“Your original "observation" was garbage, as anyone with a grasp of the history of the period above your children's picture book level could tell you. Here's your original "observation":
""He probably caught flack for suggesting a scientific origin to the universe and therefore showed great courage. "
This is complete nonsense, as I then explained to you. Contrary to your comic book level understanding of the period, suggesting a scientific origin to the universe was entirely in keeping with medieval thought at the time and was not considered a threat by the Church in any way. When you claimed this wasn't the case, I challenged you to back up your claim by producing just ONE example of ANYONE who was persecuted by the Church in this period for scientific inquiry. You then tried to twist that into me saying no-one was every persecuted by the Church for anything, which anyone could see was a pathetic gambit and an admission you had lost the debate right there.
So I'm in a "haze of delusion" am I? Do you honestly think anyone is fooled by you waving stupid phrases around like that? Or are you under the impression that winning a debate like this consists of using terms such as "haze of delusion" like magical incantations and if you say them enough eventually I will go away and stop kicking you?
I won't. You've failed here. Go away.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 4, 2014 at 19:08:24
“I don't read your posts because I am on a quest for knowledge.”
“I must say I find people like you who loudly declare victory when it is clear to anyone following the discussion that they have been savagely beaten both amusing and completely puzzling. Do you really think you're fooling anyone? Over and over again I gave you the chance to back up your claims that people were persecuted by the inquisition between 1186-1231 for anything to do with science or the rational examination of the physical world and over and over again you failed to do so.
Yet somehow you're the winner here? Insane. But it seems your main need is to get in the last word. So feel free to do so now and confirm to the world that you are *that* kind of internet pseudo warrior.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 4, 2014 at 17:25:19
“I was merely making an observation. I'm satisfied that my argument was valid and have no interest in pulling you out of your haze of delusion.”
“"You will never get any fans by making responses and not putting your agenda out there."
I don't care about "fans", though they seem to mean a great deal to your self-esteem. We could ponder why. I also don't have any "agenda" other than accurate history as opposed to ignorant ranting.
"Anybody can gossip about ancient history, you were not there and your "opinion" is no more valid than mine."
Ummm, there is this thing called "the historical method" used by people called "historians". It's a way of making sure some "opinions" on history have more validity than others. It's based on this thing called "evidence" - something you have spectacularly failed to provide when challenged to back up your rants about science being oppressed in the Middle Ages.
But it seems that having the last word is very important to you, perhaps even more important than having "fans" and your super amazing abilities in science. So go ahead and have the last word and then run along and leave the grown ups to their adult conversations.”
“"Both of the latter, you see, were actually arrested and imprisoned for their scientific work (sound familiar?)"
More fantasy pseudo history from this guy. This claim is total garbage.
"Grosseteste was a powerful bishop who never wrote anything which would've been controversial either in the 13th century or in a creationist church today."
Really? Given that Grosseteste was not a Biblical literalist, explain how warmly he would be treated by Creationists again.
"the apologists who keep trying to tell us how great the Middle Ages were and how all these stories about how science was persecuted aren't true."
Do you mean "apologists" like Ronald Numbers, agnostic, Sarton Medal winner 2008, former Isis editor and Hilldale and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison? Or Edward Grant, Sarton Medal winner 1992 and Grant is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University, Bloomington? Or perhaps David C. Lindberg, Sarton Medal winner 1999, former president of the History of Science Society and Hilldale Professor Emeritus of History of Science and Past Director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison?
If these pre-eminent and acclaimed experts in the history of early science are merely "apologists", would you care to name the leading historians of science who disagree with them and who detail how science was persecuted in the Middle Ages after all? Please cite their work in detail, with full references.
“Riight. So everyone was just PRETENDING to believe in God. And you just know this because magic/reasons/hand waving.
"Let's just say that even compared to others of his time, Grosseteste was particularly CONVINCING in his theism."
Oh, we'll just "say" that will we? No need for any, like, you know, evidence or anything. If you just "say" that and wave your hands around and make squeaking noises that will make perfect sense? Marvellous. Great to see a rational mind at work.
"Should I just assume you've never read anything by Grosseteste?"
"Should I just assume you can't read Latin? "
Any other irrational assumptions you would like to make while you're veering off into weird non sequiturs? This is rationalism in action, is it? Amazing.”
“Occam was excommunicated in a theological dispute over the interpretation of the Rule of St Francis between the Spiritual faction of the Franciscans and Pope John XXII and you are using this as evidence the Church persecuted people over science? Fail. Try again.
And Bacon? "The assertion that Bacon was imprisoned (allegedly by the head of his own Franciscan order) ﬁrst originates some eighty years after his death and has drawn skepticism on these grounds alone. Scholars who ﬁnd this assertion plausible connect it with Bacon's attraction to contemporary prophecies that have nothing to do with Bacon's scientiﬁc, mathematical, or philosophical writings." (p.21). Chapter 2, by Michael H. Shank in Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009). Fail. Try again.”
TheWM on Apr 4, 2014 at 11:31:26
“No, I won't try again. Sorry to have wasted your time.”
“Hey he knows lots about astrophysics, quantum mechanics and cosmology bro! So that means he doesn't have to have any grasp of history - everything he says is automatically right! It's like a super power he has.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 7, 2014 at 16:29:54
“Dude! I try to never start things, but when provoked, I finish everything. You are going to need some new vocabulary to compete in this arena.”
“Yep. As an atheist it's deeply depressing how some other atheists cling to outdated children's picture book images of the past simply because it fits their irrational prejudices. Just like ... fundamentalists do.”
“Perhaps your five new pals can help you meet my challenge and come up with a single early scientist from this period who was bothered by the Church in any way for examining the cosmos using reason. If the Church did this, why can't you give me an example?”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 4, 2014 at 14:56:21
“Don't worry about my popularity. You will never get any fans by making responses and not putting your agenda out there.
Come to the science forum? Come onto my turf and see how well you fare with subject matter that requires acumen, intellect, research, insight and perspective.
Anybody can gossip about ancient history, you were not there and your "opinion" is no more valid than mine.
Come to the science forum? Let's see if your weak arguments will withstand the scrutiny of objective facts.”
“"ou refuse to acknowledge any of the ills of the past and claim that everything is a myth."
My challenge to you was very clear - it was about the medieval Church persecuting anyone at all for examining the physical world via reason. The fact that you keep trying to change the subject should indcate that you can't meet that challenge.
"The next thing that one can expect from you is a statement that Jews were not executed in concentration camps. "
Go look up Godwin's Law. So, you've got nothing, right?”
“I was giving you a broader period to make it easier for you. But okay - give me an example from around 1225 then. Or just from Grosseteste's lifetime. But it might be time for you to stop stalling and put up or shut up.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 17:42:50
“Dude! I've grown tired of your silly games. I stated that the period that the guy lived was one of persecution.
You said it was not.
I countered your ill advised notion with the realization that this was the same timing as the oppressive times of all...The inquisition.
The debate is over, I have proved my point and I'm done with you. You are not that interesting anyway.”
“You certainly seem very keen to shut me up. I'm a historian. So I'm interested in history. I've challenged you to back up your claims by producing examples from Grosseteste's period of anyone being persecuted for heresy because they used reason to examine the physical world. How about instead of trying to silence me you put up or shut up.”
TheWM on Apr 4, 2014 at 10:37:48
“Leave that little one alone! Pick on someone your own size! How about Roger Bacon and William of Occam? Both were imprisoned, and Occam was actually excommunicated. Both when they were old men, by the way.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 17:44:17
“On the contrary, you can speak all that you like. You won't be speaking to me because you have nothing to offer.”
“"What about the inquisition that occurred between the period 1184 - 1230?"
Give me one example of the inquisition investigating or persecuting anyone for doing science between 1184 and 1230. Good luck.
"Please don't try to suggest that your "church" did not persecute so called heretics during this period."
It's not MY Church - stop jumping to irrational conclusions. And yes, they did persecute "heretics". It's just that using reason to examine the physical world was not heresy. Try to focus. If you think I'm wrong - prove it. Find me those examples as I've challenged above. Over to you - details please.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 18:00:31
Make that 5 new fans to your ZERO.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 17:58:56
“Here's a hint, you can't answer a question with a question!”
“Yes, I was using his article in the *Journal of Medieval History* on malaria just a few weeks ago and I've read a couple of his other papers on Anselm of Canterbury. Nothing in any of them expressed any "God-botherer" sentiments, though it would be very odd for an academic to do so in articles in a historical journal anyway. Thus my question. Perhaps you could give more details as to how you came to this conclusion and exactly what he said in which of those papers led you to it. Over to you.
And why is the fact that Grosseteste was a theist, like everyone else in his time, relevant here anyway?”
TheWM on Apr 4, 2014 at 10:34:30
“Not everyone in 13th-century western Europe was a theist; rather, everyone from the mid 5th century until a good thousand years later who wrote for publication either was a theist or convincingly pretended to be one, so as not to be tortured and then burned alive. From the 16th to the 18th centuries you could sometimes get away with somewhat less convincing pretense, and then, BAM! Where did all those atheists come from all of a sudden? (Where indeed?)
Let's just say that even compared to others of his time, Grosseteste was particularly CONVINCING in his theism. Should I just assume you've never read anything by Grosseteste? Should I just assume you can't read Latin?”
MW81 on Apr 3, 2014 at 20:52:08
“Because dogmatic atheists see science as Truth, and want atheism alone to own science. All theistic scientists therefore must be discredited.”
“"Your "god" worship has a huge record of oppression ... "
MY God worship? I'm an atheist. Try not assume things.
"To suggest that people were not persecuted, threatened, harassed and sometimes killed if they dared to challenge "god" worship in ancient times ... "
THat's nice. But as I explained to you, examining the physical world via reason wasn't considered "challenging God worship" in Grosseteste's time. Try this - find me anyone who was persecuted or killed for using reason to examine the physical world in the later Middle Ages (asy 1000-1500 AD). Good luck.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 16:20:17
“Don't try to change the epoch. This article is about a guy who lived in 1225. That is smack dab at the culmination of the inquisition period.”
“No, he was revered and honoured. The idea that anyone in the Middle Ages who used reason to examine the universe and didn't accept the Bible as literally true rather than symbolic when it came to cosmology etc is simply false and is based on a cartoonish understanding of the period.”
“Ummm, no in ancient cosmology the "sky" referred to the lowest sub-lunar level of the celestial sphere, not the whole cosmos. Note the connection between "this sky and rotund earth" - ie what we can see immediately and locally around us. The idea of a potential multiplicity of worlds was, as I said, a commonplace well before Lucretius and well known in Grosseteste's time. This article is talking about something else - not multiple worlds within this cosmos but a potential for other cosmoses. A much more radical idea.”
“GIven that Giles Gasper is a historian of the Middle Ages with a string of papers on things like medieval monetary policy and numismatics, medieval medicine and the philosophy of the twelfth century, where are you getting the idea that he is a "God-botherer in the extreme"?”
TheWM on Apr 3, 2014 at 14:20:43
“I got it from reading some of those papers. Have you read any of Gasper's work? Or do you just assume that anything said by anyone with a PhD is unassailable?”
“"He probably caught flack for suggesting a scientific origin to the universe and therefore showed great courage. "
Ummm, no - he was revered and respected as a great scholar. Your assumption that he would "cop some flack" for examining the universe using reason completely misunderstands the Medieval period. They believed the cosmos was the rational product of a rational God that could and should be examined rationally. These were smart guys who had read their Greek science and applied it within a framework of a created universe (as most of the Greeks did as well, so this wasn't hard). But they didn't believe the Bible was literally true and when it came to the make up of the physical world, they tended to assume it was purely symbolic. This left a lot of room for speculation about the purely physical nature of the universe. The idea that the Church burned anyone who engaged in that kind of speculation at the stake is pure nonsense, though it is based on the cartoonish grasp of the Middle Ages that most people simply assume. Anyone who has studied the period knows how wrong those clichés are, though they are deeply embedded in many people's prejudices.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 15:43:28
“What about the inquisition that occurred between the period 1184 - 1230?
Please don't try to suggest that your "church" did not persecute so called heretics during this period.
You may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the delusional, but just because you say it did not happen does not make that a valid argument.”
Carlitos1327 on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:27:01
“To suggest that people were not persecuted, threatened, harassed and sometimes killed if they dared to challenge "god" worship in ancient times is "heresy" by todays standard.
Your "god" worship has a huge record of oppression throughout the years. Many of the early scholars and scientists walked on pins and needles because their work challenged or contradicted the religious tenets of the day.
Even today we have Ken Ham and his cult of creationists suggesting that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans and this depiction of "science" should be taught in our schools.
You can attempt to rewrite history but not on my watch!”