Reflectorites
On Sun, 7 May 2000 18:24:05 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>[As more
>>animals are trained to perform impressive feats, the achievements of chimps
>> may not seem so special? The article also discusses suffering and emotions in
>>animals.]
RW>As usual, anyone interested in any of the articles mentioned by Stephen
>would be well advised to read the originals [...]
I agree completely that everyone should read the originals. That's why I
include the URL to help them to do it.
RW>Here Stephen conveniently omitted the following paragraphs:
>
>"They seemed to rate their chances somewhat better if the stranger was
>beaten by the dominant flockmate, and braved an attack on it in half the
>cases. Such "cleverness" comes as no surprise given the notorious pecking
>order among chickens, and the injuries they inflict. It shows how mental
>abilities are specific to a species's needs and evolutionary history."
>
>I can see why this reference to evolutionary history wouldn't suit Stephen.
I have no problem with the above at all, since I accept common descent. I
originally had the above in (including the bit before it that Richard seems to
have " conveniently omitted"):
"Hens, it seems, recognise when their chicks eat the wrong thing, and
intensely peck and scratch at better foods to demonstrate correct conduct.
They are also, she says, "rather good at picking up new behaviours by
watching each other". Possibly their most sophisticated recorded feat is
estimating the chance of winning a fight with a stranger by watching it spar
with a flockmate. In a study by Michsle Hogue and colleagues in Quebec,
hens watched a dominant flockmate lose a fight with a stranger.
Afterwards, they never challenged that stranger when given the chance. ..."
but the whole post was too long, so I edited it out in my final cut.
RW>"These examples of chicken intelligence may not be on a par with guide dogs
>finding novel routes home, or communication among dolphins. They do suggest
>that chickens are not entirely witless - but wits are a separate issue from
>suffering."
>
>The first sentence tends to undermine Stephen's [...] implication that
>the feats of chickens are comparable to those of chimps [...]
Actually it doesn't. It says " These examples of chicken intelligence MAY
not be on a par with guide dogs..." (emphasis added). And my *tentative*
(note the question mark) point was "As more animals are trained to
perform impressive feats, the achievements of chimps MAY not seem so
special?" (my emphasis).
RW>Stephen, I appreciate your links to interesting articles, but why don't you
>save yourself the trouble of editing them and just provide the links?
[...]
I thank Richard for his concern for my welfare. ;-) But there are other
people on the Reflector apart from him, and they in the past have written
both publicly and privately saying they *like* the extracts I post and even
my comments (proof that there's no accounting for taste!). :-)
This is a good time to point out again to those of my critics who don't like
my style, to stop wasting theirs, mine and everybody's time complaining
about it and trying to get me to change it to something that suits *them*,
because I am not going to. If they don't like my posts, the solution
is simple: filter them out out unread or delete them on sight!
On Mon, 08 May 2000 14:51:12 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
SB>SJ>THIS HAS MADE DATING EASTER A SOURCE OF CONTENTION, CONFUSION AND EVEN
>>BLOODSHED FOR TWO MILLENIA, BUT IT BENEFITED SCIENCE. The efforts to
>>predict the festival stimulated science during the Dark Ages and
>>paved the way for modern astronomy. ... [Leaving aside the misnomer "Dark
>>Ages", this is another example of the crucial role that Christianity
>>played in the development of modern science.]
>
>The sentence above in all caps was excised by Stephen. I thought it would
>be fun to restore it. :-) The Dark Ages
First, Susan needs to update her history (or rather atheist mythology).
There were no "Dark Ages". It was a pejorative term invented through
ignorance:
"Dark Ages. the early medieval period of western European history.
Specifically, the term refers to the time (476-800) when there was no
Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the
period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent
warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by
historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes
taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about
the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of
intellectual darkness and barbarity. See Middle Ages." ("Dark Ages",
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,29246+1,00.html).
As Chesterton points out, the so called "dark ages" were caused by
the vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire, and it was
Christianity which preserved learning and brought the world out of
it:
"I take in order the next instance offered: the idea that Christianity
belongs to the dark ages. Here I did not satisfy myself with reading
modern generalizations; I read a little history. And in history I found
that Christianity, so far from belonging to the dark ages, was the one
path across the dark ages that was not dark. It was a shining bridge
connecting two shining civilisations. If anyone says that the faith arose
in ignorance and savagery the answer is simple: it didn't. It arose in the
Mediterranean civilization in the full summer of the Roman Empire.
The world was swarming with sceptics, and pantheism was as plain as
the sun, when Constantine nailed the cross to the mast. It is perfectly
true that afterwards the ship sank; but it is far more extraordinary that
the ship came up again: repainted and glittering, with the cross still at
the top. This is the amazing thing the religion did: it turned a sunken
ship into a submarine. The ark lived under the load of waters; after
being buried under the debris of dynasties and clans, we arose and
remembered Rome. If our faith had been a mere fad of the fading
empire, fad would have followed fad in the twilight, and if the
civilisation ever re-emerged (and many such have never re-emerged) it
would have been under some new barbaric flag. But the Christian
Church was the last life of the old society and was also the first life of
the new. she took the people who were forgetting how to make an arch
and she taught them to invent the Gothic arch. In a word, the most
absurd thing that could be said of the Church is the thing we have all
heard said of it. How can we say that the Church wishes to bring us
back into the Dark Ages? The Church was the only thing that ever
brought us out of them." (Chesterton G.K., "Orthodoxy", 1961,
reprint, p.146).
SB>was *caused* by Christianity
>smashing, burning, and suppressing "pagan" knowledge.
Second, while the combination of Christianity *and politics*, then as now
produced "smashing, burning, and suppressing "pagan" knowledge" the
atheists Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tsetung, and Pol Pot have far and away done
more of this than the Church has ever done. These atheists executed many
tens of *millions* (probably hundreds of millions in total) while the
worst example of Christianity and State power only executed
*thousands* (and at most probably only tens of thousands):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,43442+1+42485,00.html
Friday, May 12, 2000
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Inquisition
in Roman Catholicism, a papal judicial institution that combatted heresy
and such things as alchemy, witchcraft, and sorcery and wielded
considerable power in medieval and early modern times. The name is
derived from the Latin verb inquiro ("inquire into"), which emphasizes the
fact that the inquisitors did not wait for complaints but sought out heretics
and other offenders.
After the Roman Church had consolidated its power in the early Middle
Ages, heretics came to be looked upon as enemies of society. With the
appearance of large-scale heresies in the 11th and 12th centuries--notably
among the Cathari and Waldenses--Pope Gregory IX in 1231 instituted the
papal Inquisition for the apprehension and trial of heretics.
The inquisitorial procedure was quite detailed; but, in general terms, it gave
a person suspected of heresy time to confess and absolve himself, and,
failing this, the accused was haled before the inquisitor and interrogated
and tried, with the testimony of witnesses. The use of torture to obtain
confessions and the names of other heretics was at first rejected but was
authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV. On admission or conviction of guilt, a
person could be sentenced publicly to any of a wide variety of penalties,
ranging from simple prayer and fasting to confiscation of property and
imprisonment, even life imprisonment. Condemned heretics who refused to
recant, as well as those who relapsed after condemnation and repentance,
were turned over to the secular arm, which alone could impose the death
penalty.
The medieval Inquisition functioned only in a limited way in northern
Europe; it was most employed in northern Italy and southern France.
During the Reconquista in Spain, the Catholic powers used it only
occasionally; but, after the Muslims had been driven out, the Catholic
monarchs of Aragon and Castile determined to enforce religious and
political unity and requested a special institution to combat apostate former
Jews and Muslims as well as such heretics as the Alumbrados. Thus in
1478 Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition.
The first Spanish inquisitors, operating in Seville, proved so severe that
Sixtus IV had to interfere. But the Spanish crown now had in its possession
a weapon too precious to give up, and the efforts of the Pope to limit the
powers of the Inquisition were without avail. In 1483 he was induced to
authorize the naming by the Spanish government of a grand inquisitor for
Castile, and during the same year Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia were
placed under the power of the Inquisition. The first grand inquisitor was
the Dominican TomAs de Torquemada, who has become the symbol of the
inquisitor who uses torture and confiscation to terrorize his victims. The
number of burnings at the stake during his tenure has been exaggerated, but
it was probably about 2,000.
In general, the procedure of the Spanish Inquisition was much like the
medieval Inquisition. The auto-da-fe, the public ceremony at which
sentences were pronounced, became an elaborate celebration. Under the
inquisitor general and his supreme council were 14 local tribunals in Spain
and several in the colonies, including those in Mexico and Peru. The
Spanish Inquisition was introduced into Sicily in 1517, but efforts to set it
up in Naples and Milan failed. The emperor Charles V in 1522 introduced
it into the Netherlands, where its efforts to wipe out Protestantism were
unsuccessful. The Inquisition in Spain was suppressed by Joseph Bonaparte
in 1808, restored by Ferdinand VII in 1814, suppressed in 1820, restored in
1823, and finally suppressed in 1834.
