Originally posted by Conrau K
[b][b]If Gibbon's interpretation of history is so perverted by his bias against the Church as you say it's difficult to see how his work could be so celebrated by such "contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole." [/b]
Because his research mostly dealt with the Roman Empire, not the Roman were just freaks, not representatives of the psychology of organised religion.[/b]
Because his research mostly dealt with the Roman Empire, not the Roman Church.
Do you think it is possible to write a history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire without mentioning Christianity? The two stories are one and the same. This should be obvious.
His main success was actually in historiographical methodology, reading primary sources.
If this is true and his only legacy is his research methodology then why is he so widely read and respected to this day? History, like morality, and unlike science, is not progressive. A good historian will still be a good historian in a thousand years time. Gibbon was such a man and this is why he is still read today.
1. Gibbon wrote at the beginning of the Enlightenment period with the Revolution of France in the backdrop. Fabrications against the Church were actually not uncommon at that time (indeed, such fabrications were used as propoganda for persecutions against Catholics, dissolution of monasteries, nationalisation of church land, etc; at the same time Voltaire was calling for the Church to be crushed and Robespierre was baying for blood)
Please supply evidence of this 'fabrication.' All you've come up with so far is you're opinion which doesn't carry quite as much weight as the opinion of giants such as Hume, Smith, Walpole, Churchill etc.
2. Academic standards were very different 200 years ago. Before Gibbon, the English philosopher John Tolland had made the same claims.
As I've stated; a good historian will survive the passage of time and criticism well. You're maligning of Gibbon's work is absolute conjecture.
According to Socrates, they attacked her because of some rumour of political intrigue. No where is it suggested that they attacked her merely for religious reasons
Religion and politics are inextricably linked. If 90% of your constituency are Christian then representing yourself as a pagan or a Jew would be political suicide. Yes, it was a political killing but it was also a religious one. Metaphysical belief systems are not detachable but rather colour all your choices and interactions. Peter the Reader didn't decide on that fateful day to leave his Christian mindset at home. The idea that the world is a poor imitation of the real, perfect one is a Christian one that can be traced back to Platonic philosophy and even further to Orphism. It is this dualistic worldview that I believe is responsible for unspeakable horrors evidenced over the centuries by Hypatia's death, Daniel Pearl, the World Trade Centre attack, the Inquisition, and now, recently, in Papua New Guinea.
Well, seeing that Jewish people were massacring Christians, it seems more like self-defence than persecution. ... Oh, I get, it is only persecution when the Christians do it.
You should move to the West Bank.
1. Josephw is not a Catholic, nor a fifth century Alexandrian; he is an American Christian living 1600 years later. There is a huge difference in their religious belief, mentality and psychology.
That's what makes the fact that josephw can rationalise burning someone to death that much more frightening. History repeats itself. Can you imagine what a more hard-nosed Christian is capable of?
The fact is that Hypatia had Christian disciples, Synesius being one, and Christians, such as Socrates, condemned this attack.
So, because some Christians condemned the attack makes it ok? Are your criteria for Christian responsibility that every Christian should have rejoiced in the event? St Cyril was surprisingly quiet in his condemnation. Why did he lay low for over a decade after the incident?
So: there is no evidence that the Church sanctioned the attack; Hypatia was not a Jew; she had Christian disciples; Christians condemned the attack.
Christians also committed the act. Hypatia was a pagan who sided with the secular Orestes, this angered the Christian populace and they savagely murdered Hypatia believing the rumour that she was the cause of the political unrest. I wonder who started this rumour. Could it have been St Cyril, Orestes' political rival, the one who stood to gain by this murder?
How does that in any way cohere with your view that the mob's worldview is 'instantiated by organised religion'? They were just freaks, not representatives of the psychology of organised religion.
How do you explain this phenomenon cropping up throughout the course of history perpetuated by Christianity in the form of the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Islam is also warming up nicely. It only takes a couple of thousand freaks slaughtering, persecuting and butchering before one starts to question the worldview that can rationalise such obscenities.
11 Jan '09 12:091 edit
What regliion gets you
Back to Top