't prevent science in this way either.

On Christianity, here's another quote:

"From all avaliable evidence, Boniface's bull and letter were taken as irrelevent by generations of by of Italian medical professors, private doctors, judges, city councils, and even by later popes, several of whom were emblamed." Katharine Park "The Criminal and Saintly Body - autopsy and dissection in renaissance Italy" Renaissance Quarterly 47:1 (1994) page 11

Earlier she said "The myth of the medieval resistance to dissection is an old one and like the falt earth myth with which it is often associated, has provn protean and difficult to kill." ibid page 4. How true this! The only exception she found was boiling heads to show the small bones of the inner eye which Mordino considered sinful. You know White is not to be trusted. Why not be honest and say so?

By the way, the unversity of Pen cite of Saurons comes from an old annotated edition of Frankenstein which hardly counts as up to date scholarship!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Family Man]

Just a couple of notes.

Any historical work is going to undergo critical review, and White's is no exception. It has been criticized, particularly by Lindberg, though with how much justification I'm not prepared to say as I'm not familiar with White's book. I am a little disturbed that, after the introduction and the first essay by Lindberg, criticism of White has virtually disappeared. After reading the Lindberg/Numbers book, I intend to read White's so I can compare the two works and come to my own conclusion.

Bede, just because something comes from the internet does not necessarily mean it is a bad source. If that was the case, you'd have to disparage your own internet essay. And, in fact, I'm finding things in Lindberg/Numbers that isn't exactly jibing with some of the claims you make your essay.

Bede, are there other authors that directly criticize White?

[Bede]

Originally posted by Family Man
Bede, are there other authors that directly criticize White?

Colin Russell, in "The Conflict of Science and Religion" in Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion (New York 2000) deals with him (with Draper) and concludes: “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”

You will find modern scholars don't usually both spend much time refuting 19th century mistakes if no other scholars actually believe them any more. Look forward to your comments on Lindberg/Numbers. I can anticipate claims that I could nuance my work more but if you are still holding out that there is a historical conflict between science and religion after reading it, I'll be very surprised.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
I have stated the facts with references.

No, you've stated some opinions. Which I've dealt with.


I am not interested in arguing with someone who only give me unattributed internet quotes,

The quotes are attributed. I gave the author, the journals they appeared in, the dates, the pages, and in one case, I even provided a bio of the person.

Your criticism is nonsense. As is most of your writing.


TV programmes(!) and cannot read.

The "TV Program" also has a companion book. And the individual scholars who contributed to the "TV program" are all experts in Islamic history and theology.

Again - your criticism is baseless.


When refencing book, give a quote and page number.

Good advice - I'm still waiting on your quote from Lindberg.


On Islam, I may be wrong but Sauron's source doesn't say so.

Yes, BOTH my sources say so. That was the point of putting the statements in bold red font - which you're wiggling and handwaving away, as usual.


His allegation of lying has been reported to the Mods.

Yawn. No problem. Since you questioned White's honesty, I'm sure the mods will take appropriate action as well. In addition, given your past behavior here, I'm not sure that appealing to the mods will help. Your claims of being mistreated lack the necessary credibility.


On Christianity, I have shot down the myth and simply finding more instances of it on the net won't help.

Actually, you have not shot the myth down at all - the sources I found weren't simply "on the net"; they were published course material from Harvard University and the Univ of Pennsylvania. The fact that professors publish their material on the net for their students doesn't impact the reliability of the material.

Your attempt to denigrate the material based upon its presence on the web (as opposed to printed) only demonstrates your ignorance of how colleges and universities are applying technology in their classrooms.

As for your claim to Vork that the UPenn citation is "hardly up to date" - well, age is irrelevant. Only accuracy is. A 50 year old citation can be just as accurate (or inaccurate) as one from yesterday. Your red herring isn't going anywhere.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Family Man
Just a couple of notes.

Any historical work is going to undergo critical review, and White's is no exception. It has been criticized, particularly by Lindberg, though with how much justification I'm not prepared to say as I'm not familiar with White's book. I am a little disturbed that, after the introduction and the first essay by Lindberg, criticism of White has virtually disappeared. After reading the Lindberg/Numbers book, I intend to read White's so I can compare the two works and come to my own conclusion.

Bede, just because something comes from the internet does not necessarily mean it is a bad source. If that was the case, you'd have to disparage your own internet essay. And, in fact, I'm finding things in Lindberg/Numbers that isn't exactly jibing with some of the claims you make your essay.

Bede, are there other authors that directly criticize White?

Family Man, I'm sure you've seen the Lindberg / Numbers article on the ASA website, right?
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html

It's a pro-christian apologetics piece by one of Bede's heroes.

And the use of Colin Russell also appears suspect. A book titled "The History of Science and Religion" makes one wonder about the agenda of such a book. In addition, several other quotes from Russell I've found make his objectivity in this regard questionable.

Bede - you wouldn't be quoting from a list of hand-picked christian historians that are roughly equivalent to creationist quoting their favorite ID scientists, would you?

Naw....that *can't* be it....

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Sauron
And the use of Colin Russell also appears suspect. A book titled "The History of Science and Religion" makes one wonder about the agenda of such a book. In addition, several other quotes from Russell I've found make his objectivity in this regard questionable.

Bede - you wouldn't be quoting from a list of hand-picked christian historians that are roughly equivalent to creationist quoting their favorite ID scientists, would you?

Naw....that *can't* be it....

I was a little more prescient than I thought. Apparently Colin Russell is a creationist as well. He was a signatory to a letter that urged Tony Blair to permit teaching creationism in British public schools:

http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm


Wed, May 15, 2002

Dear Prime Minister,

The debate about teaching 'creationism' at Emmanuel College, Gateshead is of concern to scientists, to those involved in science education and to specialists in religious education. We are writing in the hope that the following background information may be useful in clarifying some of the issues involved. The signatories to this letter are Christian academics from all three disciplines.

Creation, creationism and the age of the earth
The religious doctrine of creation - the bringing-into-being of all things by God - is entirely independent of any particular mechanisms involved, evolutionary or otherwise, and it is not affected by scientific estimatesof the age of the universe.
[...]

Co-signatories from science
(alphabetical order)

Professor Colin Russell, DSc, FRSC, Emeritus Professor of History of Science at the Open University


Colin Russell is also a director of the "John Ray Initiative" - an attempt to inject christianity into environmentalism, with some questionable results and sources (Bjorn Lomborg - The Skeptical Environmentalist as a source?)
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.htm

He's also Professor Emeritus at the Open University in the Department of History of Science and Technology, which he founded in 1970.
http://www.jri.org.uk/intro/directors.htm

Bede, what credibility do you think we should assign to such a "historian"?

[Bede]

Russell is a Christian, as far as I am aware Lindberg is not, Numbers has been outed as a non-theist on these boards. What's that got to do with anything? Address arguments and stop trying to poison the well. By the way, the mods have assured me I can call White a lying scum without risk of censure as Vork called a living writer scum and this was OK. However, they have said that as I post here you cannot insult me. I am awaiting their action.

B

[Bede]

Do you know what the Open University is, Sauron? Clearly not. It was set up by a UK act of parliament and is highly respected totally secular institution in this counrty. That Russell helped found it shows he is a scholar of extremely high standing. As I said, stop poisoning the well.

And Russell is not a creationist either.

B

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
Russell is a Christian, as far as I am aware Lindberg is not, Numbers has been outed as a non-theist on these boards. What's that got to do with anything?

Credibility and objectivity are important. Having a religious axe to grind destroys both. Given Russell's background, he clearly has such an axe. Therefore, your use of him is just as suspicious as a creationist quoting Russell Humphreys.


Address arguments and stop trying to poison the well.


Strange comments for someone who tried to ignore the U of Penn citation by simply claiming it "wasn't up to date" but failing to offer any proof.


By the way, the mods have assured me I can call White a lying scum without risk of censure as Vork called a living writer scum and this was OK.

When and if the mods communicate with me, they can let me know.


However, they have said that as I post here you cannot insult me. I am awaiting their action.

