[Buddha-l] it's not about belief -= science & Christian religion

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 18:28 -0500, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, and it simply made the point to Curt that his claims were equally
> > false if his claim was that all Christians oppose science.  I took his
> > mention of Christendom as shorthand for "all Christians."
>
> Never in all my years have I heard the word "Christendom" used in that
> way. The way I was taught (by a well-known Christian theologian and by
> Webster's dictionary) to use the word, it means that part of the world
> that is dominated politically and culturally by formal Christian
> institutions. So while there may be Christians in China, they are not
> part of Christendom. And though I am a Buddhist, I live somewhere in
> Christendom.

Again, Richard, I took Curt's mention of Christendom as shorthand for all
Christians.  Of course this could be conceived as an idiosyncratic usage,
and this concpetion would be based on one's presuppositions.  If one
conceives of Christendom as simply a politico-cultural reality supported
by formal Christian institutions, then I can understand questions and
doubts such as yours.  But if one's supposition is such that one conceives
of Christendom as fundamentally a spiritual reality that supported certain
politico-cultural institutions, then it is not at all a stretch to
conceive of Christendom as synonymous with all Christians.  But wht do I
know?  This usage is one one will find in reading through patristic texts,
both East and West.  The inception of "Christendom" can be argued to
coincide with the first Council of Nicea (325 A.D. or C.E., by the way)
and extend through to the Reformation.

> > Many Church Fathers and later theologian utilized the science of their
> > day in their theologizing, their exegesis, etc.  Basil the Great
> > easily comes to mind, as does Aquinas.  So, even on this count, I
> > judge that Curt's remarks were ultimately specious.
>
> You are now equivocating, as is your wont. The kind of science that Curt
> was talking about was pretty clearly that which is part of the post-
> Enlightenment enterprise, which is quite specialized and should not be
> confused with "science" in the sense of a body of knowledge in general.

As is your wont, you fail to understand that even the sort of science Curt
by your count claims is ultimately a specialized body of knowledge
expressed by a particular methodological habit.  Where the difference lies
is inthe object of knowledge, not the fact that there is a specific body
of knowledge allied thereto.

> Aquinas and other theologians made use of bodies of knowledge such as
> grammar, logic and rhetoric, but they knew absolutely nothing of science
> as we now use the word, but that sort of science did not exist in
> patristic and medieval times. It existed neither in Europe nor in Asia,
> nor even in Africa or New Mexico. Indeed, to this day, it exists in only
> about 10% of the population in continents of darkness such as North
> America.

Well, as long as you are going to make a trivial claim here, I'll oblige
you and gently indicate that you are mistaken in part.  Curt claims that
"Christendom" is an enemy of science.  Absurd.   Aquinas, Albertus
Magnus, Roger Bacon all made use of the science of their day, and this
science was not restricted to applications of philosophy and its proleptic
sciences.  There was an understanding of physics, medicine, and related
matters, regardless of what by today's standards signifies them as very
elementary or inadequate.  The point, then, is that these thinkers, and
many Christian thinkers before them, freely utilized and studied the
sciences of their day, including positive sciences, and that they were
thereby no enemy of any science.  Even if you want to restrictr
"Christendom" to an era prior to the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment,
then it is still absurd to claim, as does Curt, that this Christendom is
an enemy to post-Enlightenment sciences.  How is one an enemy to something
that post dates one's existence?  Finally, what neither you nor Curt
appear to consider is that thingsdo not occur in a vacumn.  Without
Christendom there would be no science as we know it today.  Even in its
revisionism the Enlightenment is a child of Christendom, but to see that
point one will need to understand how the roots of secularism arise
squarely from the effort to reduce the symbolic horizon of religion to
routinized and rationalized forms.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro