St. Augustine and the disease of curiosity

[Steadfast_love]

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. – Saint Augustine. Atheists are lobbing this at me but they don’t know the source (except that St. Agustine is from the “middle ages” ). Anyway, does anyone know where they’re getting this from? I’d like to read it in context.

Thanks!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. – Saint Augustine. Atheists are lobbing this at me but they don’t know the source (except that St. Agustine is from the “middle ages” ). Anyway, does anyone know where they’re getting this from? I’d like to read it in context.

St Augustine of Hippo was a philosopher who lived in the fifth century, on the cusp of Antiquity and the Dark Ages. He wrote many works, all full of interesting ideas, and of course short quotes can be pulled out by the ignorant to make him appear a fool.

The quote is from his “Confessions” where the expresses the opinion that the love of knowledge for its own sake led him into arrogance as a young man. There is no requirement on a Catholic to believe that St Augustine was absolutely right on everything, but the implication that he wasn’t a great man of thought is transparently false.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Oh good, I’ve got Confessions on my bookshelf at home.

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

[nonceun]

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. – Saint Augustine. Atheists are lobbing this at me but they don’t know the source (except that St. Agustine is from the “middle ages” )

These atheists are kinda correct. St. Augustine lived in the 5th century, which was the beginning of the Early Middle Ages (although it’s more commonly known as the Dark Ages). He’s talking about how furthering one’s knowledge only for the sake of knowledge is nothing but pleasure and is therefore sinful, because it has no other purpose but pleasure. He also links curiosity to the sin of lust, since both involve “knowing” things/people you’re not supposed to.

 

[Siddhartha]

These atheists are kinda correct. St. Augustine lived in the 5th century, which was the beginning of the Early Middle Ages (although it’s more commonly known as the Dark Ages). He’s talking about how furthering one’s knowledge only for the sake of knowledge is nothing but pleasure and is therefore sinful…

How would this impact pure scientific research?

 

[sidbrown]

How would this impact pure scientific research?

It would bring scientific research to a full and complete halt. Without curiosity, we would have no Maxwell’s laws of electiricity and magnetism, no television, no radio, no automobiles, and no computers and no internet. That is the bad part.
But actually I can see a good part. If the science of physics had come to a screeching halt, there would have been no Atomic Bomb and the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were so horribly killed by these barbaric bombs, would have been able to lead a full and beautiful life, instead of having their innocent lives snuffed out by a bomb developed by nuclear physicists and engineers.
Perhaps, then this is the message that St. Augustine was trying to give us. This curiosity for the power and ability to kill and destroy hundreds of thousands of innocent children and other civilians is something which is a terrible sin and evil.

 

[PlipPlop]

It would bring scientific research to a full and complete halt. Without curiosity, we would have no Maxwell’s laws of electiricity and magnetism, no television, no radio, no automobiles, and no computers and no internet. That is the bad part.
But actually I can see a good part. If the science of physics had come to a screeching halt, there would have been no Atomic Bomb and the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were so horribly killed by these barbaric bombs, would have been able to lead a full and beautiful life, instead of having their innocent lives snuffed out by a bomb developed by nuclear physicists and engineers.
Perhaps, then this is the message that St. Augustine was trying to give us. This curiosity for the power and ability to kill and destroy hundreds of thousands of innocent children and other civilians is something which is a terrible sin and evil.

Curiosity is good, and given to us by God. I do not see how anyone can call it evil.

I don’t like that a bomb had to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it was better than the alternatives. Yes, it caused horrible loss of life; but many more would have died in a conventional invasion. Thousands of Japanese were dying because of the conditions they were under in the war. Thousands of Japanese soldiers would have died in defense of their land and their god. Thousands of Allied troops would have died in attack. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would certainly have died if the bombs had not been dropped.

The result of any course of action would have been terrible loss of life. What happened was not the worst choice.

 

[RobNY]

Curiosity is good, and given to us by God. I do not see how anyone can call it evil.

I don’t like that a bomb had to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it was better than the alternatives. Yes, it caused horrible loss of life; but many more would have died in a conventional invasion. Thousands of Japanese were dying because of the conditions they were under in the war. Thousands of Japanese soldiers would have died in defense of their land and their god. Thousands of Allied troops would have died in attack. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would certainly have died if the bombs had not been dropped.

The result of any course of action would have been terrible loss of life. What happened was not the worst choice.

PlipPlop,

There is modern form of ethics called “utilitarianism” and sometimes “consequentialism.” It bases its moral decision making on a calculus about whether an action will have a greater net effect or not. As an American myself, it is very easy to fall into consequentialist style decisions about difficult ethical issues. However, the Catholic Church holds to a more classical moral theory which holds that good ends may not be achieved by immoral means.

The primary problem with the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is that they were direct targeting of innocent civilians as a means to an end (the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government). Even if the end is legitimate, the means which I just highlighted certainly is not. The Catholic Church was sure to explicitly condemn targeting innocent civilians as a means in the second Vatican council.

