The Hole Left by the Freethinking Age

As this blog alternates between prog and prejudice, it's time for another go at the Medieval myths.

Or science fiction writer Mike Flynn's go at "the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages".

Here's a taste.

In general, he projects. His essay appeals to ignorance of the history of science and the scholarship of the past couple of decades, indeed, of any scholarship at all.

He confuses correlation with causation. That a Christian did something does not necessarily mean that he did it because of his Christianity. He recognized this when the deed is a good one, but swallows it whole when the deed was a bad one.

He also claims that Christians are guilty of "non sequiturs" when they write that various famous scientists were believers, commenting correctly that "it doesn't follow that just because a few scientists believed in God that science resulted from it." Then among his "further sources" he includes two links to surveys citing all the scientists who do not believe in God.

But if it is a non sequitur in one direction then, under the gandersauce principle, it is a non sequitur in the other. In either case, it is an invalid appeal to authority.(*) Why should a scientist's beliefs about God matter any more than his beliefs about barbecue sauce or the coining of free silver?

Training in the sciences tends to be narrowly focused and does not usually confer expertise in theology, history, philosophy, or indeed much of anything outside his specialty. (*) It is perfectly valid to appeal to an authority in a field; i.e., to cite an historian on a point of history; a cosmologist on a point of cosmology. This is simply shorthand for research the reader has not the time, inclination, equipment, or expertise to carry out himself.

Inexplicably, Mr. Walker cites (as the bandwagon fallacy) an appeal to "the popular notion that Christianity began modern science." But this is hardly a popular notion. Most people undoubtedly buy into the cultural 'tude that Christianity was hostile to science. However, he does invite by his rhetoric that we all get on the bandwagon of advanced thinking in this regard.

Here is the primary thesis of this counter-essay. Whether or not you believe in someone's God has nothing to do with whether they accomplished anything you consider worthwhile. They may have been perfectly mistaken about God and still kicked off science. But there is a certain kind of "free" thinker who seems bound to the notion that if you disbelieve in a religion then nothing that religion ever did could possibly be any good.

History is never quite this cardboard stereotype of White Hats and Black Hats.

There's a LOT more.

Buridan rides again

As not everyone subscribes to the magazine or has bought web versions of this issue of ANALOG Science Fiction and Fact, it is good news that Michael F. Flynn's short story of alternative medieval history is available here.

It is about nothing less than Quaestiones Super Caelo Et Mundo. Areas that contain far more than most.

God’s Philosophers released!

One of the best books on the alleged warfare between Christendom and Science in Medieval Europe is about to be relased.

Here we have it from the horse's mouth (and I have counted all the teeth):

I am writing to you because you very kindly registered an interest in my book God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science at jameshannam.com. I am delighted to report that the book is being published in the UK by Icon on 6th August. I am not sure about availability in your country but Amazon.co.uk are already sending out copies so if you would like yours as quickly as possible, you can use the link below:

Order God’s Philosophers from Amazon.co.uk

God’s Philosophers celebrates the forgotten achievements of the medieval world. Focusing on the rise of science, it shows how natural philosophers of the Middle Ages laid the foundations of the ‘Scientific Revolution’.

Without the work of medieval scholars, there would have been no Copernicus, no Galileo and no Newton. By emphasising the important positive role of Christianity on medieval science, God’s Philosophers also contributes to the current debate about the relationship between science and religion.

Thank you for your support in registering your interest in God’s Philosophers. I very much hope that you enjoy the book.

Best wishes

James Hannam

Please, use your handy mouse.

Science and religion: a history of conflict?

James Hannam is my man, this time in The Guardian.

As the battle between creationism and evolution heats up, some atheists, like Jerry Coyne, have been insisting that it is really a battle between religion and science. Coyne resists any accommodation between religious and non-religious scientists to defend Darwinism. He doesn't want to see them joining forces against the creationist common enemy in case that legitimises religion. In order for his position to make sense, he needs to show that there is some sort of existential conflict between religion and science. So it is unfortunate for him that the historical record clearly shows that accommodation and even cooperation have been the default positions in the relationship.

I anyone was in doubt about how strong this myth is, the comment section is mandatory.

Science and faith - The Movie

Is is possible to improve this?

Not at all. Not for a nanosecond. Or a millenium.

Long live Bertrand Russell! And James of Hannam.

Death to The Church!

New Scientist denies the fossil record

It is a rare treat these days to see a scientific journal that openly denies the fossil record. It takes a lot of courage and conviction.

