Mahdi Behniafar; Mahdieh Rouhi
Abstract
Abstract:
This paper is about the condemnation of 1277 that was issued by the bishop of Paris (Etienne Tempier) against the Aristotelian, Thomistic and Averroist theological teachings. This condemnation was initially aimed at protecting the doctrine of God's absolute power and critique of the philosophical ...
Read More
Abstract:
This paper is about the condemnation of 1277 that was issued by the bishop of Paris (Etienne Tempier) against the Aristotelian, Thomistic and Averroist theological teachings. This condemnation was initially aimed at protecting the doctrine of God's absolute power and critique of the philosophical and theological reasoning about God, but later it led to new developments that were outside of the initial goals of its founders and were in conflict with it.
This research, using an analytical approach, tries to provide an analysis of the backgrounds and philosophical and theological disagreements that led to the condemnation of 1277, and to present a map of its conceptual scope. Then, we have discussed some of the epistemological and theological implications of this condemnation, among which the doctrine of God's absolute power is the most prominent and one of the main goals of this condemnation. But we have also raised and analyzed the long-term implications such as nominalism, secularism, and the development of modern science and its departure from the Platonic perspective, and it has shown that these are hidden implications that were not only unintended by the founders of the condemnation but also in conflict with their main lines of thought.
Keywords:
Condemnation of 1277, Absolute power of God, Nominalism, Modern Science, Secularism, Latin Averroists, Thomas Aquinas.
Introduction:
In 1277, Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, was ordered by the Roman Catholic Church to examine the philosophical and theological teachings presented at the University of Paris and prevent the intellectual deviations of its teachers and students. Then on March 7, 1277, Tempier issued a condemnation against the philosophical and theological teachings of the Aristotelians of his time. This declaration was later known as the Condemnation of 1277.
In this article, we have discussed the historical background of this condemnation since the beginning of the 13th century, its activists in the late Middle Ages, and also the analysis of its content. Then we have analyzed its theological, scientific and philosophical results and implications. Some of these results were not initially predicted by Tempier and his colleagues but have occurred over time.
Materials and Methods:
Documentary analysis of this condemnation was the first step we have taken in this paper. We have examined both the content structure of its introduction and the content of the 219 condemned philosophical and theological propositions attached to it and then we have provided a secondary analysis of the results of issuing this condemnation.
Discussion:
In the introduction of the condemnation of 1277, two major objections were made to the teachers and students of the University of Paris and their curriculum: 1. Violation of the law; This probably refers to the rules laid down in the regulations and curricula that the Church defined for the University of Paris in 1231 during the reign of Pope Gregory IX. and 2. violation of the principles of the Catholic faith; The principles that the 219 deviant propositions attached to this condemnation violate, and the university president has been asked to inspect these violations within 5 days and find a solution for them.
Although "students and teachers of the University of Paris" have been condemned in the condemnation of 1277, in fact the opinions of three groups of philosophers and theologians have been condemned in this condemnation: 1. Latin Averroists, 2. Thomas Aquinas, medieval Thomists and Scholastic Theologians, as well as 3. Muslim Aristotelian philosophers who transmitted Aristotelian teachings and some Islamic theological teachings to medieval thinkers through their interpretations and translations. The most important charge against these three categories of people was that they presented a reasonable and lawful image of God and his action in nature and in relation to man and the world; In this way, these philosophers and theologians, wanted to violate the Absolute Power of God and show it as conditional.
In the list attached to this declaration, 219 propositions and doctrines have been mentioned and condemned. According to the research done by Hissette (Hissette, 1977, p.1), 79 propositions are explicitly mentioned in the works of some or all of the above three categories of thinkers; 72 propositions are similar and close to some teachings and opinions of these philosophers and theologians and 68 statements are basically not found in the works of these philosophers. If we want to make an optimistic judgment about the 68 recent doctrines that did not have actual believers, we must say that the founders of this condemnation wanted to prevent future people from believing in these bad doctrines; But the pessimistic view is that the condemnation of 1277, by exaggerating, intends to make the danger of these philosophers appear more serious and beyond what it is.
