Has Christianity kept us from exploring the galaxy?

[Checkmite]

Graph's values are pretty arbitrary, no? But in graph form things don't look arbitrary.

 

[arthwollipot]

On the term "dark ages". I always thought the reason that term was used was because the historians that coined it considered that they had very little knowledge of that period so it was really a label reflecting their knowledge of the period rather than a description of that period.

This is very true. We have a lot more archaeological evidence now than was available when Plutarch coined the term.

Interestingly, the coming of Christianity to pagan societies had a great impact on modern archaeology. Pagan societies tended to bury their dead with grave goods - to help them in the afterlife. Hence we have a lot of physical artifacts from pre-Christian European societies. Once Christianity arrived, this stopped happening. However, the Christians tended to write things down. So we have a lot more documentary evidence from Christian European societies. It's an interesting sea change in the nature of archaeological evidence.

Not that this has any particular relevance to the thread, but it's interesting nontheless.

 

[HansMustermann]

Great post but while my statement was very basic, their religion and philosophy based on Confucionistic, Taoist and animistic beliefs were major parts of how China functioned and also led to their downfall. Logic didn't really play much of a role as a philosphy in China except for some Monist logician sects.

Oh, we can agree very quickly that logic or critical thinking didn't play much part in it. Confucius's work as a whole doesn't give any more justification than basically, that's the way it is, so that's the way it should be.

I'm just saying that it wasn't really a religion. It was just irrational extreme traditionalism/conservativism IMHO.

The major issue that led to the decline of China was primarily hubris. Chinas was the center of the world, no others could challenge them. This partially(along with politics) led to the ban of sea trade and exploration in the late 14th century. The gradual rise of authoritarian legalism and infighting among court politicians and extreme isolationism and xenophobia played a major role in the decline of China as well.

Well, that is true. My only nitpick would be that IMHO they were extremely authoritarian all along, ever since Shi Huangdi started the empire. I'd be hard pressed to see a noteworthy change in that aspect during either the Ming or the Qing dynasties.

 

[Lonewulf]

Given the way my friend in Singapore described Confucianism to me (modern Confucianism, anyways), the way it exists today is nothing like what you just described, Hans. She was utterly confused at the idea of the 3-years-after-father's-death, or lack of free will, and Singapore still uses some of Confucius' ideas.

 

[HansMustermann]

Given the way my friend in Singapore described Confucianism to me (modern Confucianism, anyways), the way it exists today is nothing like what you just described, Hans. She was utterly confused at the idea of the 3-years-after-father's-death, or lack of free will, and Singapore still uses some of Confucius' ideas.

Read the translation of what Confucius himself said. That you can't judge a son while his father is alive and until 3 years after his father died, is right in there.

 

[Lonewulf]

Read the translation of what Confucius himself said. That you can't judge a son while his father is alive and until 3 years after his father died, is right in there.

What, this?

"[11] The Master said: “As long as his father lives a son should study his wishes; after he is dead, he should study his life. If for three years he do not forsake his father’s ways, he may be called dutiful.”"

From http://www.bartleby.com/44/1/1.html

Doesn't quite seem as objectionable as what you said... It certainly goes against our way of thinking, mind, but it's not quite like half the **** you read in the Bible.

As my friend asks: "is that just a lax moral guideline or something enforced?"

 

[ZirconBlue]

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” .

Is it your spellchecker making you so defiant?

 

[cj.23]

I'd just like to point out here that military conflict has been one of the strongest instigators of technological development the human race has ever seen. During the so-called "Dark Ages", for example (given the definition provided on the poster - see below), we daw the development of metallurgy as we moved from "chain" mail and quilted armour, through the transitional period towards the plate harnesses of the 15th and 16th century, with a corresponding increase in the quality of the steel. Simlutaneously we went from pattern-welded swords and spears that used poor quality iron, through to the development of high-carbon steel blades with highly specialised purposes. Gunpowder made its appearance in the 14th-15th centuries, which is well before the acknowledged start of the Rennaisance, and triggered another sea change in the use of armour on the battlefield.

In short, the so-called "Dark Ages" was not a period of technological stagnation, as the poster suggests. What's more, the poster conflates the Dark Ages with the Mediaeval periods, which historians generally consider distinct. The Dark Ages is usually described as lasting from the fall of the Roman empire in the 4th - 5th Century to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Early, Middle and Late Mediaeval periods followed it, lasting until the Rennaisance in the 16th Century.

All in all, the poster is more than a little bit inaccurate on a number of different levels.

As for its humour value, I usually don't find jokes that are based on misunderstandings or falsehoods to be all that funny.

Absolutely, and a point rarely made. Well said Arthwollipot - sadly war does indeed drive a great deal of progress.

In fact the Dark Ages were also a period when the Christian Church was actually receding, with the church structure destroyed by waves of barbarians, some of whom were Arian and some pagan of various shades.