A third variety of the Inquisition was the Roman Inquisition, established in
1542 by Pope Paul III to combat Protestantism. It was governed by a
commission of six cardinals, the Congregation of the Inquisition, which
was thoroughly independent and much freer from episcopal control than
the medieval Inquisition had been. Its establishment has been seen by some
as an attempt to counterbalance the severe Spanish Inquisition at a time
when a great part of Italy was under Spanish rule.
Under Paul III (1534-49) and Julius III (1550-55), the action of the Roman
Inquisition was not rigorous, and Julius ruled that, although the tribunal
had general authority, its action should be limited especially to Italy. The
moderation of these popes was imitated by their successors with the
exceptions of Paul IV (1555-59) and Pius V (1566-72). Under Paul IV the
Inquisition functioned in such a way that it alienated nearly all parties.
Although Pius V (a Dominican and himself formerly grand inquisitor)
avoided the worst excesses of Paul IV, he nevertheless declared at the
beginning of his reign that questions of faith took precedence over all other
business and made it clear that his first care would be to see that heresy,
false doctrine, and error were suppressed. He took part in many of the
activities of the Inquisition.
After Protestantism had been eliminated as a serious danger to Italian
religious unity, the Roman Inquisition became more and more an ordinary
organ of papal government concerned with maintaining good order and
good customs as well as purity of faith among Catholics. In his
reorganization of the Roman Curia in 1908, Pius X dropped the word
Inquisition, and the congregation charged with maintaining purity of faith
came to be known officially as the Holy Office. In 1965 Pope Paul VI
reorganized the congregation along more democratic lines and renamed it
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
[...]
(c) 1999-2000 Britannica.com Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now only *one* executed by the Christian church is one too many, but
it is grossly inconsistent by atheists to point to the thousands
executed by the Church when it held political power, to the *millions*
executed by atheists when they held (and now hold) power.
SB>If a thief takes
>everything you've got and later gives back $5, I think you don't have to
>shake is hand for it! Christianity prevented the development of modern
>science every chance it got. Yes, the search for the exact Easter may have
>kept astronomy alive, but the scientsts kept all other observations a
>secret in order to keep *themselves* alive.
I would like to see Susan's quote from even *one* modern historian who
claims that "Christianity prevented the development of modern science
every chance it got".
The fact is that modern science only ever arose *once* in human history,
and that was in Christian Europe, and as the atheist evolutionist Loren
Eiseley (and many others) have pointed out, it was due precisely because
Christianity with its doctrine of a rational Creator, believed that the
universe was ultimately rational and man's mind was made in the image
of that Creator to understand His designs:
"Although we may recognize the frailties of Christian dogma and deplore
the unconscionable persecution of thought which is one of the less
appetizing aspects of medieval history, we must also observe that in one of
those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare
examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear
articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. Many things
undoubtedly went into that amalgam: Greek logic and philosophy, the
experimental methods of craftsmen in the arts as opposed to the
aristocratic thinker-all these things have been debated. But perhaps the
most curious element of them all is the factor dwelt upon by Whitehead-the
sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted
by rational minds. For, as Whitehead rightly observes, the philosophy of
experimental science was not impressive. It began its discoveries and made
use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a
rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor
interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method
succeeded beyond men's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into
being owes something-to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It
is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which
professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith
that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today-is
sustained by that assumption." (Eiseley L.C., "Darwin's Century," 1961,
p.62).
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, too, with Darwin's theory that evolution was the result of, among
other processes, the survival of the fittest, a belief qualified rather than
destroyed by the development of genetics and biochemistry. 'Only one
theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the
development of life, the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,' he said as
late as 1972, 'and a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy
assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly
be called a theory.' And after dealing with certain evolutionary examples he
added, with a vigour that would do credit to a modern Creationist rather
than an accomplished scientist. 'I would rather believe in fairies than in such
wild speculation.'" (Clark R.W., "The Life of Ernst Chain [Nobel Prize for
Physiology & Medicine, 1945]: Penicillin and Beyond," Weidenfeld &
Nicolson: London, 1985, p.147)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 19:07:08 EDT