Hm. I wonder if your deliberate mischaracterization of my posts will earn you their censure? I find that behavior of yours to be insulting. Perhaps I should involve the mods as well...??

Face it, Bede. You lost the argument on dissection. Resorting to the moderators to salvage your wounded pride is kind of like hiding behind the kindergarten teacher.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
Do you know what the Open University is, Sauron? Clearly not. It was set up by a UK act of parliament and is highly respected totally secular institution in this counrty.

Ah, how you manage to hide the facts so well; must be practice at christian apologetics.

The OU is an online / nights and evenings / correspondence course university, created to provide an educational outlet to a particular segment of society - part time higher education students, a substantial percentage of whom score lower and are below conventional educational standards in the UK.
http://www.open.ac.uk/about/


The OU's undergraduate level courses do not require any entry qualifications. Over a third of people starting these courses have qualifications below conventional university entry requirements. Despite this, around 70% of OU students successfully complete their courses each year.
[...]
Nearly all OU students are part-time and about 70% of undergraduate students remain in full-time employment throughout their studies. More than 150,000 OU students are on-line.

It's distance education - not an traditional university. It's roughly equivalent to DeVry University in the USA, or ITT Technical Institute.


That Russell helped found it shows he is a scholar of extremely high standing. As I said, stop poisoning the well.

It shows nothing of the sort. In fact, if he were a scholar of such high standing, it's more likely that he would be tenured at a conventional university.


And Russell is not a creationist either.

Obviously he is - his name appears on the letter to Tony Blair, and the point of the letter is quite clear: the signatories advocate allowing creationism into the list of acceptable study topics in public schools.

[Family Man]

Bede --

Actually, one of the things that raised my suspicion about Lindberg is that he seems a trifle obsessed about White. I have studied this subject before and never heard his name mentioned. Why is Lindberg dealing with a 19th century scholar whose theories are out of date? However, for the most part I found Lindberg's essay to be sound, if he overreached at times to satisfy his bias.

I think I'm going to post a tentative hypothesis in a day or so. I started reading Lindberg/Numbers with this idea in mind, and I think I just read something in the Ashworth article that confirms it. While I don't think you're all wet on this issue, I think your "no conflict" hypothesis is about as tenable as the "at war" hypothesis. I've read about a lot of conflict in this book, and I've seen them bluntly state that there was conflict. However, there is more here than what meets the eye (and normally discussed)and I think that you'll find what I have to say palatable and sound, if not exactly what you wished for.

[lpetrich]

C'mon, you guys, why are you trying to use ad hominem arguments against Colin Russell? Why don't you try to address the quality of his "scholarship"?

But Bede's seems to infer from the demonstrable falsehood of "always a conflict" that there was "never a conflict". However, the truth lies in between, that there is "sometimes a conflict".

He also sneers that Biblical literalism does not count as Christianity. But if one believes in the absolute truth of the Bible, then literalism is a natural consequence. It also avoids the appearance of theological expediency, which is hard to avoid with allegorical interpretation -- "it is literal when I like it, and allegorical when I don't."

[Sauron]

Originally posted by lpetrich
[B]C'mon, you guys, why are you trying to use ad hominem arguments against Colin Russell? Why don't you try to address the quality of his "scholarship"?

Easy.

1. Bede's committed the original character assassination of White:

Sauron quotes Andrew Dickson White - a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

2. I (and others) asked him to back it up - show that reputable historians of science discount White with the level of snarling vociferousness that Bede demonstrated.

3. In a feeble attempt to respond, Bede quotes Russell, without informing everyone of Russell's affiliations and biases.

The fact that Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter. If he can "bend the rules" in science enough to accept creationism and advocate it in public schools, then what else might he be capable of? Who's to say he hasn't "bent the rules" in historical analysis enough to deliberately exclude White, merely because White undercuts the religious agenda?

It isn't enough to just quote sources - if that were sufficient, then creationists and ID'ists would be respected group. The sources have to be reliable and not pushing any agendas.

So the original challenge, #2 above:
show that reputable historians of science discount White

has not been met.


But Bede's seems to infer from the demonstrable falsehood of "always a conflict" that there was "never a conflict". However, the truth lies in between, that there is "sometimes a conflict".

Bede is fond of strawmen. Which is why his complaints of being insulted are crocodile-tear complaints.


He also sneers that Biblical literalism does not count as Christianity.

Yes. I noticed how he set himself up as the sole arbiter of what is, or isn't, christianity. Seems like that's a common arrogance of christians. :rolleyes:


But if one believes in the absolute truth of the Bible, then literalism is a natural consequence. It also avoids the appearance of theological expediency, which is hard to avoid with allegorical interpretation -- "it is literal when I like it, and allegorical when I don't."
Indeed.

[Bede]

I really think you should all stop inserting 'never' into my statements. That way you will avoid attacking strawmen and actually address my arguments. Ipetrich, I 'never' said literalists are not real Christians (they are), YOU said non-literalists are Bedeians. Please try and be accurate and stop setting up yet more strawmen. Thanks.

As for the Open University, Sauron's comments are typical American arrogance and ignorance. Luckily one of the most intelligent atheists on these boards studies at the OU so they will be able to set him right.

Family Man, Lindberg has a lifetime and teaching undergraduates most of whom turn up in his classes with the 'conflict hypothesis' firmly lodged in their heads. Consequently. a good deal of his professional life is devoted to removing it and opening them up to all the ideas that you are now wrestling with. That, alone, explains a certain preoccupation with the hypothesis's greatest exponant. Imagine if Sauron turned up in Lindberg's class and started off on his Christianity held back dissection speil. He'd have his work cut out! BTW, the Lindberg quote Sauron says he is still waiting for, is in the second post of this thread which perhaps he should read.

As I won the Christian argument and conceded the possibility of new evidence, as yet unseen, in the Islamic one, I'll bow out of this thread now. Look forward to Family Man's contribution on a new thread.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
I really think you should all stop inserting 'never' into my statements. That way you will avoid attacking strawmen and actually address my arguments.

That's all your arguments *are*, Bede - an army of strawmen. All we have to do is go back to your original "ten atheist myths" for proof of that.


As for the Open University, Sauron's comments are typical American arrogance and ignorance. Luckily one of the most intelligent atheists on these boards studies at the OU so they will be able to set him right.

More nonsense. My comments were taken directly from Open University's own website; in fact, I included direct quotations from their own words.

It isn't arrogance to say that their student body is has a substantial number of people with qualifications below conventional universities. That is, in fact, exactly what Open University's own website says:
http://www.open.ac.uk/about/
The OU's undergraduate level courses do not require any entry qualifications. Over a third of people starting these courses have qualifications below conventional university entry requirements. Despite this, around 70% of OU students successfully complete their courses each year.

Nor is it arrogance to say that Open University's focus and mission is as an online / nights and evenings / correspondence course university. They were created to provide an educational outlet to a particular segment of society - part time higher education students. Again, from their own website:
http://www.open.ac.uk/about/
Nearly all OU students are part-time and about 70% of undergraduate students remain in full-time employment throughout their studies. More than 150,000 OU students are on-line.

The fact that an atheist studies there doesn't change the character and mission of Open University: they are a provider of distance education - not a traditional university. My statement that they're roughly equivalent to DeVry University in the USA is a very accurate comparison.


Imagine if Sauron turned up in Lindberg's class and started off on his Christianity held back dissection speil. He'd have his work cut out!

Not really, since Harvard and U Penn both seem to agree with me. As do others, which you've failed to address.


BTW, the Lindberg quote Sauron says he is still waiting for, is in the second post of this thread which perhaps he should read.

Trapped by your own words, Bede. In your earlier ego-stroking session, you tried to upbraid me for not providing a proper reference:

When refencing book, give a quote and page number.

By your own standards, your reference to Lindberg is insufficient. Try again.


As I won the Christian argument

In your own mind - not in anyone else's.


and conceded the possibility of new evidence, as yet unseen, in the Islamic one, I'll bow out of this thread now.