Anyway, two things are certain: one is that some of these doctrines that have been condemned were not popular at all in the works of Aristotelians or other works of that time and secondly, it is not possible to find a specific philosopher, school or circle of thought that believed in all these teachings at the same time.
Conclusion:
Some of the epistemological, Scientific and theological elements of the condemnation of 1277 that we analyzed in this article are as follows: 1. This condemnation clearly favors a dogmatic reading over a rational approach to the Bible. The intellectual basis of this condemnation was sometimes the theological attitude of Augustinian thinkers in the Middle Ages and sometimes it was similar to the purely dogmatic and superficial approach that existed in the anti-rational behavior of advanced thinkers such as Tertullian. 2. Focusing on an absolutist, capricious, unpredictable and lawless image of God's behavior, under the pretext of not violating "God's absolute power", is one of the most important examples of the previous point. 3. From the point of view of Tempir and his colleagues, one of the essentials of believing in the "absolute power of God" and that nothing is impossible for him is the doctrine of the multiplicity of created worlds; This means accepting the existence of other created worlds whose natural laws and metaphysical rules governing them are different from the laws and rules governing our world, and this has no contradiction with the basic principles of reason. 4. The method that Tempir and his colleagues took to defend the doctrine of the "Absolute Power of God" theoretically led to a naïve ontological and theological nominalism and the negation of universals and natures. In this way, God's action does not fall under any general rules and instead, it is unpredictable. 5. From the point of view of Pierre Duhem, the condemnation of 1277 can be considered as the beginning of modern sciences, especially because it freed natural science and cosmology from the Aristotelian and Scholastic views (Duhem, 2018, p.2) and then it opened the way for new hypotheses and attitudes in the field of science. 6. After the condemnation of 1277, theology and philosophy (which included science at that time) were gradually separated from each other. This happened not only in the University of Paris but also in other medieval universities. The cause of this separation was the separation of the philosophers from the theologians who rejected and excommunicated them. This independence led to the appearance of an early form of secularism in the Christian community.
Here, the founders of the declaration of 1277 not only did not foresee the fourth to sixth points, but the fifth and sixth points were actually in conflict with their original goals and against their basic teachings.
Amin Motevallian
Abstract
AbstractSome historians of science believe that alchemy is a part of religious practice and rituals, and as a result, its history is cited under the history of religions. Along with this belief, the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung believes that alchemy is part of the history of psychology, which aims to ...
Read More
AbstractSome historians of science believe that alchemy is a part of religious practice and rituals, and as a result, its history is cited under the history of religions. Along with this belief, the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung believes that alchemy is part of the history of psychology, which aims to discovery the complex and deep structure of the human psyche. Critics of these two approaches claim that religious and psychological concepts have not been used as much as material and experimental (laboratory) actions and practices have been used in alchemy, so it cannot be considered as a part of history of religions or psychology. In these historiographical approaches, there are many indications and references to the alchemical theories of the Greco-Egyptian period, one of the most important and perhaps the most documented of them is the theoretical framework of Zosimos, which is called "spiritual alchemy". Reviewing this framework shows that Zosimos' alchemical theories can be somewhat controversial for all three approaches. In this article, while looking at the basic concepts in this alchemical framework, the relationship between nature (matter) and supernatural powers and the interactions of matter-human-divinity have been studied. KeywordsSpiritual Alchemy, Zosimos, Cosmic Sympathy, Nature, Divinity, Epoptics. IntroductionThe centrality of the concept of soul in alchemical writings attributed to Zosimos has caused some historians to named his alchemy as spiritual alchemy. However, the issue is raised whether the meaning of spiritual here is simply referring to the duality of soul and body, which is also used to explain the structure of metals, or beyond that, this concept refers to vegetable, animal and human’ one? Therefore, the alchemy of Zosimos can be considered a spiritual practice, which through the understanding of the similarity between the soul embedded in metals and the soul of plants and humans - especially the human soul - seeks to provide an explanation of the process of changes in the material world of metals as well as changes in the human soul. In other words, Zosimos believes that at the same time as the change in the body of a metal that occurs according to the laws of nature, not only its soul also changes according to supernatural laws, but the soul and sprite of alchemist also changes. As a result, it can be said that Zosimos' alchemical theory is not only a theory based on the principles