Remember that in the classical tradition it is better than one have evil done to oneself than to do evil. After all, having evil done to oneself harms one’s health-- but doing evil damns one’s own soul.

As a note, I am a very conservative American, and I’m very sympathetic with the argument you gave. At one point, I defended it myself. But my introduction to Catholic ethics has helped me to see how mistaken my evaluation was.

I would be happy to point you in the direction of reading you can do to understand the Church’s teaching on these sorts of matters. God bless,

Rob

(P.S. The second questionable assumption is that “unconditional surrender” was a necessary military goal. But I’ll just throw that out as food for thought.)

 

[sidbrown]

PlipPlop,

There is modern form of ethics called “utilitarianism” and sometimes “consequentialism.” It bases its moral decision making on a calculus about whether an action will have a greater net effect or not. As an American myself, it is very easy to fall into consequentialist style decisions about difficult ethical issues. However, the Catholic Church holds to a more classical moral theory which holds that good ends may not be achieved by immoral means.

The primary problem with the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is that they were direct targeting of innocent civilians as a means to an end (the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government). Even if the end is legitimate, the means which I just highlighted certainly is not. The Catholic Church was sure to explicitly condemn targeting innocent civilians as a means in the second Vatican council.

Remember that in the classical tradition it is better than one have evil done to oneself than to do evil. After all, having evil done to oneself harms one’s health-- but doing evil damns one’s own soul.

As a note, I am a very conservative American, and I’m very sympathetic with the argument you gave. At one point, I defended it myself. But my introduction to Catholic ethics has helped me to see how mistaken my evaluation was.

I would be happy to point you in the direction of reading you can do to understand the Church’s teaching on these sorts of matters. God bless,

Rob

(P.S. The second questionable assumption is that “unconditional surrender” was a necessary military goal. But I’ll just throw that out as food for thought.)

Yes. Targeting innocent children in order to attain a military goal is immoral, and some might argue that it is a form of terrorism. Further, many hold that requiring unconditional surrender is also immoral, especially since the Japanese had signaled that they were ready to surrender and made it known that they were itnerested in negotiating the surrender, which Roosevelt refused to consider.

 

[sidbrown]

Curiosity is good, and given to us by God. I do not see how anyone can call it evil…

On an important issue of morality should Catholics follow one of the greatest and most loved Doctors and Saints of the Catholic Church or should Catholics follow what a certain Plip Plop has to say on the subject?

 

[NowAgnostic]

On an important issue of morality should Catholics follow one of the greatest and most loved Doctors and Saints of the Catholic Church or should Catholics follow what a certain Plip Plop has to say on the subject?

This is an argument to authority, which is invalid in a philosophy discussion.

 

[sidbrown]

This is an argument to authority, which is invalid in a philosophy discussion.

I have given my opinion that the curiosity to cause terrible destruciton and horrible death and injury to innocent children by creating and using an Atomic Bomb against them is an evil curiosity.

 

[donsnow]

This is an argument to authority, which is invalid in a philosophy discussion.

Point of order: since this is a Holy Roman Catholic philosophy forum, it seems to me that appeal to Catholic authority would be a valid and formidable argument. This isn’t Greek Classical philosophy, here.

 

[donsnow]

Let’s put this A-Bomb thing in historical context.

By the time that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt met at Malta, the U.S. of A., Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were in a race to build and use the first A-Bomb. The Nazis were developing a V-3 rocket at their rocket research center, that would have intercontinental travel ability. It would have been able to send a payload across the Atlantic Ocean to our Eastern seaboard, definitely attack England and any part of the UK with an A-Bomb and definitely reach Soviet cities in the USSR.

So, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were all looking at the material prospect of loosing a city or so to a Nazi A-Bomb on a V-3.

When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had destroyed Nazi Germany as a nation and as a civilization. But, we still had had the experience of expecting the same from the Nazis, before we destroyed their base in Germany. That viewpoint, expecting an atomic missile, colored the thinking of Pres. Truman. So, I plead extenuating circumstances, for that decision.
The decision to stand by unconditional surrender was kept in the face of Nazi and Japanese atrocities to civilians and prisoners of war.

It’s real easy for us to sit here nice and safe and judge the past, at a time that civilization itself on the face of this globe was in danger of destruction by the Axis powers.

I will always think it is wrong to judge past history by contemporary standards; however, I am willing to accept Church standards on these two topics (A-Bomb and unconditional surrender) as long as that teaching has stood unchanged for a few centuries before the fact of these two topics.
I really like our Catholic Church because so many teachings have not changed since the time of Christ’s advent on earth.

 

[sidbrown]

Let’s put this A-Bomb thing in historical context.

By the time that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt met at Malta, the U.S. of A., Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were in a race to build and use the first A-Bomb. The Nazis were developing a V-3 rocket at their rocket research center, that would have intercontinental travel ability. It would have been able to send a payload across the Atlantic Ocean to our Eastern seaboard, definitely attack England and any part of the UK with an A-Bomb and definitely reach Soviet cities in the USSR.

So, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were all looking at the material prospect of loosing a city or so to a Nazi A-Bomb on a V-3.

