>>24737146
>The book explains that basically every stance against religion in reality has religious roots and is often derived from a Christian religious schism that has been warped to fit a new narrative.
I'm not familiar with that work but John Millbank's famous Social Theory and Theology goes over this in exhaustive detail. An irony is how a certain sort of athiest will defend the language of "science" in terms of there only being "natural laws" that are "obeyed" by particles, and not realize that the language of law and obedience comes from Reformation theology, as does the empiricism and mechanistic world view, that scientific findings were then crammed into. Millbank is very dense though.
Charles Taylor's A Secular Age covers the same thing but from the angle of mass society. It's quite accessible and a great read. He shows how the mechanistic universe and anti-metaphysics is more of an aesthetic stance than anything else.
Pic related or Gregory's the Unintended Reformation does more to show how the Reformation still dominates modern science and ideas of freedom. This is why freedom today is largely defined in terms of "the ability to choose anything," while the ancients from Plato, to Aristotle, to Epicetus, to Saint Augustine looked more at being unified and understanding why one acts, looking to self-determining action rather than undetermined action, with an eye to not being ruled over by the passions and appetites.
The charge against Nietzsche I find most damaging is the charge that his thought ultimately bottoms out in arbitrariness because it accepts the modern, liberal view of freedom (and yes, I know he is a fatalist in ways; this theme is still strong in his work). D.C. Schindler's Freedom From Reality is really good on this.
4chan Search
2 results for "25bb10040ba2ddcbf29f6b977b22e72a"
>>24711796
>Everyone in this thread is one person.
>The New Science was motivated by scientific concerns and not theology.
The New Science was motivated by religious beliefs, first nominalism and fideism within Catholicism, and later by the Reformation. Volanturism is the biggest factor. The complaint was that, if things had natures, then God would somehow be constrained by natures. He couldn't make the good of a horse "whatever he wants," and if loving God is the good of rational creatures then somehow God would be unfree because God couldn't make it good to hate God (Ockham's example).
This had nothing to do with scientific advances, which basically kept up their same basic pace until industrialization, centuries after the New Science (nor did growth in economic and military power corelate with an adoption of empiricism, nor is there any shortage of great scientists and inventors who rejected the mechanistic metaphysics, nor am I aware of any empirical support for the claim that empiricism makes people better scientists).
The language of the New Science is, of course, theological not scientific. The idea of "natural laws," and things "obeying" those laws is a product of volanturist theology where God commands and things obey. This is more John Calvin than Albert Magnus.
At the same time, Reformation politics led to a bunch of good ideas simply being thrown out in a wave of iconoclasm, while even in Catholic areas these ideas hit hard. At the same time education expanded to the growing middle class and away from career contemplatives who lived a life of study and praxis. The result was that more people got educated, a good thing, but at a much lower general quality. By the time of Locke, or even Descartes, core concepts like substance have already morphed into ridiculous parodies of the form they had from Aristotle to high scholasticism. Hence, the via antiqua wasn't so much displaced as forgotten. To the extent it was displaced, it was on account of (bad) theology.
But sure, just roll out the dogmatic Whig history of empiricism everyone has crammed down their throat at school. If it gets repeated enough it apparently becomes true according to luminaries (sophists) like Rorty.
>Everyone in this thread is one person.
>The New Science was motivated by scientific concerns and not theology.
The New Science was motivated by religious beliefs, first nominalism and fideism within Catholicism, and later by the Reformation. Volanturism is the biggest factor. The complaint was that, if things had natures, then God would somehow be constrained by natures. He couldn't make the good of a horse "whatever he wants," and if loving God is the good of rational creatures then somehow God would be unfree because God couldn't make it good to hate God (Ockham's example).
This had nothing to do with scientific advances, which basically kept up their same basic pace until industrialization, centuries after the New Science (nor did growth in economic and military power corelate with an adoption of empiricism, nor is there any shortage of great scientists and inventors who rejected the mechanistic metaphysics, nor am I aware of any empirical support for the claim that empiricism makes people better scientists).
The language of the New Science is, of course, theological not scientific. The idea of "natural laws," and things "obeying" those laws is a product of volanturist theology where God commands and things obey. This is more John Calvin than Albert Magnus.
At the same time, Reformation politics led to a bunch of good ideas simply being thrown out in a wave of iconoclasm, while even in Catholic areas these ideas hit hard. At the same time education expanded to the growing middle class and away from career contemplatives who lived a life of study and praxis. The result was that more people got educated, a good thing, but at a much lower general quality. By the time of Locke, or even Descartes, core concepts like substance have already morphed into ridiculous parodies of the form they had from Aristotle to high scholasticism. Hence, the via antiqua wasn't so much displaced as forgotten. To the extent it was displaced, it was on account of (bad) theology.
But sure, just roll out the dogmatic Whig history of empiricism everyone has crammed down their throat at school. If it gets repeated enough it apparently becomes true according to luminaries (sophists) like Rorty.