Quoting:

"Egyptologists who have examined this issue recognize several reasons why copper could not have been used to cut blocks for the Great Pyramid."

What, of all that I've said, do you think that statement contradicts?

I'll gladly look at a reference if you provide one, but I won't spend a lot of time on this question since it isn't germane.Your credibility, your call. If your assertion was correct, I probably won't be able to find any academic reference that would do me any good.

Quoting:

"Egyptologists who have examined this issue recognize several reasons why copper could not have been used to cut blocks for the Great Pyramid."

I'll gladly look at a reference if you provide one, but I won't spend a lot of time on this question since it isn't germane.

I'm not an Egyptologist

Neither am I, but I know how to use a search engine.

to my knowledge the ones who have examined the issue have concluded there were no copper tools.

The site you linked to doesn't say that. What it says is that the stones used in building the pyramids were too hard to be cut with copper chisels. That was apparently the case for some of the types of stone used, but the pyramids were not built only with those types, and other methods were available for cutting the other types.

Do you have a reference?

At this point, just a bunch of Internet sites. If you won't be satisfied unless I produce an academic reference, I'm sure I can find one.

Either way, how does this point relate to the point that the Egyptians demonstrated tremendous skill?

I'm not disputing anything you said about their skill. I was making a point, indirectly, about the thoroughness of your research.

I'm not an Egyptologist, but to my knowledge the ones who have examined the issue have concluded there were no copper tools. http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/xcerpt05.html

Do you have a reference?

Either way, how does this point relate to the point that the Egyptians demonstrated tremendous skill? If anything, it further strengthens that point.

The pyramids, however, constitute the real mystery in Egyptian marvel and ability.

That depends on how you define mystery. We don't know the particulars of how the Egyptians actually did build the pyramids, but we do know some methods that would have been sufficient and were within their capabilities.

They managed to quarry, shape, and polish great stones despite the fact that they had no metal tools.

Nonsense. They had copper tools. Copper is not good for cutting anything because copper blades get dull really fast, but that just means that if you do lots of cutting with copper, you also spend lots of time resharpening your tools. If you have a large enough labor force, that is not problem, though, because you can have one guy cutting full time while a bunch of other guys are sharpening his tools as fast as he dulls them.

Perhaps Jaki was an authority, but probably not the final one. ;) And the thrust of this branch of the discussion was about whether or not there is accepted, authoritative consensus about the RC Church being instrumentally beneficial to science prior to 1500.

Anyway, I might take you up on some reading in this area (although I will choose my own authors!;). I am very interested in the history of science, and the factors that led the West to it first. There must be a lot of fascinating thought in this area.

I suspected that I was misunderstanding, but I read it several times. "It" being your statement to David, "I don't see the right to an opinion about a matter of truth when evidence is necessary and available but one with an opinion has not consulted it."

Perhaps there was miscommunication.

I do agree with you that it must be a mighty challenge to find objectivity in that historical field. From both sides, of course. Despite being a hardcore, materialist atheist myself, I'm not so naive as to not see that there are those who tar the RC Church unfairly. (That being said, I also believe that the Church has committed many wrongs over its history and that the existence of strong emotions might be expected.)

In my lurkings on Strange Notions for the past year or so, I have certainly learned a lot about the RC Church and its relationship with science. On the whole, it's been positive. But there is a lot of apologetics going on (not surprising I suppose;), and a lot of wearing of rose-tinted historical reading glasses.

" . . . selective quoting of thinkers who you agree with, but who happen to be non-Catholic or non-Christian, doesn't resolve the issue."

Never said it did. These are comment boxes. I cannot write a mini-thesis in a comment box because someone wants to know the state of consensus on the history of science.

What I can do is show that Jaki was, in fact, considered an authority. I didn't figure you would be too impressed that he was appointed an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences by Pope St. John Paul II. (Am I right?)

My challenge right now is: If you disagree, at least know why and engage the material. Verify his sources (he was adamant about using original sources). Cite your own. Defend your disagreement.

This is a discussion. If you disagree at the end of it, but we both learned something—cool.

The point under discussion in this thread was an assertion by Kevin Aldrich that (my words, but loyal to his idea) no legitimate debate can be made against the assertion that the RC Church was instrumentally beneficial to science prior to about 1500.

And Stacy, I'm sorry, but selective quoting of thinkers who you agree with, but who happen to be non-Catholic or non-Christian, doesn't resolve the issue.

Often in atheist-vs.-theist debates you get people quoting individuals from the other camp who happen to say something more in alignment with their camp, and they yell "Aha, told you so!". So what? Many people say many things.

I think you are misunderstanding and so misrepresenting my views. Or maybe I'm just not presenting them very well. Or both.

Do you think it is possible that many authorities could be so biased against Catholicism that they don't want to discover *anything* positive about it? This tradition could have begun with the Enlightenment and could have continued until today.