When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had destroyed Nazi Germany as a nation and as a civilization. But, we still had had the experience of expecting the same from the Nazis, before we destroyed their base in Germany. That viewpoint, expecting an atomic missile, colored the thinking of Pres. Truman. So, I plead extenuating circumstances, for that decision.
The decision to stand by unconditional surrender was kept in the face of Nazi and Japanese atrocities to civilians and prisoners of war.

It’s real easy for us to sit here nice and safe and judge the past, at a time that civilization itself on the face of this globe was in danger of destruction by the Axis powers.

I will always think it is wrong to judge past history by contemporary standards; however, I am willing to accept Church standards on these two topics (A-Bomb and unconditional surrender) as long as that teaching has stood unchanged for a few centuries before the fact of these two topics.
I really like our Catholic Church because so many teachings have not changed since the time of Christ’s advent on earth.

The question first of all is about some types of curiosity and I maintain that the curiosity to see what will happen to innocent children and other civilians when you drop an atomic bomb on them is evil, and I suspect that this was the tyupe of curiosity which offended St. Augustine. Of course, not exactly, since there were no considerations for atomic weapons at that time, but in some sense, there is a curiosity which can be regarded as evil and with evil intentions.
Secondly, with regard to atomic weapons and the murder of thousands of innocent children to attain some military objective, I would offer my own opinion that it is morally and ethically wrong to do so. And with regard to the specific instance of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are good historical reasons as to why this atomic weapon should not have been used and if anyone would like to have a thread on this topic, I am willing to participate and give reasons as to why I beleive that it was morally unjustified. However, I suspect that this type of discussion would be off topic here.

 

[Reprobus]

How on earth did this turn into a debate about the A-bomb?

From The Confessions, Book X:

But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial’s sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of.

There you have it from a Saint himself. Rubber-necking is a sin! Outta my way, you !@#!@# sinners!

With respect to ‘pure’ science, I myself have only two objections. The first is that pure science is to learning what the 20 minute guitar solo is to music. More often than not it’s nothing but wanking. The second is that knowledge for its own sake is most often useless if not (as Augustine has it) a sin. Only God may be valued for his own sake. IIRC Nietzsche referred to this as Newton’s error in The Gay Science. Hollingdale’s translations are hard-copy only, and not grep-able, so if it is important I can look it up later.

The question reminds me of a passage from Sherlock Holmes, where Watson is shocked to hear that Holmes not only doesn’t know that the moon revolves around the earth, but doesn’t want to know because the information is useless. A man can only store so much in memory.

With respect to applied science, I have no objections nor have I found any in Augustine. Quite the opposite. He rejected the Manichees in no small part because their astrology did not match up with what was then known scientifically about the movement of the planets and stars. God the Creator is the ‘first principle’. Let us not forget that the Scientific Method is a Christian invention. Most of the great discoveries come from applied science, ie someone trying to build something useful.

 

[donsnow]

How on earth did this turn into a debate about the A-bomb?

From The Confessions, Book X:

There you have it from a Saint himself. Rubber-necking is a sin! Outta my way, you !@#!@# sinners!

With respect to ‘pure’ science, I myself have only two objections. The first is that pure science is to learning what the 20 minute guitar solo is to music. More often than not it’s nothing but wanking. The second is that knowledge for its own sake is most often useless if not (as Augustine has it) a sin. Only God may be valued for his own sake. IIRC Nietzsche referred to this as Newton’s error in The Gay Science. Hollingdale’s translations are hard-copy only, and not grep-able, so if it is important I can look it up later.

The question reminds me of a passage from Sherlock Holmes, where Watson is shocked to hear that Holmes not only doesn’t know that the moon revolves around the earth, but doesn’t want to know because the information is useless. A man can only store so much in memory.

With respect to applied science, I have no objections nor have I found any in Augustine. Quite the opposite. He rejected the Manichees in no small part because their astrology did not match up with what was then known scientifically about the movement of the planets and stars. God the Creator is the ‘first principle’. Let us not forget that the Scientific Method is a Christian invention. Most of the great discoveries come from applied science, ie someone trying to build something useful.

Hi, Reprobus -

The A-Bomb topic started with sidbrown in his #6 and #12 posts; to which I responded in post #14 and he replied in post #15 that it was off topic in this thread: finally.

And, I’m right in line with your comments on pure science, knowledge for knowledge’s sake and applied science (it’s the engineers that make the information in research and theory happen).

Don

 

[Siddhartha]

With respect to applied science, I have no objections nor have I found any in Augustine. Quite the opposite. He rejected the Manichees in no small part because their astrology did not match up with what was then known scientifically about the movement of the planets and stars. God the Creator is the ‘first principle’. Let us not forget that the Scientific Method is a Christian invention. Most of the great discoveries come from applied science, ie someone trying to build something useful.

Astrology, in its highest form, is an applied science. Unfortunately, astrology is rarely practiced as an applied science these days, or in the days of Augustine.

Regarding the scientific method, the construction of that must go to the Muslim scientist Ibn al-Haytham.