Translation: you cannot refute two precise quotations (both *properly* referenced and highlighted in bold red font) that clearly indicate that dissection in Islam both occurred and pre-dated the practice in so-called Christian Europe. Unable to face your failure, you will now try to claim victory and exit out the back door, hoping nobody realizes that you were check-mated and had no response.

[Celsus]

Let's keep the discourse in this thread civil. Thanks.

Joel
BC&H Moderator

[Bede]

Suaron, grow up. I conceded you might have a point on Islam although you couldn't prove it. You lost on Christianity. That's tough but sadly true. So why not go and track that Savage Smith article down and find a statement as clear as Huff's but which contradicts him.

As for your patronising remarks about the OU, you brought them up to try and besmirch Colin Russell's status as a scholar. That was an insult both to him and the OU but pretty much what I expect of you.

The Lindberg page number is p 342-3. As you say, I should have included this.

B

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
Suaron, grow up. I conceded you might have a point on Islam although you couldn't prove it.


I did prove the point -- with no less than two fully referenced sources:

Reference 1:
Indeed, many scholars in Islam lauded the study of anatomy, primarily as a way of demonstrating the design and wisdom of God, and there are some references in medical writings to dissection,

Reference 2:
Despite the fact that experimentation on the human body was prohibited by religion, some anatomic dissection and observation seems to have been undertaken, and the pulmonary circulation was described by Ibn Nafis.

The source journals and the page citations can be found in my opening post.

As for maturity - you're projecting again, Bede. If you were more emotionally mature, we wouldn't be watching you desperately trying to claim that my point was not proven-- days ago. Your inability to refute the sources I provided is translating into a very lame fingers-in-your-ears peformance.


So why not go and track that Savage Smith article down and find a statement as clear as Huff's but which contradicts him.


The red, bold, underlined statements above are quite clear - no one except you is having any problem with them. Which is apparently just part of your deaf/dumb/blind act, whenever you encounter facts you can't refute. Moreover -- and as I told you before -- Savage-Smith wrote the NIH article that I referenced above, so I have already provided a quote from Savage-Smith.


You lost on Christianity. That's tough but sadly true.

I did not lose. Both Harvard and UPenn back my position. Your source (Russell) is rife with bias, which you failed to disclose.


As for your patronising remarks about the OU, you brought them up to try and besmirch Colin Russell's status as a scholar.
*sigh* Wrong on all counts.

1. The quotes were not patronizing; they were 100% accurate. I took them from the OU's own website, for chrissakes. Are you saying that OU is being patronizing towards itself?

2. I brought these points up in order to counter your exaggerated claims of Russell's credentials. Your frustration is understandable; but entirely your own fault. You wouldn't have fallen so hard, if you hadn't exaggerated so high.


That was an insult both to him and the OU but pretty much what I expect of you.

Pot-kettle-black. Your style of "research" reminds me of JP Holding / Robert Turkel: ignore sources you don't like, manufacture strawmen en masse, and bluster/belittle anyone who refutes you.

[Celsus]

Sauron,

I suggest you drop the attacks on the Open University which you know nothing about. Having studied in the UK, I can vouch for Bede's comments that it is a highly respected university. The fact that people with low qualifications can enter and then come out with excellent qualifications only speaks volumes about the staff there, and not that it is a third rate degree mill which you seem to imply.

For the 2000/01 Academic year, it was ranked 10th, above the likes of King's College London, St. Andrew's and Loughborough, all of which are very good institutions in their own right (My university, East Anglia, came in at 26th, and includes a world class environmental science department, an excellent creative writing course which Andrew Motion (the UK Poet Laureate) and Kazuo Ishiguro attended, among others). IIRC, the OU has been improving as well, so it may well be ranked higher in recent years.

Joel

[Bede]

Sauron,

Reference 1:
Indeed, many scholars in Islam lauded the study of anatomy, primarily as a way of demonstrating the design and wisdom of God, and there are some references in medical writings to dissection,

Reference 2:
Despite the fact that experimentation on the human body was prohibited by religion, some anatomic dissection and observation seems to have been undertaken, and the pulmonary circulation was described by Ibn Nafis.

The point is that neither of these mention human dissection. It is probable, given what I quoted, that animal dissection was all that took place - Huff mentions monkeys in particular. This is, for instance, all that Galen was able to do in the Roman period. So we need a source that says human dissection took place in Islam. Savage Smith says, in your first quote "Systematic human anatomical dissection was no more a pursuit of medieval Islamic society than it was of medieval Christendom." which means she does NOT think human dissection was happening. She is wrong about medieval Eruope after 1300 as I have shown. As I have also said, in an effort to be fair, there may be further evidence about Islam we have not seen, but we need it to make a decision.

On Christianity, peer reviewed textbooks and journal articles trump the internet - especially when you link to an out of copyright version of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Some more information of Colin Russell: Colin Russell is Professor Emeritus at the Open University in the Department of History of Science and Technology, which he founded in 1970. He is Affiliated Research Scholar at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge. His publications include The Earth, Humanity and God (UCL Press, 1994), Michael Faraday: physics and faith (Oxford University Press, 2000) and C.A.Russell (ed.) Chemistry, society and environment: a new history of the British chemical industry (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 2000). Colin Russell is past president of the British Society for the History of Science, past president of Christians in Science, and past vice-president of UCCF. He is a Chartered Chemist and FRSC (Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry).

In other words Russell is an incredibly distinguished scholar and your comments about him are totally pathetic. Given he is an affiliated scholar of where I am doing my PhD, I might even take them personally...

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Gurdur]

I'ld just like to add that the OU often runs get-together tutorials etc. etc. --- it is not purely distance education.

Moreover, it is fully accredited and has a very good academic reputation.
The fact that many entry-level students do not have the normal level of entry qualifications yet manage to finish their courses well --- with final exams at the same level as elsewhere in the UK --- actually speaks well for the OU and its purpose.

Oh, and BTW, signing a letter that creationism be allowed to be taught does not necessarily make you a Creationist.

I've signed quite a few petitions that homosexual marriages be legally allowed.
To the best of my knowledge and of all my partners' knowledge, I am not at all gay.
:)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron

....
the most outstanding of his works are A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) and Seven Great Statesmen in the Warfare of Humanity with Unreason (1910).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's unlikely that Britannica would have referred to White's work as outsanding if it were as error-riddled and biased as you claim. .
Actually, that's an extremely poor and mistaken argument to authority.

The Britannica adjudges works on their coherence and coverage for the time, and for their effect at the time; describing a particular work as "outstanding" does not mean it might not be simply completely false.

Perhaps we copuld look at what the Britannica says on Oswald Spengler or William Morris' religiophilosophical outpourings ?
;)

BTW, this thread might have some tangential connection to discussion here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=61942).

[livius drusus]

Pardon this lurker's interjection, but there's something from one of Sauron's UPenn quotes that's been nagging at me. From this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1151077#post1151077) (emphasis mine):

Vesalius's dissection of human bodies -- and not merely by students, as was common practice, but by himself -- was condemned by the authorities, still subservient to the authority of Galen, and brought upon him the death sentence for grave-robbing under the Inquisition, a penalty commuted only upon his pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

Because that little "as was common practice" clause rather glaringly supports Bede's point that, well, human dissection was common practice in Christian medieval Europe. If you believe this source is to be accurate Sauron, then Vesalius was targeted by the inquisition (and not in a particularly hardcore manner since he got the easy out of pilgrimage instead of the auto da fe) because of his high profile. Otherwise they would have targeted his students and all the other students who had made a common practice out of human dissection.

[Gurdur]

I'ld like to add something here.
As an atheist with scientific training, I am disgusted at the ad hominem's and poisoning-of-the-well going on.
Originally posted by Vorkosigan
.....
What, by the way, is Toby Huff's religious stance?
Toby Huff, born in 1942, received his Ph.D. from the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research in 1971. During 1976-77 he was a Post-Doc Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, sponsored by National Endowment for the Humanities, under the direction of Robert Bellah. In 1978-79 he was a Member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. He joined the Department of Sociology & Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in 1971 and was promoted to Chancellor Professor in 1997. He is the author of The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West (Cambridge University Press, 1993), which has been translated into Arabic.
Questions regarding Toby Huff's religious stance seem to be well beside the point unless very firmly indeed proven otherwise ---- unless we're going to have a witch-hunt questioning every single recognized acadmic's total philosophical and (ir)religious stance before somehow magically their academic works are admittable in evidence here.

Then:
Originally posted by Sauron

Apparently Colin Russell is a creationist as well. He was a signatory to a letter that urged Tony Blair to permit teaching creationism in British public schools
This is the text of a letter sent to the Prime Minister, ........

The Prime Minister
The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair M.P.
.......
Dear Prime Minister,

The debate about teaching 'creationism' at Emmanuel College, Gateshead is of concern to scientists, to those involved in science education and to specialists in religious education. We are writing in the hope that the following background information may be useful in clarifying some of the issues involved. The signatories to this letter are Christian academics from all three disciplines.

Creation, creationism and the age of the earth
The religious doctrine of creation - the bringing-into-being of all things by God - is entirely independent of any particular mechanisms involved, evolutionary or otherwise, and it is not affected by scientific estimatesof the age of the universe.

Christian theology portrays the universe as both created and sustained in its entirety by God and rejects any kind of 'God-of-the-gaps' thinking which assigns divine activity to some parts and not to others. Although science is corrigible, across cosmology, astronomy, geology and physics a remarkably coherent picture of the age of the universe emerges. We are convinced that the majority of Christians who have studied the evidence have no problems with the current scientific view of auniverse which is 12 - 15 billion years old.

We recognise that, within Christendom and Islam, there are those who believe creation took place relatively recently - about 10,000 years ago - and that the formation of the Earth occupied six, consecutive, 24 hour days. But we would point out that they reach this conclusion by reinterpreting the scientific evidence on the basis of a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. The term 'creationism' is often applied to this view, sometimes to the disquiet of those of us who also believe in divine creation but do not find it necessary to reject mainstream science. In what follows we shall refer to the 'Young Earth' view as 'Young Earth Creationism'.

It might be argued that those who hold a Young Earth Creationism position are not, as they think, being extra loyal to the text of Scripture but, on the contrary, are not being careful enough in understanding the diverse literary genres of religious writing. Indeed, Origen, writing in about 225 AD asked,'What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening,existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions'.

The resurgence of Young Earth Creationism is a relatively recent phenomenon, currently very widespread in America. In the UK it was until recent years fairly limited; but the situation is changing, stimulated by imports of US literature and by visiting speakers. The problems are exacerbated by certain popularisers of science portraying science as an irreligious activity, contrary to evidence about the religious beliefs of many of its practitioners, both past and present. Some have gone far beyond the biology and embraced evolutionism as a surrogate religion! It harks back to the discredited scientific imperialism of the logical positivists who, in the 1930s, set science up as the ultimate test for everything. Both Young Earth Creationists and those science popularisers who assert, in the name of science, the need to choose between evolution and creation, demonstrate the same muddled thinking.

Science, science education and the history of science
Science investigates only the physical processes involved in the origins of the universe and of life. Matters concerning God lie outside its sphere of competence. Science: the National Curriculum for England (1999), wisely requires pupils to be taught 'the kinds of questions science can and cannot answer' as well as 'ways in which scientific work may be affected by the contexts in which it takes place [for example, social, historical, moral and spiritual], and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted' (pp 37,46) Events at Emmanuel College could illustrate this, taking care not to present them in an anti-religious way. A healthy trend is already evident in science education with the production and trialling of new Advanced Supplementary [AS] level specifications on understanding the nature of science.

Recent studies indicate the inadequacy of the popular 'conflict' view of science and religion. Historians of science such as professors Bowler, Cantor, Brooke and Russell have spelt this out and one comment by Cantor sums it up: 'the conflict thesis is like a great blunderbuss which obliterates the fine texture of history and sets science and religion in necessary and irrevocable opposition. Much historical research has invalidated the conflict thesis.' Although in academia, over recent decades, dialogue between religion and science has been more in evidence than earlier notions of conflict,the media only recently seem to be picking this up. Confrontation helps viewing ratings and the temptations are not always resisted.

Religious education and cross-curricular themes
A recent search of Agreed Syllabuses for religious education shows that about two thirds of them contain entries relating to issues of religion and science. Many pupils do have questions about science and religion,including the sort that have arisen over recent events at Emmanuel College and this is far from being the first time such issues have attracted public attention.

It seems clear to us that there is a need for religious education and science education teachers to be able to handle such cross-disciplinary issues; especially since science specialists now have a mandate to handle the 'spiritual' dimension of their subject, something which places an unfamiliar responsibility upon their shoulders.

We believe that this issue needs attention from the Government and look forward to hearing from you as to what you propose.

Yours sincerely,

Empahsis added by Gurdur

So Sauron is wrong in attributing this letter as a support of Creationism as it is understood in the USA, especially Young-Earth Creationism.
That is nothing more than a completely inaccurate mischaracterization.
The so-called "creationism" Sauron alludes to in this letter would seem to be theistic evolution, not creationism as it is promulgated within the States.

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

Bede, you've been soundly spanked. .....

Vorkosigan I'ld say it hasn't been Bede who has been "spanked" here; and given the erroneous, ignorant and mistaken attack on the Open University as well in this thread, maybe we can do without such emptily emotive and inflammatory statements.

_________

Oh, and BTW, I don't even agree much with Bede's main argument --- I just dislike the tactics being used here.
They demean SecWeb's attempts to become more of an academic discussion board.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Bede
Sauron,
The point is that neither of these mention human dissection. It is probable, given what I quoted, that animal dissection was all that took place - Huff mentions monkeys in particular.


You're reaching really far on this one, Bede. The NIH information as well as the Journal of Nephrology quote are both in the context of human dissection.

Moreover, there is no question that animal dissection was permitted - there was never any question of a religious proscription on animals. Animal dissection would thus not be anything special or noteworthy. But in discussing the history of human medicine, what a researcher would most be interested in would be the first occurrences o fhuman dissection.


This is, for instance, all that Galen was able to do in the Roman period.

Not comparable. Roman religious and social views aren't tangent to Islamic views.


So we need a source that says human dissection took place in Islam.

We have two. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.


Savage Smith says, in your first quote "Systematic human anatomical dissection was no more a pursuit of medieval Islamic society than it was of medieval Christendom." which means she does NOT think human dissection was happening.

Jeez. You're really twisting her words - not surprising. Here is her actual quote:


Systematic human anatomical dissection was no more a pursuit of medieval Islamic society than it was of medieval Christendom. It seems clear from the available evidence, however, that there were no explicit legal or religious strictures banning it. Indeed, many scholars in Islam lauded the study of anatomy, primarily as a way of demonstrating the design and wisdom of God, and there are some references in medical writings to dissection, though to what extent these reflect actual practice is problematic.
The first thing to note here is that the context of the paragraph clearly indicates that it is human dissection we're talking about - see the word in bold above; I can use red and underline font as well, if it helps you to find the word. Thus your first point above (that Savage-Smith's quote might be interpreted as meaning animal dissection) is just more hand-waving.

The second thing to note here is that Savage-Smith is NOT saying that she thinks human dissection wasn't occurring in Islam. It's clear that what she is saying is that it wasn't a common practice, or a mainstream practice, but that it did occur in certain identified examples. That is, in fact, precisely why she says though to what extent these reflect actual practice is problematic. It is not meant to say that they weren't going on; merely to raise the question of how routine the practice of dissection was.

So in summation, both your strawman about animal dissection as well as your lame attempt to make the quotation deny any dissection are not supported by the clear reading of her comment. You are twisting her words because you cannot address them fully.




She is wrong about medieval Eruope after 1300 as I have shown. As I have also said, in an effort to be fair, there may be further evidence about Islam we have not seen, but we need it to make a decision.

On Christianity, peer reviewed textbooks and journal articles trump the internet - especially when you link to an out of copyright version of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

[quote]
In other words Russell is an incredibly distinguished scholar and your comments about him are totally pathetic.