and rules of the natural sciences of his era, but it is a set of interactions between supernatural, religious, philosophical and non-physical concepts with the natural components of an alchemical practice. According to some contemporary historians of alchemy, such as Grimes, Zosimos, unlike other Greco-Egyptian alchemists, prescribes a philosophical lifestyle for his colleagues, which includes those moral values that the path Reaching them is through the path of self-change, which is achieved by contemplation and self-refining it. In fact, Zosimos draws a cycle in which the alchemist goes from the material nature to the spiritual state and returns from the spirituality to the material nature. If the alchemist enters this cycle, he will answer the question of how metals reveal the presence of divine while refining his soul. The connection between the understanding of the presence of divine in the body of metals and the explanation of the interpretations resulting from it, which is subject to various natural and unnatural factors, is the core of Zosimos's claim in his alchemical doctrine plan, which dimensions and main components are examined in this article.Materials and methodsThis article is a library study, in order to organize and write it, several books and articles in the field of Greco-Egyptian alchemy in general and Zosimos alchemy in particular have been studied and criticized. Some of these articles dealt with the technical and alchemical aspects of Zosimos's works, while others focused on the philosophical and historiographical aspects of Zosimos's works. Discussion and ResultsThe role of the incorporeal component, which Zosimos considers to be pneuma, is more important for him in alchemical processes. This component has a completely material and physical behavior in that part of the alchemical process, which is the material part, but it exceeds the level of material behavior in the area of non-physical changes of Zosimos. Of course, his idea of non-physical changes refers to the same coloring vapor, which in his explanations is directly related to the human agent or the alchemist. Zosimos considers this vapor to be the coloring pneuma in which the metal must be immersed in order to accept the new color, which corresponds to baptism. But reaching this pneuma is not only a function of material actions, but also a function of the alchemist's mind and states. On the other hand, Zosimos considers the two concepts of race and cosmic sympathy which were derived from the system of creation of the cosmos (Kosmopiia) as two basic concepts that refer to the natural methods of making tincture in Jewish religious texts. Based on this and relying on metaphorical concepts including the notion of sacrifice, he tries to explain the sympathy in the natural and unnatural areas of the world. The product of this thinking is that he considers alchemy as a theurgy that uses the divinity in alchemical operations in a hierarchical system. ConclusionThere are three historical viewpoints about Zosimos' alchemy; The first view considers areas of his alchemy as a part of the history of science. The second view holds that his alchemy is under the history of psychology, and the third view considers Zosimos' alchemy to be originally a part of the history of religions. Besides examining these three points of view, we can also think of another idea. An idea that looks after his strong social concerns in a way that considers serious moral considerations as the basis of his alchemy.
Masoud Toossi Saeidi
Abstract
In order to examine the rationality of the belief in the “disparity in the relationship between science and religion in the cases of evolutionary biology and cosmology,” this article focuses on evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities. ...
Read More
In order to examine the rationality of the belief in the “disparity in the relationship between science and religion in the cases of evolutionary biology and cosmology,” this article focuses on evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities. Accordingly, the disparity between these epistemic entities refers to the difference in the way they logically align with each other. Initially, the approach and assumptions accepted for establishing this argument are explained. In this section, it is clarified that the approach of this article is to present an evidential argument, and its most important assumption is the epistemic independence of evolutionary biology and cosmology from each other. Additionally, it is explained that by religion, the belief in the existence of a concept of God that implies the purposiveness of divine action is meant. Subsequently, the main middle term of this argument, which is the analysis of the implications of evolutionary biology and cosmology for purposiveness, is discussed in detail. In this discussion, purposiveness is precisely defined, and the content of existing and conventional theories and models in evolutionary biology and cosmology is considered, rather than the philosophical debates of biology or cosmology or philosophical interpretations of theories. Thus, the content of the premises of the argument is obtained, and its conclusion is presented at the end of this section. However, due to the fundamental nature of this claim, the logical-formal structure of the argument used to support the claim is explained further. This formal structure, which is explained based on the logic of probabilities, clarifies the degree of validity of the conclusion and the type of relationship between it and the premises. Following this, some of the important implications of this conclusion are mentioned.
