Has Christianity kept us from exploring the galaxy?

[alfalfafour]

Well, that's the first boring troll I've seen around here. Mods secretly deleting posts? What board does he think this is?

You mean they don't delete them? I could have sworn there were some real bashers here. I suppose I will have to take your word for it, and actually look for the bash comments. It shouldn't take long. I think someone making the assumption that I am a troll, is a bash. Maybe some of you can open your eyes, and see that the subject line infers a single cause for failure to explore the Galaxy, and that the referenced chart is the assumed documentation of the claim.

Now, do we debate the exploration of the Galaxy, or do we focus on the single cause being Christianity? Do we place blinders on ourselves, and not suppose that other causes may be involved? Do we focus on the other incidents of Christianity causing a rift in studies, or do we suppose that there might be other forces involved.

That is to say that we are chasing the Red Herrings which point to the false dichotomy, and are free to make ad hominems against all Christians. What a fun group.

 

[Lithrael]

You mean they don't delete them? I could have sworn there were some real bashers here. I suppose I will have to take your word for it, and actually look for the bash comments. It shouldn't take long.

Skep's post 19, maybe. It's an actual negative sentiment, at least.

I think someone making the assumption that I am a troll, is a bash. Maybe some of you can open your eyes, and see that the subject line infers a single cause for failure to explore the Galaxy, and that the referenced chart is the assumed documentation of the claim.

Your tone and disregard for the subjects we're actually discussing in here fuel that assumption. Subject lines infer a lot of things. How about reading the thread.

Now, do we debate the exploration of the Galaxy, or do we focus on the single cause being Christianity?

To discuss the former, we'd start a new thread. And nobody much in here is discussing the latter. We are in fact discussing the 'other causes' that it looks like you want us to discuss.

 

[alfalfafour]

Your tone and disregard for the subjects we're actually discussing in here fuel that assumption. Subject lines infer a lot of things. How about reading the thread.

Yes they do, and this one inferred that Galatic Exploration would be a theme. Instead we focus on the Red herring, and avoid the actual substance of the galaxy. Forgive me if the evasiveness caused a few mis-perceptions on my part. Originally I focused on the Galaxy. It wasn't until the others attacked me for not focusing on the Red Herrings while I was attempting to relate to the chart, and I became a bit defensive. Imagine if Christians had led this away from Galactic Exploration. Might you actually have debated the topic and tried to re-focus them? Do the technical advances from Roman horses and buggies to rocketships play a minor part, or do we propose that steel production was hampered by Christiany? Did Christians attempt to stop the production of Steam Engines? Did they hamper the development of the Jet engine? Does Rocket Fuel actually contain gunpowder, and is it likely that we can get to the moon on a rocket fueled by gunpowder? Would we better off with a horse and carriage to carry us to the moon? Should we just sit around sipping wine and laughing about those who think this thread has something to do with Galactic understanding? Will it take another thousand years of crying over spilled milk and oppression, and of pointing and laughing before we forget about excuses and blaming and actually focus on Exploring the Galaxy?

Do you think we could have explored the Galaxy with firewood fueled rockets? Does the discovery of petroleum based fuels have any merit? Can oil wells be drilled with a shovel and few hand tools? Could today's advanced optics to explore the galaxy with our eyes have been created without computers or most of the above? When I say computers, I am talking about electronics, not hand crank mechanical devices.

Maybe the whole facetious topic should be deleted? It seems obvious that exploration was hampered by many things including those who would wish to fight the battle of ID versus evolution instead of exploring.

 

[Lithrael]

Nothing inferred we'd be talking about galactic exploration. It inferred we'd be talking about the progress of knowledge and technology, and the things that drove and hindered that progress. And that is what we have been talking about. In this thread, everyone but you is enjoying that content. If you would like to talk about galactic exploration, please start your own thread. That is how this board works.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, alfalfafour, I think you'll find that that's the whole point. Yes, someone had to discover rockets and electronics and a bunch of other stuff first. Would have they been discovered sooner without a millenium-long stagnation? (Though I don't think it was actual stagnation, mind you.)

 

[Madalch]

I maybe have rosy tainted glasses but I always had the impression that on the contrary during the Dark Age, the monasteries were the only centre of knowledge in Europe.

Without the monks copying writings from Plato to Aristotle I am not sure that we would have as much materials now. The first Universities were also originaly created as faculty of theology.

I seem to recall that the works of Aristotle and Plato that the monks kept copying, along with most of the ancient Greek philosophy, was unavailable to Europe until the Crusaders stole copies from the Muslims.

Now, had Islam retained its fascination with science instead of taking on the zealotry that it learned from the Crusaders, perhaps we'd currently be more advanced than we are now. Or perhaps not.

 

[Third Eye Open]

You mean they don't delete them? I could have sworn there were some real bashers here. I suppose I will have to take your word for it, and actually look for the bash comments. It shouldn't take long. I think someone making the assumption that I am a troll, is a bash. Maybe some of you can open your eyes, and see that the subject line infers a single cause for failure to explore the Galaxy, and that the referenced chart is the assumed documentation of the claim.

Now, do we debate the exploration of the Galaxy, or do we focus on the single cause being Christianity? Do we place blinders on ourselves, and not suppose that other causes may be involved? Do we focus on the other incidents of Christianity causing a rift in studies, or do we suppose that there might be other forces involved.

That is to say that we are chasing the Red Herrings which point to the false dichotomy, and are free to make ad hominems against all Christians. What a fun group.

Please notice the ? (question mark) in the OP.

Also please notice that every answer to that question so far has been NO.

 

[Floyt]

Now, had Islam retained its fascination with science instead of taking on the zealotry that it learned from the Crusaders, perhaps we'd currently be more advanced than we are now. Or perhaps not.

Good point actually - what happened in Dar-al-Islam to put the brakes on scientific progress? With the technological headstart they had on Christendom (I remember seeing a 10th century stainless steel pocket surgery set, a chalcedony handle with screwable attachments - yowsers!), there ought to have been New Baghdad on the Moon by the time Newton ground his first prism...

 

[Madalch]

Good point actually - what happened in Dar-al-Islam to put the brakes on scientific progress? With the technological headstart they had on Christendom (I remember seeing a 10th century stainless steel pocket surgery set, a chalcedony handle with screwable attachments - yowsers!), there ought to have been New Baghdad on the Moon by the time Newton ground his first prism...

I'm no expert, but I seem to recall reading that the Muslims felt they had to adopt the religious fervor displayed by the Christians in order to fight off the Crusaders. And that put the kibosh on their scientific endeavors. And I'm sure the loss of much of their empire had something to do with it- it's easier to have a Golden Age when you're expanding than when you're contracting.

 

[James Fox]

Sorry if it seamed like I started this thread and promptly abandon it…, everything got busy.

I certainly don’t disagree that the poster was a somewhat cheap joke. However I think there is some validity with regard to a slowing down of science development given the significant percentage of the best and brightest that were cloistered off to study theology or spend a lot of effort maintaining church control. And disease and invading hordes defiantly were part of the equation. And I am defiantly not some sort of anti Christian bigot and I did say “I’m not necessarily taking this poster seriously” .

And I frankly don’t give Mayan or Aztec astronomical notions much thought. To answer my own question I don’t think we would be exploring the galaxy and I personally think much more than exploration of our own solar system is an enormous waste of time and money. Perhaps the only interstellar travel we will be able to do will involve shifting from one universe to a parallel one without all the distance problems; except there may be lots of getting back issues to be sorted out before that happens.

 

[alfalfafour]

Nothing inferred we'd be talking about galactic exploration. .

Ok, I will henceforth ignore the subject line and allow you to do the same. I was looking for a Galactic study, not a defense or a shot at Christianity.

 

[RobRoy]

I'm no expert, but I seem to recall reading that the Muslims felt they had to adopt the religious fervor displayed by the Christians in order to fight off the Crusaders.

What was it that you were reading? This isn't a criticism, I've been delving into the Crusades and the surrounding time period recently, and I'm interested to read up on this particular aspect.

 

[Shalamar]

Ok, I will henceforth ignore the subject line and allow you to do the same. I was looking for a Galactic study, not a defense or a shot at Christianity.

In the religious and philosophy section of the JREF? if you want to talk about 'Galactic studies', wander on over to the science section and start a new thread.

This thread is a discussion on whether Christianity and the Dark Ages stifled, and stopped scientific progress. The answer has been 'no'. It saeems you aren't reading the thread.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Maybe some of you can open your eyes, and see that the subject line infers a single cause for failure to explore the Galaxy, and that the referenced chart is the assumed documentation of the claim.

The one sending the message implies, the one receiving said statement infers. And anyway, the subject line doesn't imply anything, it asks a straightforward question. The graph itself does make an implication, however the question presented in the subject line does not assume the validity of the graph's implied cause of the "Dark Ages". The irony of your protest is that the great majority of those responding in this thread have found the implication of the graph, however humorously intended, to be unjustified.

Subject lines are there to grab your attention, not summarize the OP.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There must be numerous instances throughout history that could have resulted in faster scientific and technological development had things gone differently. But surely we've dodged some bullets as well.

One of my personal favorites is to imagine what the world might now be like had Democritus been embraced by early thinkers rather than Socrates and Plato.

 

[alfalfafour]

In the religious and philosophy section of the JREF? if you want to talk about 'Galactic studies', wander on over to the science section and start a new thread.

This thread is a discussion on whether Christianity and the Dark Ages stifled, and stopped scientific progress. The answer has been 'no'. It saeems you aren't reading the thread.

You're right. Did you have to repeat it? I got sidetracked by the subject line. I believe I focused on the galaxy in my second response, and attempted to persuade others that the subject line has bearing on the thread. I thought the graph in the OP referred to Galactic study, and how the dark ages had stifled Galactic study in particular. Don't mind me. I will find another thread.

 

[alfalfafour]

The one sending the message implies, the one receiving said statement infers. And anyway, the subject line doesn't imply anything, it asks a straightforward question. The graph itself does make an implication, however the question presented in the subject line does not assume the validity of the graph's implied cause of the "Dark Ages". The irony of your protest is that the great majority of those responding in this thread have found the implication of the graph, however humorously intended, to be unjustified.

Subject lines are there to grab your attention, not summarize the OP.

Of course the OP was relatively scant with regard to anything but the subject line and the graph.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of course the OP was relatively scant with regard to anything but the subject line and the graph.

Except for those sentences in which James Fox expresses skepticism of the graph but feels that its validity, or lack thereof, would make for interesting discussion, and proposes another possible cause.

 

[alfalfafour]

Except for those sentences in which James Fox expresses skepticism of the graph but feels that its validity, or lack thereof, would make for interesting discussion, and proposes another possible cause.

A cause of what? A graph of what? Maybe the conflict is as simple as that.

If we proposed that it was scientific study in General, then I would agree that the tangential responses were valid. And as I do see that it was in fact a "science" graph, not an astronomy study graph; I see that these tangential responses do equally approach the topic, and I feel like a clown. So go ahead and laugh. I was distracted by the title, and my own interest in the galactic study portion of science. I will pay less attention to the subject line. Why did they ever decide to put one on a thread in the first place? It seems such a useless feature.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A cause of what?

The alleged "Dark Ages".

A graph of what?

The alleged decline and stagnation of scientific and technological development during the alleged "Dark Ages".

Maybe the conflict is as simple as that.

If we proposed that it was scientific study in General, then I would agree that the tangential responses were valid.

Actually, I was pointing out that your accusations of unjustified attacks on Christianity as the cause of the "Dark Ages" were unwarranted.