XPost: alt.christnet.theology, soc.history, alt.christan.religion   
   XPost: alt.religion.christianity, alt.philosophy   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   A Categorical Mistake: ‘Science’, ‘Magic’ and ‘Religion’ in the   
   Middle   
   Ages.   
      
   By Joanne Edge   
      
   August 13, 2019 by Andreas Sommer   
      
   Dr. Joanne Edge specialises in late-medieval and early modern European   
   social and cultural history, with an emphasis on medicine and the   
   ‘occult’ sciences: divination, magic and astrology. She did her   
   undergraduate and postgraduate degrees at the University of London,   
   and held a four-year postdoctoral position as Assistant Editor on the   
   Casebooks Project at the University of Cambridge. She is currently   
   Latin Manuscripts Cataloguer at the John Rylands Library, University   
   of Manchester.   
      
   The last two decades have seen the rise of the Irritating STEM Bro.™   
   Two well-known examples are Neil deGrasse Tyson and Steven Pinker:   
   Great Men from Important Science Backgrounds who blithely talk and   
   write about the history of their topic as if they are expertly   
   qualified polymaths. Both use the word ‘medieval’ pejoratively, and   
   see the history of science as an inexorable, teleological march of   
   progress from the fantastic Classical Period to the Terrible Medieval   
   Dark Ages and then woo Renaissance! And then things gradually getting   
   better and better until hurrah! We are enlightened and clever in the   
   21st century!   
      
   Quite simply, though, this is insulting, ahistorical nonsense. The   
   problem, which Irritating STEM Bros™ don’t understand – or more likely   
   don’t want to acknowledge – is that our modern categories of   
   ‘science’, ‘religion’, and ‘magic’ do not map in any meaningful way   
   onto the medieval period. So let’s first examine this problem of   
   categories.   
      
   Anachronistic Misnomers   
      
   ‘Scientia’ in medieval Latin simply meant ‘knowledge’: the   
   investigation of the material world and its properties was called   
   ‘natural philosophy’. So ‘medieval science’ is a difficult concept for   
   starters. To be ‘religious’ in the Middle Ages was to be a member of a   
   monastic order, and the opposite of this was ‘secular’. The very idea   
   of being religious in the modern sense was only really conceived of   
   when there was a widespread idea of not being religious ­–we have the   
   19th century to thank for this meaning of the word.   
      
   Moreover, ‘theology’ and ‘philosophy’ were not separate disciplines at   
   this time. The framework of Western European thought in the Middle   
   Ages was largely one of Christianity combined with ancient philosophy   
   (Aristotle being the most significant), which had been transmitted to   
   the Middle Ages largely via the Greco-Arabic translations of the 12th   
   century. So: medieval thinkers did not conceive of what we call   
   ‘religion’ and what we call ‘science’ as separate, mutually exclusive   
   categories.   
      
   Let’s move on then, to ‘magic’. If there was ever a ‘Humpty Dumpty’   
   word, magic would be it:   
      
   “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,   
   ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”   
   (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass).   
   So what did it mean? It depends who you ask. Medieval thinkers and   
   writers used several Latin words to mean the sort of practices we   
   might deem occult – sortilege, superstitio, magia and more. But those   
   practising such impermissible arts might think they were acting as   
   perfectly pious Christians, and magic rituals often included   
   invocations to God or angels. How were these invocations different to   
   orthodox prayers to God? I could spend hours trying to define medieval   
   magic without getting anywhere: not one definition is completely   
   satisfactory.   
      
   There are also significant overlaps between ‘magic’ and ‘science’ in   
   the Middle Ages – a good example being astrology. Was this legitimate   
   science based on logical principles of the observation of the heavens,   
   or an illicit act of divination that operated via the meddling of   
   demons? Again, it would depend who you asked.   
      
   So: what we call ‘religion’, ‘magic’ and ‘science’ were not   
   separate   
   categories (or even necessarily concepts) in the Middle Ages.   
      
   Let’s now take a look at where the Irritating STEM Bros™ get it –   
   probably wilfully – wrong.   
      
   Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Alternative History’   
      
   Tyson notoriously likes to refer to the irrational, religious,   
   superstitious ‘Dark Ages’ as a counterpoint to the rational,   
   scientific, logical world of modern science. Here’s one example: in   
   January 2016, Tyson tweeted that the idea of a round earth was “lost   
   to the Dark Ages”:   
      
   This is categorically untrue. But even if medieval thinkers had   
   thought the earth was flat, that would have been OK: the idea that we   
   only value what people in the past ‘got right’ is part of the same   
   problem. In fact, the medievals-as-flat-earthers idea was one of the   
   many myths started and perpetuated in the 19th century: medieval   
   philosophers generally conceived of a round earth. There’s even a   
   whole Wikipedia page dedicated to this exact topic which is broadly   
   accurate. But something tells me Tyson chooses to ignore it because it   
   this doesn’t fit with his narrative of irrational, superstitious   
   Middle Ages.   
      
   The Middle Ages didn’t espouse one monolithic set of values or ideas   
   (as I often tell my students, medieval people didn’t share a brain).   
   The word ‘medieval’ itself is anachronistic: a term applied   
   retrospectively by Renaissance thinkers onwards to indicate a time   
   that was neither ‘Classical’ nor ‘Renaissance’ but ‘in the middle’   
   – a   
   time where ‘progress’ ended and the ‘discoveries’ of the Classical   
   world could be continued after a time of stagnation. How Renaissance   
   and later thinkers conceived of and used the Middle Ages, as a   
   contrast to their own time is interesting in terms of what it says   
   about them and their own times. But it’s not something appropriate for   
   Tyson and his contemporaries to do.   
      
   On the other hand, it is jaw-droppingly arrogant to assume that modern   
   science has everything sorted out, just fine, and that we’re heading   
   for further, linear progress. That’s not to say that as a disabled   
   person I’m not glad for the medication and therapy that I’ve been able   
   to access thanks to evidence-based medicine and randomised   
   double-blind trials: just that we must place ourselves in our own   
   context just as we must those in the past. Tyson does himself and his   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)