No, they are intended to address your failure to support your case about him, and the fact that you did not disclose his bias when you offered him as an "expert witness."

Moreover, you also continue to duck and hide about Russell advocating creationism in public schools in Britain.
http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm

Wed, May 15, 2002

Dear Prime Minister,

The debate about teaching 'creationism' at Emmanuel College, Gateshead is of concern to scientists, to those involved in science education and to specialists in religious education. We are writing in the hope that the following background information may be useful in clarifying some of the issues involved. The signatories to this letter are Christian academics from all three disciplines.

Creation, creationism and the age of the earth
The religious doctrine of creation - the bringing-into-being of all things by God - is entirely independent of any particular mechanisms involved, evolutionary or otherwise, and it is not affected by scientific estimatesof the age of the universe.
[...]

Co-signatories from science
(alphabetical order)

Professor Colin Russell, DSc, FRSC, Emeritus Professor of History of Science at the Open University


So I'll ask my question again: Bede, what credibility do you think we should assign to such a "historian"? Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter. If he can "bend the rules" in science enough to accept creationism and advocate it in public schools, then what else might he be capable of? Who's to say he hasn't "bent the rules" in historical analysis?


Given he is an affiliated scholar of where I am doing my PhD, I might even take them personally...

Find someone who cares. :rolleyes:

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
I'ld just like to add that the OU often runs get-together tutorials etc. etc. --- it is not purely distance education.

Moreover, it is fully accredited and has a very good academic reputation.
The fact that many entry-level students do not have the normal level of entry qualifications yet manage to finish their courses well --- with final exams at the same level as elsewhere in the UK --- actually speaks well for the OU and its purpose.

Oh, and BTW, signing a letter that creationism be allowed to be taught does not necessarily make you a Creationist.

I've signed quite a few petitions that homosexual marriages be legally allowed.
To the best of my knowledge and of all my partners' knowledge, I am not at all gay.
:)

Totally bogus comparison. Should we also permit teaching the flat earth theory, Gurdur?

Supporting gay marriage is a social issue.

Theories of origin are a scientific one.

One is objectively testable and provable - the other is merely the codification of values and conventions.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron
.....
Moreover, you also continue to duck and hide about Russell advocating creationism in public schools in Britain.
http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm


So I'll ask my question again: Bede, what credibility do you think we should assign to such a "historian"?


Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter. If he can "bend the rules" in science enough to accept creationism and advocate it in public schools, then what else might he be capable of? Who's to say he hasn't "bent the rules" in historical analysis?

Maybe you should read my post just above yours before trying this again.
:D
Find someone who cares. :rolleyes:

As an athiest, as a scientist by training, and as someone who dislikes dogmatism, I certainly care.
:)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron

Totally bogus comparison. Should we also permit teaching the flat earth theory, Gurdur?

oooooo, I doubt you can simply declare it a "completely bogus comparison", plus throwing in a strawman; I was previously going to go into how attitudes towards and definitions of religion are very different between the States and the UK (meaning that support of a particular label does not mean in the UK what it would mean in the States, and that someone might support teaching of an issue without believing in it), but then I found my remarks on that to be superseded and rendered moot by actually reading in full the citation you gave anyway, as a result of which I posted a different reply.
I suggest you read it.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Actually, that's an extremely poor and mistaken argument to authority.

Is it? We'll see.


The Britannica adjudges works on their coherence and coverage for the time, and for their effect at the time; describing a particular work as "outstanding" does not mean it might not be simply completely false.


No. In that case, it's far more likely that Britannica would refer to such works as "influential".

If you think that there are cases of Britannica labeling a person (or a work) as "outstanding" when all they meant to say was "influential for that period of time", then by all means bring such examples forth, Gurdur. But before you do, you might want to check one of your own examples, below.


Perhaps we copuld look at what the Britannica says on Oswald Spengler or William Morris' religiophilosophical outpourings ?
;)

Sure. Let's do. What you'll find is that your example supports my claim. Britannica on Spengler:


German philosopher whose reputation rests entirely on his influential study Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 2 vol. (1918–22; The Decline of the West), a major contribution to social theory.

After taking his doctorate at the University of Halle (1904), Spengler worked as a schoolmaster until 1911, when he went to live in Munich on a small inheritance and began work on Der Untergang. The first volume, published in 1918, won him immediate acclaim from the general public. The second volume followed in 1922, and a revised edition of the first a year later. From 1919 onward, Spengler tried to turn his reputation to account as a political commentator, but he met with little success.

Der Untergang is a study in the philosophy of history. Spengler contended that because most civilizations must pass through a life cycle, not only can the historian reconstruct the past but he can predict “the spiritual forms, duration, rhythm, meaning and product of the still unaccomplished stages of our Western history.” Unlike Arnold Toynbee, who later held that cultures are usually “apparented” to older cultures, Spengler contended that the spirit of a culture can never be transferred to another culture. He believed that the West had already passed through the creative stage of “culture” into that of reflection and material comfort (“civilization” proper, in his terminology) and that the future could only be a period of irreversible decline. Nor was there any prospect of reversing the process, for civilizations blossomed and decayed like natural organisms, and true rejuvenation was as impossible in the one case as the other.

Spengler's work won scant approval from professional scholars, who were scandalized by his unorthodox methods and contemptuous of his errors of fact. He wasalso criticized by the National Socialist Party, despite some affinity between his political ideas and Nazi dogma, and, after Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, Spengler lived in isolation until his death.

Among his other works, Der Mensch und die Technik (1931; Man and Technics) stands out.


Britannica used "outstanding" on purpose, when referring to White's work. Had they only meant "influential for the time period", then one would expect a characterization like they gave to Spengler's work.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron
......
Britannica used "outstanding" on purpose, when referring to White's work. Had they only meant "influential for the time period", then one would expect a characterization like they gave to Spengler's work.
Actually, no.

Britannica assigns subjects to different scholars; they tend to have slightly different styles. The EB board attempts to have an across-the-board standard of excellence and consistancy, yet differences in phrasing, judgment and style still persist between all the different contributors to the EB.

Making a huge argument on the basis of the word "outstanding" still does not mean that even that particular author thought the work in question error-free.

BTW, still waiting on a reply about your confusion between USA-style-Creationism and UK-style-theistic-evolution.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur

So Sauron is wrong in attributing this letter as a support of Creationism as it is understood in the USA, especially Young-Earth Creationism.
That is nothing more than a completely inaccurate mischaracterization.
The so-called "creationism" Sauron alludes to in this letter would seem to be theistic evolution, not creationism as it is promulgated within the States.


Nonsense, for several reasons:

I never said anything about YEC vs OEC. My point was that Russell supports creationism - any kind of creationism - being taught in public schools in Britain. You seem to think that just becuase it's an old-earth creationism, that somehow that makes Russell's support for that position more respectable, or more palatable in polite society. But neither YEC nor OEC have any scientific standing. So the distinction you're making here (while relevant to a discussion of creationism) doesn't refute my point.

Russell, an avidly religious christian, has (surprise, surprise) published works rehabilitating medieval christianity (surprise, surprise). But if a researcher can support rteaching creationism in public schools - any flavor of creationism - what does that say about his ability to separate his personal agenda from a dispassionate review of the facts?


I'ld say it hasn't been Bede who has been "spanked" here; and given the erroneous, ignorant and mistaken attack on the Open University as well in this thread, maybe we can do without such emptily emotive and inflammatory statements.

So you are saying that the two quotations I provided do not indicate that dissection occurred in Islam? Bede hasn't been able to gainsay that point; would you care to try?

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Actually, no.

Britannica assigns subjects to different scholars; they tend to have slightly different styles. The EB board attempts to have an across-the-board standard of excellence and consistancy, yet differences in phrasing, judgment and style still persist between all the different contributors to the EB.

*sigh*

If you have evidence that they meant *something else* when they used that word, then please bring it forth. But tossing around vague comments like "styles differ, multiple authors, etc." doesn't bear on the specific example here. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the word "outstanding" means exactly what it says.