So praise then to Jo Marchant in New Scientist for showing that freedom of speech is so cherished that deniers still are allowed to publish in serious magazines even in the Darwin Bicentennial year.

The fossils that comes into play here are of course the strata of sources and eye witnesses from the times in question. One cannot make serious historical claims while ignoring written material and real historians. It is worse than bad science, it is bad manners.

Two examples will suffice.

WHEN Roman civilisation fell in the early centuries AD, the light of scholarship was extinguished. It was close to a thousand years before civilisation recovered, thanks to European scholars who rediscovered classical Greek learning and ushered in the new dawn of the Renaissance.

At least, this is how history is taught. Now two books argue that this view ignores the crucial role of Islamic scholars.

That a long range of books by professional historians like Edward Grant and David Lindberg for decades have shown that the whole outline of history on this "fall" and "recovery" is a myth, is beyond New Scientist.

After this start it is not surprising than New Scientist even denies the dinosaur in the room. The Flat Earth Myth is present in all it's gore.

While the Islamic world was enjoying astronomy, philosophy and medicine, those in Europe could not tell the hours of the day, thought the Earth was flat, and saw disease as punishment from God, says Jonathan Lyons in "The House of Wisdom".

So much the worse for Jonathan Lyons. That a modern scientific magazine perpetuates the myth that European scholars in the middle ages believed to earth to be flat is nothing short than a miracle.

The only hope is to prescribe the normal antidotes, by Russell and Garwood.

Even if it always has been hard to argue against fossil deniers, it may provide some enlightenment.

Though one has some doubts after reading revealing passages like the following.

By the late 12th century, though, the Islamic world was increasingly under threat from Christian armies, and Muslim leaders responded with a return to fundamental religious values. The battle between scientists and theologians was ultimately settled in favour of God. But in Europe, the genie was out of the bottle. The rationalist approach bequeathed by the Arabs "changed forever the landscape of Western thought", says Lyons, and led directly to the scientific revolution.

The reviewer doesn't even begin to get suspicious about the much maligned European society. Why not ask a simple control question on why science in Europe, though allegedly in the clutches of The Church and the Clergy for still many a century, was able to set roots, and have the reasons and resources to grow into modern science?

Not the least as the Arab and Ottoman world had a lot more money and manpower, at least til the 17th century. And the Europeans definitely lost the crusades in precisely the late 12th.

Well, fossils deniers always have had their own peculiar logic.

Weinberg recovers

Russell’s Syndrome (whereby intelligent atheists turn stupid when they talk about religion) may not be incurable after all.

At least if we are to believe Bede's as usual perceptive observations , this time on how Steven Weinberg seems on his way to recovery.

Vesalius vs. the rib

I have for some time looked at the story of the 16th century anatomist Vesalius who allegedly was persecuted for insisting that men did not have one rib fewer that women.

This is ofte connected to the myth that medical science was held back because the church did not allow the dissection of corpses.

In reality dissection was permitted in Medieval Europe - it was other cultures (the Greeks, Romans and Muslims) that forbade it. Galen's authoritative description of anatomy was in stead based on animals anatomy. As did this not quite match human anatomy, doctors long imagined there to be some errors in their own findings (which mostly was done by assistants anyhow), as Galen was too clever to be wrong.

Medical science seems more hold back by a well deserved respect for the genius of Galen, than from any other single factor.

Anyone interested in medieval medicine could do worse than check out Mondino de’ Luzzi (1270-1326) who wrote a textbook on the dissection of corpses. And the illustration above shows a public dissection in the 1300's.

What about Vesalius and the rib?

The story is told like this by the notorious mythmaker A.E. White in his book on the "Warfare" between science and theology:

"Still other enroachments upon the theological view were made by the new school of anatomists, and especially by Vesalius. During the Middle Ages there had been developed various theological doctrines regarding the human body; these were based upon arguments showing what the body, ought to be, and naturally, when anatomical science showed what it is, these doctrines fell. An example of such popular theological reasoning is seen in a widespread belief of the twelfth century, that, during the year in which the cross of Christ was captured by Saladin, children, instead of having thirty or thirty-two teeth as before, had twenty or twenty-two. So, too, in Vesalius's time another doctrine of this sort was dominant: it had long been held that Eve, having been made by the Almighty from a rib taken out of Adam's side, there must be one rib fewer on one side of every man than on the other. This creation of Eve was a favourite subject with sculptors and painters, from Giotto, who carved it upon his beautiful Campanile at Florence, to the illuminators of missals, and even to those who illustrated Bibles and religious books in the first years after the invention of printing; but Vesalius and the anatomists who followed him put an end among thoughtful men to this belief in the missing rib, and in doing this dealt a blow at much else in the sacred theory. Naturally, all these considerations brought the forces of ecclesiasticism against the innovators in anatomy."

