Plague Practices

Hello,

I hope you are doing well.

I sort of lost track. I want to answer your objections but we need to clean this up a little. Feel free to ask specific questions and as long as they are logical I will try to get you some answers.

One big problem we are having is that I don’t really know what you mean by secular. Do you mean not done by religious people? Do you mean fully scientific and modern? Well, of course, they were not that.

You said that the scientific method was common since and I think it important that it is not. Nether is formal logic. Both are human inventions that have evolved over long periods of time. The Greeks had developed formal logic but a lot of what we call “fallacies” were good logic back then. The scientific method in Greek times was observe and conclude. By the time period we talk about it was Observe, read what other haves said (frequently Galen) and Conclude. You are right that the Medieval People needed to lose some of their faith but the faith they needed to lose was faith in Greek and Roman knowledge.
Here is a source.


You also brought up our original argument I am looking through my notes and we were arguing about was whether the Christian religion made the Bubonic Plague worse.

Here is a quick summery:

You were arguing that people who believed in God do not have an incentive to conduct rational investigation but you concede that some did go on but it was not the norm. However, I feel that all the investigations that were done were done because of religious foundation and motivation. There was no secular investigations aside from magic and astrology.

I made a philosophical argument to show that following the theology of Aquinas would have conducted rational investigations and would believe it religious to do so.

I argued that by contrast atheist might give up instead of working for answer.

Practices

You seem to be asking me to show that effective religious based scientific solutions were the norm but if that was the case than the Bubonic plague would not have been such a problem. I am saying that all available solutions were religiously based and if it had not been for religious thinking it would have been much worse. There would not have been hospitals or even doctors (as useless as they were) and even the basic practice of quarantine would not have been available.

An Argument in Practices
“Secular” investigations were done alongside prayer and fasting and was mostly conducted by the RCC itself.
Just stating this and showing that this information was available at the time does not prove what so ever that these were concepts actually followed. Please provide sources that indicate that this did happen on a large scale, or that “secular” investigation was conducted right along with divine ones. Opportunity and availability alone does not indicate action.

Why should it have had to happen on a large scale if the religious people are the only ones doing it. The largest medical library in Europe was in the Vatican ( I already gave a source). Every University in Europe was founded by the RCC. The only scholarly work done by anyone besides this was astrology. Even the people doing astrology had learned to read and write from religious instruction.

What action should they have been taking? They can not be expected to be fully scientific and you are not showing that they would some how have been better off if they were less religious.

“Some of my better sources in showing that the Devine vs. Natural dichotomy did not exist were in fact your sources. Such as your http://galileo.rice.edu/fam/bub

Do you have sources indicating that the RCC (or other groups) investigated this way?

Rational investigation was their standard policy because of the philosophy of Aquinas as we have discussed. But here quick overview. Remember there was no non-religious investigations going on and the “scientific method” had not been invented yet.

*) The Largest medical library was in the Vatican.
*) All Universities were religiously founded.
*) “The Catholic Church played a large role in development as well as management of medieval medicine.”
Maggie. "Education." Medieval Medicine. (Dec. 15, 2000).
*)The Great Morality, has a list of common failed experiments used by the people.
*) I have given a number of source on quarantine the only action that we have talked about that the people then had and worked.

To give you an idea of how much science came from the religious community I am going to quote a book written by someone not educated in social sciences or history (but educated in other unrelated areas). I know that I told you not to quote people who aren’t talking about their areas of expertise but I hope you will forgive me for quoting Dawkins The God Delusion.

“Mendel, of course, was a religious man, an Augustinian monk; but that was in the nineteenth century, when becoming a monk was the easiest way for young Mendel to pursue his science. For him it was the equivalent of a research grant.”

While I take objection to Dawkins belief that Mendel was some how not a real Christian he makes a point I have been meaning to make, that the Christians, Catholic and Protestant were the ones conducting the research of the Medieval and in Enlightenment periods. Dawkins, has every reason to present Christianity as dumb but he admits that the joining the RCC was like getting a research grant, they were the ones doing the scientific investigation.


Do you have sources that indicate this type of thinking/action was with the general mind set of the people during that time?

Actually, it was not the general mindset of the people at the time. Christianity had not spread to all of Europe and philosophies like Aquinas were only understood in educated circles. However, learned people would have been taught to expect a rational universe and to investigate with in it. The only real exception would be pagans and those who believed in astrology. The religious people were pushing the idea of a rational universe in a place where it was not the norm.

You seem to be a materialist I want you to remember that materialism is based in part on this Christian theology of a rational universe (though many materialist reject the idea of God). There is no reason to believe that if there had not been Christianity in Europe these people would have been materialist, in fact it is rather unlikely since Roman Astrology and Paganism are the only other philosophies we see there at the time.

I suppose that that if you place a modern materialist back in this time they would have believed Galen since he represented the best science of the time. Galen’s science was really science (though he used what we now call fallacies and did make many mistakes) it was much better than barbarian wisdom and a honest materialist would have clung to this and in doing so would have been wrong.

However, medieval people were practical and writings saying that that Galen’s science failed is almost as common as those saying that people prayed. They don’t mind saying that Galen did not work nor did any of the random experiments that were going on.


Another source of yours that was really helpful was http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-56061943.html. It shows people investigating within the Christian perspective.
Can you quote the statements that indicate this?

The article says that they the could not think past their perspective (thinking that there would always be sickness) but that they thought within it (how to deal with sickness. Better still this source talks about them using church knowledge.

“Untroubled by theological dilemmas, Christian writers were free to concentrate their energies on preventive stratagems.” (172)
Does this source say at what scale these attempted cures took place?
It seems to be a single incident source but I really can’t tell.

No, it is a general statement followed by an extensive list of things commonly attempted during the time period. It is not as if this book is unavailable to you I picked this one because it is on Google books.

I have another source that has several pages talking about these attempts: The Black Death by Corzine Philips but I figured you might not have a copy.

I agree “Paris Consilium” was not helpful and was a start to non-divine solutions but this type of investigation still relied on faith that the Stars and planets actually affected this world, not the alternative I would suggest.

There was no “faith” in medieval astrology except faith in Greek and Roman science. At that time astrology was considered science the modern distinction between astrology and astronomy had not developed yet. This was the most scientific non-Christian thing Europe had.

I hope to email you with the argument of alternatives in the next few days.


Take Care.