Making a huge argument on the basis of the word "outstanding" still does not mean that even that particular author thought the work in question error-free.

Strawman, Gurdur. I never said it was "error-free". I offered Britannica to counter Bede's rash characterization:

a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

Were you following the discussion at that point, or did you join it late in the thread?


BTW, still waiting on a reply about your confusion between USA-style-Creationism and UK-style-theistic-evolution.

Go read it.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron

Nonsense, for several reasons:

I never said anything about YEC vs OEC. My point was that Russell supports creationism - any kind of creationism - being taught in public schools in Britain. You seem to think that just becuase it's an old-earth creationism,
Rubbish.
I suggest you take another look at that letter.
Theistic evolution is not the same as OEC as it is understood in the USA, and the stance the signatories seem to be pushing is some kind of theistic evolution.
You merely confuse the issue when you try identifying that implicity with Creationism as it is understood generally here.

Moreover, the signatories seem to be pushing a view well in accordance with science --- that is, the Earth formed as a result of galactic mechanics; their so-called creationism seems to be a Prime Cause kind of thing, and they are pushing for the teaching of religion as well as science in UK schools, not for creationist accounts replacing science.
But neither YEC nor OEC have any scientific standing.
Completely beside the point.
Grasp the distinction between a theistic scientist who acknowledges science in full yet wishes to reconcile that with an eventual Creator, on the one hand,
and Creationism as it is popularly understood OTOH.

This is not even OEC as you understand it in question here.

Your charge has been rendered useless.
:)

Russell, an avidly religious christian, has (surprise, surprise) published works rehabilitating medieval christianity (surprise, surprise). But if a researcher can support rteaching creationism in public schools - any flavor of creationism - what does that say about his ability to separate his personal agenda from a dispassionate review of the facts?Repeating a mischaracterization won't help you.
So you are saying that the two quotations I provided do not indicate that dissection occurred in Islam? Bede hasn't been able to gainsay that point; would you care to try? Naw; while you haven't answered Livius Drusus' question here, I'm merely calling to account the tactics being used.
They have nothing to do with the subject matter, no matter how you've tried it, and merely detract from your position on the actual history involved --- a poistion I mostly agree with.

But it's your mistaken ad hominem's I was tackling.
:)

Oh, BTW, prepared to acknowledge the falsity of your attack on the Open University ?

[Sauron]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Pardon this lurker's interjection, but there's something from one of Sauron's UPenn quotes that's been nagging at me. From this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1151077#post1151077) (emphasis mine):

Because that little "as was common practice" clause rather glaringly supports Bede's point that, well, human dissection was common practice in Christian medieval Europe.

Not really. You're a victim of chronology.

Bede's trying to claim that dissection occurred with regularity in christian europe during the 1300s. Vesalius practiced in the middle of the 1500s - two centuries later. By that time, dissection was more widespread, although still frowned upon. The "common practice" you refer to here was that the teacher would usually not get involved in the dissection, but would instead read Galen to the students while they did the dissection, or merely lecture them as they did the actual work. Where Vesalius broke with "common practice", was by doing the dissections himself.


If you believe this source is to be accurate Sauron, then Vesalius was targeted by the inquisition (and not in a particularly hardcore manner since he got the easy out of pilgrimage instead of the auto da fe) because of his high profile. Otherwise they would have targeted his students and all the other students who had made a common practice out of human dissection.

The point about Vesalius was to counter Bede's claim that we have no examples of anyone being persecuted or prosecuted for performing dissections. Again, since Bede is fond of framing his claims in absolute forms, this claim was easy to falsify.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Rubbish.
I suggest you take another look at that letter.

*sigh* I read it before I posted the link, Gurdur.


Theistic evolution is not the same as OEC as it is understood in the USA, and the stance the signatories seem to be pushing is some kind of theistic evolution.

Whether you call it "theistic evolution" or OEC, it's still the same thing. They are advancing a position for which there is no scientific support -- as a valid topic in public school science calss. And they are doing this because of their religious beliefs.


You merely confuse the issue when you try identifying that implicity with Creationism as it is understood generally here.

Having debated several christians here at my place of work about Hugh Ross' positions, I can tell you that you're wrong. I *fully* understand the difference between YEC and OEC - but that difference doesn't help the situation here. Russell's advocacy of even a Deist OEC curriculum calls into question his objectivity.


Moreover, the signatories seem to be pushing a view well in accordance with science --- that is, the Earth formed as a result of galactic mechanics; their so-called creationism seems to be a Prime Cause kind of thing, and they are pushing for the teaching of religion as well as science in UK schools, not for creationist accounts replacing science.

An elegant restatement, but still OEC. Which, I'll point out again, has no scientific basis.

The fact that they are asking to supplement the existing material with a Deist kind of creationism (as opposed to replacing existing science courses) doesn't really improve your argument, Gurdur. That's just an elegant re-statement of the creationist whine "Why can't we just teach both sides, and let the kids decide?" Which, of course, neatly skirts the question of why nonscience of *any* kind should be allowed into the curriculum in the first place.


Completely beside the point.
Grasp the distinction between [b]a theistic scientist who acknowledges science in full yet wishes to reconcile that with an eventual Creator, on the one hand,
and Creationism as it is popularly understood OTOH.

Gurdur, you seem to think that only a non-American can understand that there is a difference between YEC and OEC. May I suggest that is a conceit that you'd best be rid of?

I've already grasped this distinction - have for years. But it doesn't change the point, nor does it make your argument succeed.


Your charge has been rendered useless.
:)

No, you're just operating under the assumption that I don't grok the difference between OEC and YEC. I do.

[Sauron]

Gurdur
Oh, BTW, prepared to acknowledge the falsity of your attack on the Open University ?

It wasn't an attack. The comparison to DeVry University is spot-on; it fills an analogus position in the UK as DeVry fills here in the USA.

Where I erred was in assuming that the respect level for OU was about the same for DeVry. In the US, DeVry is like a huge community college - not a diploma mill, but also not a prestige university. It's a very important educational outlet for a segment of society, wanting to better themselves.

Obviously, Open University appears to have a significantly higher respect level in the UK. That was my mistake, and I retract any statements that appear to denigrate OU or its staff/students.

[Gurdur]

How about I simply sum up the issues ?


Originally posted by Sauron

Whether you call it "theistic evolution" or OEC, it's still the same thing.
No, it isn't. You insisted that that he was supporting creationism being taught in UK schools.
It turns out that he was in fact wanting religion taught as religion in UK schools ---- a very significant difference in both emphasis and meaning.

Just for your information, I also support the teaching of religion in schools, albeit as comparative and critical --- simply as a field of needful knowledge.

They are advancing a position for which there is no scientific support -- as a valid topic in public school science calss. And they are doing this because of their religious beliefs.
Irrelevant on one count, misleading on the other.
Ethics is also something for which there is no scientific support --- which IMHO should be taught in schools anyway.
As for the question of his religious beliefs being the impetus, re-read the grounding in the letter.
Precisely since science does not answer certain questions, he wants religion done too.
I would agree with him as long as it was comparative, and with a heavy ethics component.
But the main point is, this does not invalidate his historical work, as you tried claiming it did --- and you are playing both a contradictory and a dangerous game with this, as will be detailed below.

I *fully* understand the difference between YEC and OEC - but that difference doesn't help the situation here.
Not paying attention, are you ? I already detailed why your bring OEC as well as YEC into it was irrelevant. Russell's advocacy of even a Deist OEC curriculum calls into question his objectivity.Again, you're playing a dangerous game which can only backfire upon you.
I'll detail why in a moment.

The fact that they are asking to supplement the existing material with a Deist kind of creationism (as opposed to replacing existing science courses) doesn't really improve your argument, Gurdur.
I love the mischaracterizational talent, but hey, they want religion taught as religion in classes (and given the UK and its educational system, it could hardly be anything but comparative in state schools), and they want science taught as science.
Which part of this do you not grasp ?
That's just an elegant re-statement of the creationist whine "Why can't we just teach both sides, and let the kids decide?" Which, of course, neatly skirts the question of why nonscience of *any* kind should be allowed into the curriculum in the first place.One more mischaracterization from you, and also BTW *bang* went Ethics as a curriculum subject.

