Sacred and Profane Science? [SPLIT from "Are you a Homosexual"]

[Poltergeist]

Of course it is the very essence of the issue. Heathens believe in being part of the natural world and recognising their animalistic natures.

They couldn't have believed in it because they simply hadn't notion of the "natural world" as people today understand it. They lived in a world imbued with sacred, with different gods, everyone if their own city/tribe which was a sacred universe in itself.

I don't see where ancient pagans tried to imitate beasts or fashion their behaviour after them. If anything, the pagan philosophy is full of precepts of how to live well in a human society, whereas such considerations like "nature" or the "natural world" are shoved aside, with very few people taking interest in it. And even when they do, it's light years away from any modern conceptions of nature and the material universe. It's usually some holistic view where the microsomos corresponds with the macrocosmos, with magical elements etc.

There was no consideration of any such thing since there was no idea of dichotomy between Man and the Natural World.

If anything, Christians have done everything in their power to objectify all and sundry in an attempt to downplay the human being's very animalistic nature.

Don't you see that with what you are saying, it is you who are upholding this dichotomy? You are opposing human real-life behaviour to some imagined ideal of animal-like behaviour. Man is not animalistic enough, according to you, he should behave more "animalistically". Whale shoudld behave in a fishlike manner, because deep down in himself he is a fish, since he looks like fish. It is absurd.

Evenso, putting aside these considerations, how would you live animalistically? Is it possible at all?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
That's what you say,

No that’s what peer reviewed scholars say….

Unfortunately I don’t read ancient Greek, but I have little reason to believe the translations I have read are lies, and I find the interpretations of such academics as Andrew Gregory, Georgia L. Irbie-Massie and Paul T. Keyser to be valid.

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
Totally different from modern mechanicist materialism which started to develop from 17th century. Not much in common.

The methods were not the same, I agree, the intent, however, largely was.

[Poltergeist]

The methods were not the same, I agree, the intent, however, largely was.

It is the larger picture that matters and it was quite different in the two cases.

[Poltergeist]

...

[Anthropos]

Greek science itself, whilst acknowledging deity, was the first attempt at the creation of a non-religious explanation of material phenomenon.

That's what you say, but why do you think so? Religions do not aim primarily at explaining 'material phenomena', but on the other hand nothing in a normal religion prevents the examination of phenomena that may - more or less correctly - be so labelled. Do you by any chance believe in the modern myth saying that pagan beliefs were nothing but (primitive) explanations of natural phenomena?

No that’s what peer reviewed scholars say….

Unfortunately I don’t read ancient Greek, but I have little reason to believe the translations I have read are lies, and I find the interpretations of such academics as Andrew Gregory, Georgia L. Irbie-Massie and Paul T. Keyser to be valid.

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
Totally different from modern mechanicist materialism which started to develop from 17th century. Not much in common.

The methods were not the same, I agree, the intent, however, largely was.

(Please use the quote function next time.)

To begin with you seem to confuse interpretations, the ideas of some 'peer reviewed scholars' with the actual meaning of the text (whether in translation or in original). Some scholars say this and others say that; that's no argument what you have there, and in any case what they base their conclusions on and how they came to them must be more interesting than their opinions.

Secondly you speak of 'Greek science' as a monolithic entity, and that is perhaps and perhaps not justified. Be that as it may you assessed at best a small part of it, since you looked away from many differences between the sciences of ancient Greece and those of the modern West.

Third, I hinted to the fact that Greek thought was not defined by rationalism (in essence, that is; nor by name of course, but that was not the subject of debate). In Greek thought metaphysics, cosmology and science often cohabited with one another, a point that you completely ignored.

Fourth, admitting that the methods were different doesn't mean everything but it means a lot. If the methods, taken as a whole, of one science, are different from those of another taken as a whole, then you must have some other reason to think that they are the same science. What would that reason be? It would seem that it was here that you inserted 'non-religious science', whatever that means, as some kind of common denominator that would make ends meet. But it goes without saying that I am not in the least convinced, considering especially what I said in point number three.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hermeticist
It is the larger picture that matters and it was quite different in the two cases.

The "larger picture" being the study of the nature of the universe? In which case I still disagree.....

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Please use the quote function next time.

Pretty sure I did….

Some scholars say this and others say that

Yes they do….although I haven’t yet read one that doesn’t perceive Greek enquiry into the natural world to be the defining moment when we can say “science” began.