Keywords
Relationship between Science and Religion, Theology, Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology, Guidedness
1. Introduction
The application of the term “Science and Religion Relationship” in the current era has gained a refined and specific meaning since the mid-1960s. The establishment and publication of the journal Zygon and the release of Ian Barbour's book Issues in Science and Religion (1966) both in 1966 symbolize the beginning of a prolific period of philosophical discussions and intellectual explorations concerning the relationship between science and religion from that time to the present. In this article, the relationship between science and religion will be considered in the context of these discussions.
In one sense, this beginning has undergone two stages up to today. The first stage, starting from the 1960s and extending to around 1990, is characterized by a holistic view concerning the relationship between science and religion. By holistic view, it is meant that during the specified historical period, the relationship between science and religion is considered as a general category, and efforts are made to analyze the description of this relationship (e.g., independence or conflict). The second stage of the discussions, starting from the 1990s and continuing to the present, analyzes the relationship between specific theories in science and specific notions in theology in detail (De Cruz 2022, sec. 1.1. & 3). The following titles are examples from the discussions of the past three decades:
The theory of evolution, the doctrine of creation, and the existence of an intelligent designer
Fundamental constants in cosmology and the fine-tuning of the universe
Quantum uncertainty, specific divine action, and miracle
Chaos theory and divine action
Complexities of natural hierarchies and the afterlife
Similarly, during this period, the discussions in the philosophy of science regarding biology and physics have become specialized. From the famous debate by J. J. C. Smart about biology not being a science (Smart 1959, 365–67) to the distinction between the two fields of the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology and their further detailed development as separate disciplines, all pertain to the same period and have paralleled discussions on science and religion. These two historical trends form the academic and specialized literature background for the subject of this article.
To examine the rationality of the belief in a "Disparity in the Relationship of Science and Religion in the Two Cases of Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology," this article considers evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities.
2. Materials and Methods
The breadth and diversity of evolutionary biology and cosmology theories and their implications, the existence of borderline issues and different interpretations, and the continuous advancements in science make evolutionary biology and cosmology very broad and dynamic epistemic entities. This breadth and dynamism create a very broad context for examining their relationship with religion.
The broad range of topics that can be emphasized to examine the relationship between evolutionary biology and cosmology with religion necessitates focusing on a subset of these topics. In this article, the emphasis on "purposefulness" provides this requirement. Limiting the scope of the examination, along with the continuous developments in sciences and the breadth of their conceptual scope, makes the final conclusion not definitive and deductive, as the examination conducted is limited. Therefore, the type of argument in this regard is evidential and probabilistic (as opposed to deductive); that is, the analyses and content of the argument's premises support its conclusion.
3. Discussion and Result
The fundamental difference between these epistemic entities refers to their logical compatibility with each other: Consider three propositions p, q, and r. If the simultaneous truth of p and q is possible, but the simultaneous truth of p and r is impossible, then there is a fundamental difference in the relationship between q and r with p. The term "fundamental difference" in this article refers to such a relationship, and the investigation into whether such a difference exists in the relationship between evolutionary biology and cosmology with religion is conducted through evaluating their implications on "purposefulness."
If we denote the implication of religion on purposefulness as T, the implication of evolutionary biology on purposefulness as EB, and the implication of cosmology on purposefulness as C, then:
T asserts that the universe must be purposeful.
EB claims that the universe, in terms of characteristics related to various biological levels, beneficial and harmful traits, and biodiversity (at least from the perspective of adaptation), cannot be considered purposeful.
C posits that the universe, in terms of its fundamental equations, laws, and constants, can be considered purposeful.
Therefore, at first glance, it seems that the simultaneous truth of T and EB is impossible – or, more accurately, as will be the basis in the paper, this assumption has fundamental challenges – but the simultaneous truth of T and C is possible.
4. Conclusion
The argument presented in this paper has an important implication: believing in a fundamental difference in the relationship between science and religion in the two cases of biology and physics is a rational belief. Based on this, we should speak of the "relationships" between science and religion, rather than a singular "relationship."
)