No, you're just operating under the assumption that I don't grok the difference between OEC and YEC. I do.
No, I'm operating under the assumption you confuse what he is advocating.
:)

Since this has gotten so long as a post already, I will put the rest in a new post.

[Gurdur]

The issues


Sauron, you made an attack on Colin Russell which was simply way over-inflated.

Moreover, the dangerous game you play here can only backfire; allow me to illustrate by changing some quotations from you:

A book titled "The History of Science and Religion" makes one wonder about the agenda of such a book.
---- especially if it's written by someone known to be an atheist ? Or a Buddhist ? Where does this stop ?

Colin Russell is also a director of the "John Ray Initiative" - an attempt to inject christianity into environmentalism,

Colin Russell is an atheist who seeks to inject humanism into enviromentalism

Credibility and objectivity are important. Having a religious axe to grind destroys both.

Credibility and objectivity are important. Having an atheist axe to grind destroys both.

The fact that Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter.

The fact that Richard Dawkins is an avid atheist and a secularist has an immediate bearing upon the question of his objectivity in biological research.

Do you see the problem ?

First you try attacking the academic credentials of Russell as if academic credentials mean something --- which of course I also believe.
(And then you tried that mistaken attack on the OU.)
IOW, academic credentials, science and academic history as the final arbiter.

But then you ignore academic credentials to try a logical fallacy of poisoning the well by claiming Russell's religious beliefs outweigh his academic credentials and work.

All you end up with is saying ultimately you will only accept works from those whose beliefs you agree with.
IOW, the question of the person's beliefs as final arbiter.

You have then undercut science and academia.

Thence to the matter of bringing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on White:
....Bede's rash characterization:

a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

Indeed, Bede didn't substantiate his own attack here as much as I personally would have liked, and it's not something I like --- the lack of substantiation.
However, we're supposed to be better; and quoting EB on characterizing his work as "outstanding" doesn't substantiate your defence of White anywhere near enough either.

Jury still out on that score.
:)


So much for the issues of academic authority.

Now maybe we can actually get to the rival theses being debated in this discussion without all the tiresome ad hominems and logical fallacies of poisoning the well.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
How about I simply sum up the issues ?


Oh, let me.

You believe that this letter advocates teaching religion in religion classes, and science in science classes. Having read other of Russell's comments, I do not believe that is so.

1st case in point:

It is widely accepted on all sides that, far from undermining it, science is deeply indebted to Christianity and has been so from at least the scientific revolution. Recent historical research has uncovered many unexpected links between scientific enterprise and Biblical theology." -*Colin Russell, "Whigs and Professionals, " in Nature, April 26, 1984, p. 777.

2nd case in point:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Russell.html

So what specific values are there in historical perspectives? First, and at the most trivial level, good history of science can correct common inaccuracies. These include the well-known myths of Bruno's "martyrdom" for science and of Galileo's torture.

Here we see Russell trying to deny the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno, and downplay the events in Galileo's life. But Bruno *was* martyred; burned alive, in fact, for his heresies. And while Galileo was not tortured, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for heresy - a clever bait-and-switch.

Russell has all the markings of someone who is trying to have it both ways: presenting the appearance of dispassionate researcher, while simultaneously trying to find whatever reasons he can to rehabilitate the history of christianity in western europe.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron

Oh, let me.
No. How about I remind you of my drawing attention to your ad hominem poisoning-the-well tactics that can only backfire, as I detailed ?
Reply to that ?
You believe that this letter advocates teaching religion in religion classes, and science in science classes.
Most likely. I'ld have to research more, but that seems the most plausible.
Having read other of Russell's comments, I do not believe that is so.

1st case in point:
Gosh. Just does not go one iota towards refuting me.

2nd case in point:......Here we see Russell trying to deny the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno, and downplay the events in Galileo's life. But Bruno *was* martyred; burned alive,
IIRC; a Scientific American article years ago was on this --- and its conclusion was that Giordano Bruno was burnt for witchcraft, not for proto-scientific heresies.

In any case, not important nor relevant. And certainly not refuting my belief as to the desires of Russell.

Russell has all the markings of someone who is trying to have it both ways: presenting the appearance of dispassionate researcher, while simultaneously trying to find whatever reasons he can to rehabilitate the history of christianity in western europe. The art of hidden insinuation.

When will you finally tackle my criticism ?
This is not the Political Discussions forum, and you have made a big show of depending on academic history.
You simply cannot deride a respected academic's works for his religious beliefs, thereby committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well ad hominem, unless you can make a bloody good case --- which you haven't ---- otherwise you might just as well admit you will only accept academic work from those whose beliefs apart from their academic work you accept.

As I detailed above, it cuts both ways.

Should Bede reject the works of Richard Dawkins simply because Dawkins is an overt atheist ?

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
A book titled "The History of Science and Religion" makes one wonder about the agenda of such a book.
---- especially if it's written by someone known to be an atheist ? Or a Buddhist ? Where does this stop ?

Answer: if it were someone with an axe to grind - whatever axe - then anyone using reading that book, or using it as a reference, would be wise to make themselves aware of the author's agenda/axe. So while you and I might not worry too much if an atheist wrote such a book, we would both probably have a little mental "flag" set to remind us that an actively atheist author might:

a. stray too far over the line in his/her zeal; and

b. not be accepted by other debate participants as a respected and reasonably neutral source.

An example would be several of the entries in the Skeptics Bible, which even I can see aren't contradictions. The author(s) of that work went overboard. However, I can cull from the work those particular items that I think are reasonably free from error. I also have to realize going into the debate that presenting the SAB to a theist, however, will probably be a waste of time. So if I want to avoid the charge of selectively picking my sources from only those which agree with me, I'm probably not going to use the SAB as a reference. (Which is good practice anyhow; if a paritcular claim can *only* be found in the SAB, and nowhere else, then that fact alone should be a warning sign that the claim may not be widely accepted. And that's a good reason to not rely on such a claim during a debate.)

Your other examples are all variations of your first one, so I'll delete them. My answer above suffices for them as well.

What I'm saying here about Bede and his use of Russell is that:

(a) for the reasons given in my previous post, Russell has not established his credentials as someone sufficiently professional to keep his faith and agenda separate from his research; and

(b) Bede used Russell to try and support his toxic characterizaton of White: nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty. Yet Bede offered no disclaimer that the source he was relying upon apparently had an agenda.

(c) Therefore, Bede failed to substantiate his toxic accusations against White who, as far as the facts show to date, is a far better historian than Bede gives credit for. Primarily because Bede also cannot separate his faith and agenda from his research.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
No. How about I remind you of my drawing attention to your ad hominem poisoning-the-well tactics that can only backfire, as I detailed ?
Reply to that ?


:rolleyes:
Let's see.


When will you finally tackle my criticism ?
This is not the Political Discussions forum, and you have made a big show of depending on academic history.

Calm down, Gurdur. You allowed yourself two posts to respond to me. Are you now insisting that I respond to you both yours in a single post?

Check my 2nd post.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron
....
What I'm saying here about Bede and his use of Russell is that:

(a) for the reasons given in my previous post, Russell has not established his credentials as someone sufficiently professional to keep his faith and agenda separate from his research; and
Bollocks.
You've simply relied on vague insinuations.
You haven't tackled his central work in the slightest, you've simply attacked him ad hominem --- with extremely poor arguments.

.....Bede failed to substantiate his toxic accusations against White who, as far as the facts show to date,
No, not the facts.

That's the problem --- you have relied too much on backfiring ad hominems and not the facts.
Ýou've failed to give any decent substantiation yourself for your grossly inflated attacks.
All your attacks on Russell himself simply don't work to disprove his work in the slightest --- you haven't given us any critique of his actual work.

I suggest you calm down, take my criticisms, study them, and remember that good history is not a matter of bad polemics. This is not the PD.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Bollocks.
You've simply relied on vague insinuations.

Uh, no. Insinuations not necessary. That's why I included quotations from Russell - to avoid the charge of insinuation.


You haven't tackled his central work in the slightest, you've simply attacked him ad hominem --- with extremely poor arguments.

I don't have to address his central work in detail. My objective was to substantiate my claim that that Russell is quite probably operating in bias. The quotations provide such evidence.

You seem to be confusing the burden of proof here. It is Bede's claim that White is a flawed researcher; it is Bede's claim that has to be proven.


.....Bede failed to substantiate his toxic accusations against White who, as far as the facts show to date,

No, not the facts.

That's the problem --- you have relied too much on backfiring ad hominems and not the facts.

Not at all. Let's do this, by the numbers:

1. Bede claimed White was a worthless historian.
2. I showed him a Britannica quotation stating otherwise.
3. Bede counters with Russell.
4. But Russell has an agenda.

The reference in my column is from Britannica, which no one has shown to be:
(a) inaccurate or
(b) driven by agenda.

Bede's reference appears to be operating from agenda. Given that score, I am "ahead" of Bede -- until such time as he provides a source that is:
(a) accurate as well as
(b) reasonably free from agenda

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron
Uh, no. Insinuations not necessary. That's why I included quotations from Russell - to avoid the charge of insinuation.
uh, yes.
You made insinuations from those quotations, which you even got wrong, to claim Russell wanted Creationism taught in schools.
My objective was to substantiate my claim that that Russell is quite probably operating in bias. The quotations provide such evidence. Your own posts show much deeper bias.
Should I then discount all your factual historical work as well simply because your bias is so glaring ?

(I include Russell's comment on White as part of his academic work. Tackle the facts, not the man, if you want to criticise it).

A pity, since as I said, I agree more with you than Bede.
But ho hum, since you're obviously so biased, obviously I must throw your historical work out the window.

Let's see; basic point made 3 times now clearly. How many more times necessary ?

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Gurdur
uh, yes.
You made insinuations from those quotations, which you even got wrong, to claim Russell wanted Creationism taught in schools.


Nonsense. I took those quotations at face value, and viewed them in the larger framework of Russell's other words and actions. That is why I said:

Russell has all the markings of someone who is trying to have it both ways: presenting the appearance of dispassionate researcher, while simultaneously trying to find whatever reasons he can to rehabilitate the history of christianity in western europe.



Your own posts show much deeper bias.
Should I then discount all your factual historical work as well simply because your bias is so glaring ?

You're free to do whatever you like, Gurdur.


(I include Russell's comment on White as part of his academic work. Tackle the facts, not the man, if you want to criticise it).

So if Duane Gish criticizes Stephen Jay Gould, I should treat that with the same level of respect or seriousness as if Anthony Fauci were to criticize Gould?

In a world filled with documents and sources, the bias and agenda of the person at hand are very relevant in addressing their comments. You seem to pretend otherwise, for some unknown reason.


A pity, since as I said, I agree more with you than Bede.

Oh, yeah. That's *clearly* obvious from this current exchange. :rolleyes:


But ho hum, since you're obviously so biased, obviously I must throw your historical work out the window.

Knock yourself out.


Let's see; basic point made 3 times now clearly. How many more times necessary ?

Pity you're so busy making your point, that you don't realize that I've answered already.

[Bede]

Something more specific on White. The notes, all to academic articles and monographs, can be found in the original article here (http://www.bede.org.uk). These points are in addition to the ones made by Lindberg and Numbers in the article I linked to on the other thread.

His examples of actual prosecution are few and far between which is not very surprising as the only scientist the Christian Church ever prosecuted for scientific ideas per se was Galileo and even here historians doubt that was the major reason he got into trouble. This is an embarrassment for White as he thought that in the Middle Ages especially, the Church was burning freethinkers left, right and centre. The lack of any examples of this at all is a serious problem so he is forced to draft in non-scientists or else to claim that prosecutions on non-scientific matters were scientific persecutions after all. Here are some examples:

+Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.” [NOTE]

+In chapter 2, White informs us “In 1327 Cecco d’Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this [the doctrine of antipodes] and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence.” Cecco D’Ascoli was indeed burnt at the stake in 1327 in Florence. He is the only natural philosopher in the entire Middle Ages to pay this penalty and was executed for breaking parole after a previous trial when he had been convicted of heresy for, apparently, claiming Jesus Christ was subject to the stars. This is not enough for White who claims, entirely without foundation, that Cecco met his fate partly for the scientific view that the antipodes were inhabited as well as dishonestly calling him an ‘astronomer’ rather than an ‘astrologer’ to strengthen his scientific credentials. [NOTE]

+In the same chapter White claims “In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this [the habitation of the antipodes] with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death.” We have no good evidence that d’Abano was under investigation from the inquisition at his death. However, he did gain a posthumous reputation as a sorcerer when spurious works were attributed to him. This may have led to the reports of his bones being dug up and burnt after his death. There is again, no evidence whatsoever that the antipodes debate or science had anything to do with the matter. [NOTE]

+It is hard to confirm some of White’s victims existed at all. “The chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison,” he says in chapter 12 “and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved.” The great historian of science, George Sarton, with a better knowledge of the sources of anyone before or since, says this episode is ‘completely unknown’ to him. [NOTE] Needless to say, White gives no reference.

+Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, is also held up as a martyr to science. White explains in chapter 13 “Vesalius was charged with dissecting a living man, and, either from direct persecution, as the great majority of authors assert, or from indirect influences, as the recent apologists for Philip II admit, he became a wanderer: on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apparently undertaken to atone for his sin, he was shipwrecked, and in the prime of his life and strength he was lost to the world…. His death was hastened, if not caused, by men who conscientiously supposed that he was injuring religion.” The trouble is that hardly a word of this has any basis in historical fact. Vesalius did go on a pilgrimage and was drowned on the way back. But there is no hint he was ever prosecuted and the idea his death was hastened by those who supposed he was injuring religion is simply wrong. [NOTE]

+Discussing the heliocentric system, White goes on “Many minds had received it [the doctrine of Copernicus], but within the hearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it clearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He was hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers with fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned during six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds.” In fact, we do not know the exact reasons Bruno was prosecuted but modern scholars like Frances Yates suggest it was because he was a magus who was trying to start a new neo-Platonic religion. He did believe the earth revolved around the sun but this was purely for religious reasons as he effectively worshipped it. In any case, it was incidental to his fate as were his other pseudo-scientific ideas.

One would like to take the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting that which agrees with his hypothesis while being sceptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. The points given above together with Numbers and Lindberg’s criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White’s work as utterly worthless as history. Draper, with no footnotes or references cannot even claim to give an illusion of scholarship. Colin Russell, in a recent summary of the historiography of the alleged warfare sums up the views of modern scholarship, saying “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”. [NOTE]

To this we must add his mis-charactisation of the Boniface Bull explained by Katharine Park and referenced above.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Sauron

Nonsense. I took those quotations at face value, and viewed them in the larger framework of Russell's other words and actions.
Rubbish. You twisted one (the Creationism accusation), you made crap insinuations from all the rest. Pure ad hominem.
I made a parody of your McCarthy-like insinuations all in blue in my post way above.
See my detailing of your McCarthyist-like tactics there (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=61702&perpage=25&pagenumber=2#post1157233).

Oh, yeah. That's *clearly* obvious from this current exchange
Get it straight.
This is supposed to be an academic discussion forum, not something with agitprop and cheer-squads.
As I've repeatedly said, I am objecting to your agitprop McCarthyist tactics.
So I don't cheer your main thesis along publically enough according to you, so you're whining about that ?
This isn't some Stalinist Party meeting, you know.
:rolleyes:
....Duane Gish criticizes Stephen Jay Gould.....
Agitprop bullshit. Crap insinuation.

Knock yourself out. ....Pity you're so busy making your point, that you don't realize that I've answered already.
More simple rudeness and evasion.

Either acknolwedge that both Toby Huff's and Russell's academic qualifications are more than sufficient, or admit that what you are doing is introducing your own dogmatic