To quote Andrew Gregory:

The first steps towards scientific explanation were taken in ancient Greece around 600BC. Prior to that, the Babylonians and the Egyptians had evolved advanced technologies, but had not progressed beyond mythological explanations. The Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine, and begun to produce the first crude theories of how the world might work in an entirely natural manner.......
Eureka! The Birth of Science

Secondly you speak of 'Greek science' as a monolithic entity

Do I?

Science is the study of the natural world or, more to the point, the mechanics of the natural world. Under that title are very many subjects from mathematics to optics.

Third, I hinted to the fact that Greek thought was not defined by rationalism (in essence, that is; nor by name of course, but that was not the subject of debate).

An interesting subject in itself, how far is Greek natural philosophy to be compared to rationalism as developed by the likes of Descartes……..

A topic for inquiry.

In Greek thought metaphysics, cosmology and science often cohabited with one another,

The difference to today is what? Metaphysics is still as vibrant today, probably more so, indeed will science (particulalry cosmology) cross beams with metaphysics, especially on questions of infinity....

a point that you completely ignored.

Ignored….or found irrelevant to the point I’m making, which to recapitulate, is that “science” as a study of the mechanics of the natural world free of religious interpretation is attributed first to ancient Greek civilisation.

What would that reason be?

The reason being that the scientific method developed by men such as Galileo and William Gilbert is the method by which we, with a few tweeks, do some, but not all, of our science today, but the Greeks were natural philosophers (are Quantum mechanists more natural philosophers in the Platonic sense than scientists, hmmm....), science and the method of science are two different things. I would recommend The Philosophy of Science by John Losee for an interesting debate about how science should be done and what conclusions we should draw.

But it goes without saying that I am not in the least convinced

Well there we are then. I can’t do anything about that, but if you can show me a peer reviewed scholar who contradicts the birth of science in ancient Greece I would be interested.

[Anthropos]

Sciences existed in all traditional civilizations.

The point of view that you quoted, to the effect that loss of religion signifies progress, is markedly modern; that attitude was at best represented by a minority (even among intellectuals) in ancient Greece, and the modern notion of progress did not even exist.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Sciences existed in all traditional civilizations.

Yes and no.

Investigation into phenomenon existed in most civilisations, this is correct. The difference between what the Greeks did and what the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians and American Indians did is that the Greeks studied these phenomenon as natural events free from a mythological interpretation.

The point of view that you quoted, to the effect that loss of religion signifies progress

I have suggested nothing of the sort. My personal view of Greek science and my view of science vis-à-vis religion in general is not for debate here.

How you interpret the meaning of Greek science and what Greek science represents are two very different things indeed.

[Anthropos]

I have suggested nothing of the sort. My personal view of Greek science and my view of science vis-à-vis religion in general is not for debate here.

How you interpret the meaning of Greek science and what Greek science represents are two very different things indeed.

But you did say what I said that you said, while quoting one of those 'peer reviewed scholars' that you put your trust in:

To quote Andrew Gregory:

'The first steps towards scientific explanation were taken in ancient Greece around 600BC. Prior to that, the Babylonians and the Egyptians had evolved advanced technologies, but had not progressed beyond mythological explanations. The Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine, and begun to produce the first crude theories of how the world might work in an entirely natural manner.......'
Eureka! The Birth of Science

Please do note that it also said that 'Greeks drew deeply on these technologies, especially in astronomy, geometry and medicine', something that strongly suggests that the Greeks who according to you were accountable for 'The Birth of Science' were actually at best only the third civilization to develop sciences (if Andrew Gregory and his evolutionistic account is to be trusted, that is). Thus you, Liffrea, attributed the progression that brought about that 'Birth of Science' to the loss of 'mythological explanations' from a separately defined field of science, even if nothing in that argument suggests that the Greeks were more advanced than Babylonians and Egyptians. It would appear that from your point of view the loss of 'mythological explanations' equals 'progress' in this instance.

Investigation into phenomenon existed in most civilisations, this is correct. The difference between what the Greeks did and what the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians and American Indians did is that the Greeks studied these phenomenon as natural events free from a mythological interpretation.

Phenomena, you mean. Anyways, there we have it again.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
It would appear that from your point of view the loss of 'mythological explanations' equals 'progress' in this instance.

It's progress in the sense that the loss of mythological interpretation created science as we understand it, which is what Gregory implies.

What are you implying?