The story is given more twists in a page about P. I. Nixon Medical Historical Library's most valuable book:

"Prior to Pope Sixtus IV's decision at the end of the fifteenth century authorizing human dissection for scientific purposes, "to touch with a scalpel the dead 'image of God' was reckoned impious theology." Sixtus' decree opened the stage for experimentation. As professor of anatomy, Vesalius enjoyed an international reputation that drew huge crowds to the lecture halls. Instead of hiring assistants to handle the cadavers, as was customary in his time, Vesalius personally demonstrated all dissections. He was an irrepressible showman, whose classes were as riveting as theatrical productions."

"With characteristic vigor, Vesalius probed into traditionally held beliefs and, like Galileo, engaged in a lifelong struggle against the established authority. In the "Adam's Rib Controversy" Vesalius contested Church doctrine by proving that the male and the female of the species have an equal number of ribs. He also disputed the "indestructible bone" theory, which had stated that after death, human beings are left with one bone from which a new body is formed at the Resurrection. Under pressure from the Catholic Church, Vesalius finally left Italy to become medical advisor to the kings of Spain, Charles V and Philip II, but his spirit was broken."

Some also insist for some peculiar reason that it instead was the Hellenistic Galen who hold the view (and not the Church based on the Bible

):"Vesalius also disproved the Galen theory that men had a rib less than women and Aristotle's theory that the heart was the body's centre of mind and emotion believing instead that it was the brain and the nervous system."

At one place we are told that

"Another scientist of the renaissance was Vesalius, who was an expert in dissection. He found hundreds of mistakes in the accepted book on anatomy, written by Galen in the second centuryi Apparently Galen had used animals to develop his human anatomy book, while Vesalius used human cadavers. Vesalius, new book on anatomy was denounced by leading teachers, with one scientist proclaiming that he would rather stick with Galen and be wrong than change and be right!

Vesalius was proclaimed a heretic because he could not find certain bones required by the orthodox religion of his day. None of his cadavers had a missing rib, which Adam had supposedly passed on to all of his male descendants, and the "resurrection bone" could not be located, a legendary bone which was supposed to start the restoration of the body at the resurrection. He also failed to locate the soul in the bodies he examined. Discouraged, he destroyed his notes and wasted the rest of his life, but his early book on anatomy was as revolutionary as the work of Copernicus."

Now, it is in fact true that Vesalius writes about the rib:

"It is commonly believed that men lack a rib on one side, and that men have one rib fewer than women. This is plainly absurd, even if Moses did say in the second chapter of Genesis that Eve was created by God out of Adam's rib. Granted that perhaps Adam's bones, had someone articulated them into a skeleton, might have lacked a rib on one side, it does not necessarily follow on that account that all men are lacking a rib as well. Aristotle attributed only eight ribs to humans, and was ready to allow that certain members of the race of the Turduli were born with only seven ribs on each side, provided he established this on the actual testimony of some suitable authority. But as in the latter instance Aristotle was willing to support his opinion only with the testimony of others, it is also not unlikely that in the former instance he ascribed eight ribs to man on hearsay evidence, and in this manner wrongly handed down to us something he had not seen. For if we discover that he was suppositious so many times concerning the fabric of man, what judgement shall we make about the rest of his research into animals?" (The Humani Corporis Fabrica, Bk. I Chapter 19)

However, what he says is that it is "commonly believed", not that most doctors believed it, or that the church had made some kind of doctrine out of it.

And there is in fact little trace of him being persecuted by the Inquisition or anyone else. The story seems in short rather unsupported.

What then is the real story here?

No doubt it may have been a common belief (among at least uneducated people) that Adam had one rib less. Popular prejudices is hard to avoid. However, I can't find any documentation of the Church or Galen really holding or teaching this. Vesalius's book never even was on the Index of books one should not read.

My tentative conclusion then, is that this is another myth. However, if anyone does know more about this, feel free to dissect my rib case.

Science and Religion

For those interested, here is a link to an interesting debate on Victor Reppert's site, about an argument propagated by John Loftus (a former Christian and now one of the most active anti-Christian "debunkers" on the net) about the size of the universe as speaking against Christianity.

I mean the stuff e.g. Thomas Chalmers debugged in the early 1800's (A series of discourses on the Christian revelation viewed in connection with the modern astronomy (1817)) and C.S. Lewis about fifty years ago (The Discarded Image - An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature). Not really new arguments, nor very good. A bit telling to use them, one might say.

Still, evaluating such a debate is sometimes difficult. However, as John from time to time is building and strenghtening his case by myths, it is easy to conclude that science sometimes really is threatened by faith. In this case John's.

One particularly telling allegation from his side is that

Christianity slowed the progress of science down or tried to stop it dead in its tracks every single hard-earned step of the way.

The question then is how long Loftus's variant of atheism will slow the progress of the Historical Sciences.

Anyone interested might do worse than check this article on some aspects of it. Or, if you are Norwegian inclined, my two chapters in the book "Tro og vitenskap - Sammenheng eller Sammenstøt" ("Faith and Science - Connection or Conflict?".

As a mostly finished chapter on the size of the universe, the aliens debate and Christianity, was dropped from my recent book on Dawkins and the New Atheists (again in Norwegian, alas (especially for my bank account)), it may surface somewhere later this year.

Medievalists and movies

Before leaving for some major snow shuffling this weekend (one of the perils of having a family with a cabin in the mountains), a nod to Claw of the Councilator who made me aware of a Medievalist's take on Kingdom of Heaven.

Yesterdays' news in more senses than one, still rather hillarious.

We know Guy is a bad person, because he's rude and French and talks about God a lot. In fact, anytime anyone talks about God a lot in the movie, they're bad. Orlando, who is struggling with religious doubt brought on by the death of his wife and child, is good, but not really very good at making you understand that he's struggling with religious doubt unless he says outright, "I'm struggling with religious doubt," but he does say it, so don't worry. Then his dad dies, and they all decide to go see his lands in Jerusalem.

It gets worse.

Let me sum it up like this: arrows, fire, and heroic speeches. For any scene, pick two of the three elements and mix them together. Every time there's a heroic speech, the movie grinds to a halt, because Orlando, God bless him, can't summon up masculine swagger to save his perfectly tousled head. It's like watching a kitten dressed up like George C. Scott's Patton. Sure, the big flag is behind him, but everything he says falls flat--especially the part where he tells the defenders of Jerusalem that their holy sites don't matter and that all religions are essentially crap. I think perhaps crusaders, even reluctant ones who are only there because they killed a priest who insulted their dead suicide wives, probably didn't shout those things to big mobs with weapons, even if they might have secretly believed them. Call me crazy.

This is the big problem with the movie, and it only gets worse when the Archbishop of Jerusalem instructs people, fearing they're all about to be captured, to 'covert to the heathen faith and repent later'. This is supposed to show that he's a craven fake, but not five minutes ago when Orlando was telling us, 'all religions are bunk,' we were supposed to see him as a champion of "the people" and a crack theological thinker.

Though, as we all know, the movie is not about the Crusades at all. It is Ridley Scott's take on politics in the 21th Century.

And what does a Medievalist know about such matters?

Please sign up!

One of the most interesting blogs around is Bede's Journal, dealing mostly in fields combining History, Science and Philosophy/Religion.

It is run by James Hannam, a historian who has a PhD on the history of medieval science at the University of Cambridge, from 2007. At the moment he is looking for a publisher for his book on this, a rather difficult task if you're not a known name.

Here is a favour James asked for in his latest blog message:

I hope regular readers will forgive me for once again asking, please could anyone who follows my writing sign up their email at my book's website where I am trying to gather enough people to interest publishers in my book on medieval science. Registering here creates no obligation on your part. The list will only be used to try to convince publishers that there is a market for my work. You will not be sent any emails apart from one confirming your registration and another when the book is published.

Getting published in non-fiction is almost impossible unless you are already either a journalist, a publisher, a celebrity or a senior academic. The quality of the book has almost nothing to do with it. Almost all popular history is written by journalists and the genre suffers seriously as a result. So, by signing up on my list you will also be helping to strike a blow for history to be written by historians rather than amateurs with the right friends. Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.

Take care to sign up.

I, for one, am too curious about this book to let it go unpublished. So don't disappoint me!