Fides VS Ratio: Medieval Science, Dissent and Cultural Change

          It is a common knowledge that the Church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, holds the greatest power during the medieval times. People immediately follow the decrees issued by the Pope or the Holy See because they think that their words are absolute since they are the so called “representatives” of God in this world. Faith reigns supreme as kings and queens are twisted in the hands of the officials of the church. The nobles fear that opposing them would result to the loss of support from their subjects. 

  From: http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/medieval/art/giotto.htm

Given that circumstance, it does not prevent medieval science to prosper and to pursue the knowledge that it is looking for. It still continued its journey towards the understanding of occurring phenomena on our planet. But how did medieval science do such a feat?

           Last February 10, I was able to know how medieval science did battled faith and the authority derived from knowledge. In the lecture entitled “Cultural Change, Dissent and Medieval Science” by Dr. Jovi Miroy from Ateneo de Manila University, I was able to see how science flourished in the times when religion controls everything. I first learned that the Roman Catholic Church was able to maintain their power through the so called power knowledge or the power derived from knowledge. Aside from that, it is also discussed that the truth which prevailed is the kind of truth which depends upon the credibility of the individual speaking and not from facts or evidence. Credibility induces believability which leads to authority.

           If science derives its power from knowledge, medieval science relied heavily on logic to supersede opinion and even the revelation of faith. Using Aristotelian logic, natural science was the model intellectual endeavor. Science (Or scientia) goes beyond the so called doxa (both opinion and faith). But how did this kind of thinking move forward? Now dissent comes into the picture. Dr. Miroy said that with dissent, there is a sense of belief suspension and the reliance on the rational aspect in the pursuit of truth. I learned that medieval science played a crucial role in developing a system of abstraction; speculation which is different from authority and even from revelation. This created a clear distinction between ratio and fides. Medieval science was able to the real truth – not something derived out from authority.

From: http://skoolshopblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-years-resolution-logical-thinking.html

 

         But it seems that having dissent is not enough. According to Dr. Miroy, simply dissenting does not lead to changes in the system – particularly a cultural change. It is the shift in mental models that would lead to a change in behavior. In addition to that, Dr. Miroy also emphasized that change is not just achieved through changing leaders and slogans, but through changing the way we think and enacting it at the same time. These are enactment of certain mental models designed not only to instigate reflection but also change. It just means that we have to behave differently by thinking differently through enactment. Dr. Miroy also said that the goal of medieval science is to understand change in nature in order to bring about change itself. He even gave a quotation from a source saying that “He who understands the natural world has a dominion over it.”

From: http://tips.slaw.ca/2013/practice/embrace-change/

 

And the most interesting concept of the lecture that really struck me is the outcome versus inquiry kind of thinking. Instead of focusing on what you can accomplish materially, one should focus on a more general and abstract way to achieve something. The example he gave is the question “How do I get rich?” as against to “How do I pursue my dreams?” I guess there is nothing wrong if you think like the person formulating the first question, but I see the second one more appealing and more forward thinking. Being able to go beyond the material aspect in life is more desirable for me, I guess, than being limited with the technicalities in life.

           I really appreciated the lecture given by Dr. Jovi Miroy in such a way that it shows that one should not just accept everything heard from certain personalities just because they have the so called credibility to talk. The best things to believe in are things obtained through facts or evidences. We should also learn to show our disagreement to things that we deem incorrect. Like in UP, if there are rules that we think is not appropriate for us or is not protecting our welfare, we have to show our disapproval. But this alone is not enough to effect change. We have to change our mindsets and to turn these mindsets into reality in order for us to bring cultural change for the betterment of the society.