There is an excellent thread on the myth of religion causing the dark ages here - http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=66856 and the book Tim recommends is an excellent source for the medieval positive influence of the Church, which I have written extensively upon elsewhere -- http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Middle-Ages-Edward-Grant/dp/0521003377

Back at Christmas I publicly challenged Professor Dawkins on his forum to an online (or televised or face to face) debate on the question of whether science and religion are in conflict, as he si one of the last leading proponents of the conflict myth (and my wording there tells you clearly my stance.) He never got back to me, so that has changed in to a rough for a TV series I am now developing for a British channel. However the Formal Debate has started with a couple of teams on that website - still as I doubt many people want to go through the hassle of trekking over there, if anyone is interested I've placed a brief article with my opening post on my blog here --
http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2009/...th-the-conflict-of-religion-science-part-one/

I'll stick later parts up if anyone interested.

cj x

 

[HansMustermann]

I can't seem to find the same online translation I had read before, and wordings seem to vary considerably among the available ones. So it may be that I had a very bad one, or maybe my memory fails me.

Nevertheless, I think I can still make a point, even if not as dramatic.

First of all, 1.11 and 4.20 I'm told are somewhat misleading in that translation, because hsia doesn't mean just "dutiful," but rather a more complex concept of what a proper son should be like. Just "dutiful" would be a benign translation. "Do your duty, be called dutiful." No arguments there. The way it's usually translated is more like if you do all that then you can be called "a real son", or "filial".

I'm thinking more of, say, 4.18, which in the bartleby version doesn't even make any sense. Another easily found translation is, for example:

[4:18] Confucius said: "When you serve your mother and father it is okay to try to correct them once in a while. But if you see that they are not going to listen to you, keep your respect for them and don't distance yourself from them. Work without complaining."

I'd say it demands a bit too much obedience, without much leaway for, say, what you disagreed with them about. E.g., was it because they mis-treat you badly? I'm sure some child abuse victims would disagree with the notion of serving the parent no matter what.

[13:18] The Duke of Sheh told Confucius: "In my land, there are Just men. If a father steals a sheep, the son will testify against him."

Confucius said, "The Just men in my land are different from this. The father conceals the wrongs of his son, and the son conceals the wrongs of his father. This is Rightness!"

Seems to me like Confucius's idea of obedience and family duties included commiting a crime or perjury. It doesn't seem to me like it leaves much room for even an own conscience.

[19:18] Tseng Tzu said: "I heard our Master say, 'In other matters, the filial piety of Ming Chung Tzu was nothing special. But his running his government without changing his father's ministers or systems— this was quite difficult.' "

Seems to hammer again, like 1.11 and 4.20 on the idea that a proper son should continue doing things like his father even after said father's death.

Anyway... to what extent it was actually enforced, I wouldn't know. As I was saying anyone who even hoped to get a government job was supposed to know his Analects, so at least a degree of indoctrination must have been there.

And what I'm trying to say isn't as much that it was absurd, but merely inflexible. Conservative. This is the way things were always done, this is the way you should do them. This is the way your father did things, this is the way you should do them too, if you're a proper son.

It doesn't exactly encourage a lot of flexibility and change, that's all I'm saying.

And since China's isolationism in the Ming dynasty was mentioned, I can't help wondering if that kind of mindset played a role in it too. When confronted with the existence of a big world which worked otherwise, China (or its ruling class) essentially locked itself inside its own borders, so as to not be corrupted by it. There was no attempt to even look at how that rest of the world looked, or if anything could be learned from them. They work differently from China's ideas of how a proper society should work, therefore let's protect China from those ideas.

 

[CriticalThanking]

So, I haven't read all posts but I was wondering if there has been any mention in this thread of the current project NASA has to launch an orbiting Telescope by the name of Kepler, which will keep track of a specific region of the galaxy for I don't remember how many years, to study stars and see if they can find any other planets like ours.

This seems like a rather magnificent advance. Sagan would be proud.

I am going to a lecture tonight at the local university about Kepler. [/flaunt] I'll post if there is anything seriously cool shown/mentioned.

CT

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, Confucius does demand too much obedience, which is what you see in South Korea even today. There was a case relatively recently, where a scientist faked his findings on clone research, and his students backed up his false claim. This is a negative point to the Confucius ideals, I agree, and it does go against our way of thinking. However, I wouldn't say that South Korea is greatly held back by all of the Confucius ideals. In fact, they seem to be progressing economically pretty well overall, especially compared to North Korea (which has an entirely different set of ideals altogether). My friend in Singapore also thinks that Confucius is too much of an extremist towards the "society" level, and thinks that we should try to find a balance between the society and the individual, But that's more of personal beliefs.

Also, forgive me if I'm a tad skeptical about your take on the translations; I'd much rather speak to an expert in Traditional Chinese language myself.

I still think that blaming Confucius or Daoism for China's previous status is as big an oversimplification as blaming Christianity on lack of technological progress. It's not exactly entirely wrong; I think that when you're a religious fundamentalist, you don't have much time to focus on much else outside of your religion, and with enough indoctrination, you definitely come across stuff that holds you back, but I still find it an oversimplification.

As you said, China did become isolationist (much like America did before WWI). I consider Isolationism to be detrimental, and yes, it does serve to reinforce the ideas within your country and cut yourself off to the evolution of other countries -- including their technology. The more contact and trade you have, of ideas and of resources, the greater you tend to progress. Many times, new inventions are just putting a new spin on someone else's saw...

So yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic.

 

[alfalfafour]

So now you're claiming Deist as your own? Great. .

Typically when I make a claim it is a statement. It is not question. It is not an inference. Did I make such a claim?

Buddhism, Taoism and ancestor worship as practiced by the Chinese was a religion and superstitious and their political nonsense based on the worship of an Emperor and autocratic system led to their decline. So Sagan is correct..

So it wasn't Christianity. Was it perhaps the basic superstitious nature of man? Or was it the tendency of people to accuse others of making claims they had not?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It not an inference.

Again, the message sender makes an implication, the receiver makes an inference.

So it wasn't Christianity. Was it perhaps the basic superstitious nature of man? Or was it the tendency of people to accuse others of making claims they had not?

You've accused a lot of people in this very thread of making claims that they have not.

 

[James Fox]

Graph's values are pretty arbitrary, no? But in graph form things don't look arbitrary.

Good point regarding visual communication, perception and even the apparent human desire to see patterns and the like. Clearly the graph is not to be taken seriously. It has however been fodder for some good discussion.

Is it your spellchecker making you so defiant?

Probably the defiant neural synapses in my fidgety brain. Thanks for not being too cruel m8 !

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, forgive me if I'm a tad skeptical about your take on the translations; I'd much rather speak to an expert in Traditional Chinese language myself.

If you have one handy, that is by far the more logical choice. In fact, by now I'm curious myself, since the exact wording seem to vary massively between some translations.

I still think that blaming Confucius or Daoism for China's previous status is as big an oversimplification as blaming Christianity on lack of technological progress. It's not exactly entirely wrong; I think that when you're a religious fundamentalist, you don't have much time to focus on much else outside of your religion, and with enough indoctrination, you definitely come across stuff that holds you back, but I still find it an oversimplification.

As you've probably noticed, I'm mainly blaming the Qing dynasty myself. As I was saying, China was also Confucianist and Buddhist in times when they progressed nicely. Then the Qing come to power and China's technology level actually starts devolving.

Mind you, I'm still saying that Confucianism probably did give them a degree of inflexibility. But I'd say that having a bad dynasty caused even more harm.

So, yeah, as you were saying, we don't seem to disagree that much.

 

[alfalfafour]

You've accused a lot of people in this very thread of making claims that they have not.

Yes, I had. I apologize for that. Can I make it up to you?

Thank you for the grammar lesson.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't get the misspelling of "definite" for "defiant". You aren't the only one, James. It's a weird typo, IMO, and I'm wondering if there's a reason for it... maybe there's a thesis for linguistic/psychology majors in there somewhere!

 

[Lonewulf]

If you have one handy, that is by far the more logical choice. In fact, by now I'm curious myself, since the exact wording seem to vary massively between some translations.

I think my friend in Singapore can read traditional pretty well, and I know a guy on DeviantArt called Bethoncer that's from Taiwan, and naturally deals with Traditional script all the time, but his English is sadly lacking.

Later today I'll talk to my friend in Singapore to try to get a better translation.

As you've probably noticed, I'm mainly blaming the Qing dynasty myself. As I was saying, China was also Confucianist and Buddhist in times when they progressed nicely. Then the Qing come to power and China's technology level actually starts devolving.

Mind you, I'm still saying that Confucianism probably did give them a degree of inflexibility. But I'd say that having a bad dynasty caused even more harm.

So, yeah, as you were saying, we don't seem to disagree that much.

I was taught (rather narrowly) that Qing was both good and bad. He had some good ideas, and some bad ideas. Still, my knowledge here is worse than it should be, but I plan on taking more Eastern historical studies next semester (or the semester after).

Might get a historical book on my lonesome from the library, and perhaps a video documentary or two (they're just so convenient). I hate having gaps in my knowledge, and I have all too many. D:

 

[paximperium]

I was taught (rather narrowly) that Qing was both good and bad. He had some good ideas, and some bad ideas. Still, my knowledge here is worse than it should be, but I plan on taking more Eastern historical studies next semester (or the semester after).

I believe you mean Qing Shih-Huang Ti the first emperor of China.

It is actually the Qing Dynasty, the last Chinese Dynasty which lasted from the 17th to the early 20th century which was mostly Manchurian. It was during this time that they got more xenophobic. The Manchu dynasty suppressed the local Chinese and basically killed off any innovation. It also during this time that the Europeans powers came to China and began to dissemble it. Emperor Pu-Yi(of the Last Emperor fame) was the last Qing Emperor.

 

[James Fox]

I jump on these forums during the few slow moments I have at work and typically only do a very quick spell and grammar check. And the human brain will often see what it thinks should be there instead of what is actually there if there is a large degree of similarity. So there’s my excuse and I’m sticking with it!