Just about dead center in the middle of the book, P. 176, there's this interesting paragraph:
It is Odd to think of professional heresy-hunters [the newly-founded orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans] as the advocates for a revolution in thinking, and a scientific revolution at that. From a modern vantage point, one would expect the more secular-minded masters of arts to have been the Aristotelian movement's strongest advocates, and theological zealots its most adamant opponents. But the Dominican and Franciscan theologians were not "fundamentalists" in the modern sense. They were passionate conservatives who believed that the European awakening was irreversible and that the tools of reason, even those developed by pagan philosophers, could be used to advance the long-term interests of orthodox religion. As a result, the most militant and confident defenders of the faith, at this crucial juncture in Western intellectual history, were also the most committed advocates of the new learning. This potent combination of religious fervor and intellectual power virtually guaranteed the acceptance of natural philosophy and "scientific theology" at the University of Paris. From this influential base, Aristotelian ideas and methods would spread unstoppably throughout Europe's other universities, generating new controversies and stimulating new debates.
This was about the early- to mid- 13th century.
My only quibble with what he says is that I know quite a few fundamentalists. I doubt that their understanding of the term "fundamentalist" - which they proudly acknowledge - overlaps much with Mr. Rubenstein's.
I am, of course, speaking of the American, Christian fundamentalists whom I know. I've known one who might live down to the level of bull-headed ignoramous that rabid, left-wing atheists like to portray as typical. But I haven't talked to him in 20 years. (The guy drove me to Nietzsche.)
No comments:
Post a Comment