“Isti, qui negant aliquod ens contingens, exponendi sunt tormentis quousque concedant, quod possibile est eos non torqueri”Translation:“Those who deny the existence of contingency should be tortured until they admit that it is possible for them not to be tortured.” ― Duns Scotus
When
I first came across this, I was a bit shocked. Taken literally, it is barbaric.
It was written sometime in the late 13th century, in Europe, which
would be known for barbarism. That context doesn’t make it much less shocking.
However Duns Scotus was a philosopher, not a member of the Spanish Inquistion.
It
is likely that he did not actually intend to have anyone tortured. This quote
is supposedly how he demonstrated that we have free will. When he says
“contingency” he was talking about what we would today understand as “free
will”. His logic is, if someone is
torturing you and you ask them to stop, they would need to have free will to do
that. Philosopher’s arguments weren’t all that sophisticated back then. It has
the ring of a bully saying, “why are you hitting yourself?” while he has your
wrist and is smacking your own hand against your head.
Free
will is an important element of Christianity because without it, we could not
choose to believe in God or not, or choose to follow his laws or not. If we
aren’t doing that, then all of God’s punishments don’t make any sense. They
don’t make any sense anyway, especially when someone says an entire nation is
punished for something done by one person in a previous generation, but such is
the logic of the Bible and its readers.
When
someone says that our entire system of law is based on Judeo-Christian thought,
this is partly what they are talking about, and they are partly right. Many
other religions are based on gods and goddesses that act arbitrarily and take
over the minds of people and cause all sorts of things to happen for whatever
reason they feel like. Gods not of the Bible often have personality flaws or
more human characteristics. God of the Bible sometimes does too, partly because
there is the YHWH god and the Elohim god, but that’s a different blog. Most of
the time, Judeo-Christian God is absent, speaking through bushes, a still soft
voice, or sending cryptic messages via angels. But this idea that we have some
ability to reason and make choices is pretty consistent throughout the Bible.
There
were of course other gods and philosophies and a strong influence on European
thought at the time was the rediscovery of Aristotle. When Rome fell and the
tribes of Europe fell into constant warfare, the writings of Plato and
Aristotle were mostly lost to the West. They made their way to the new Rome,
the Byzantine Empire in what is now Turkey and further East to Baghdad. As the
Muslim Empire grew, they translated the Greek writings and expanded on their ideas,
leading to what most agree is the beginning of modern science.
The
Muslim Empire expanded all the way across Northern Africa and into Spain.
Cordoba Spain was a jewel of multi-culturalism, while most of Europe was still
in the Dark Ages. I know some will say that things were happening with the
Christians, there was Pope Sylvester II who questioned authority and
experimented. But then not too much later there was the Inquisition. These
conservative and liberal swings continue for centuries, with small advances in
ideas like better treatment for slaves, then a return to repression. For the
most part, a culture of magic, the divine right of Kings and rule by force
prevailed. The Muslim Empire experienced similar swings with only slightly
better success during the times when seeking knowledge was encouraged.
During
one of those swings, in Spain, a man by the name of Averroes was commissioned
to translate Aristotle. This led him to write on how one might reconcile faith,
something that all but a very few considered the only way of looking at the
world, with reason, something Aristotle spoke of at length. Reading Averroes,
you might think he was a bit crazy. It seems like he is rambling, grasping for
a thought. You have to keep in mind he didn’t understand how energy gets here
from the sun, how mountains were formed by glaciers or how humans evolved from
earlier life forms. He was one of the first to guide us toward how we would
eventually figure out all those things.
You
also have to keep in mind that he was aware of those conservative/liberal
swings. He was commissioned by a liberal Caliph, but in his lifetime his works
were banned and he was exiled from Spain. Fortunately for him this was brief.
He may have wanted to say much more but didn’t out of fear. He may have wanted
to say that logically, there is no god, that god is a symbolic construct to
help explain our feelings and dreams, that it is used by the powerful to
oppress women and justify slavery. That probably would have got him more than
exiled. But I don’t know what he thought, only what he wrote.
When
his ideas and translations passed into the Universities that were run by the
Roman Catholic Church, they met with more trouble. Thomas Aquinas attempted to
work out his own version of reconciling faith and reason. Then in 1277, most
philosophy was banned from being taught. The bans were eventually lifted and
Aquinas was eventually given sainthood, but not without much wailing and
gnashing of teeth. It was William of Ockham who came up with the formula that
allowed science to move forward and religion to maintain its hold on the hearts
of men.
According to Ockham, God creates the universe and can do
whatever he wants. We discover patterns in that creation, but reason is not
inherent in nature, it is only in our minds. We can explain nature, but we
can’t explain God. This answers Euthyphro’s dilemma by saying good is what God
declares good. The Church is the only authority to say why or to determine what
is evil and who should be punished for it. Science is left to discover patterns
all it wants, but has no say about what the church says is a miracle.
Under
that system, Galileo was given a tour of the torture chamber. Under that
system, the Church went through a string of some of its worse Popes until
Luther had his say. Against that system, governments finally started to build
walls against the influence. The recent political debates have me wondering if
we have made much progress in the last 1,000 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment