Is Monotheism Progress?

[Cavemonster]

Are you saying the church was not responsible for the lack of scientific advancement during the dark ages? Do you know how the church rose to power during what came to be known as the dark ages? Were you aware of the scientific advances made since the 6th century BCE that were lost during the dark ages?

Those are correlations.

If it wasn't for the church and their 1000 years of lost science Columbus might not have landed in the Americas but on the moon.

That's a statement dependent on causation.

 

[noreligion]

Those are correlations.



That's a statement dependent on causation.

Could you kindly answer the questions I asked you?

 

[HansMustermann]

You skipped the very important word "suppression" in my post that you quoted. Yes, the "dark ages" was a period of very little growth and even substantial setbacks in scientific knowledge, but to lay a significant amount of the blame for that on the heavy hand of the Church is to disagree with most contemporary historians. In fact, in the face of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, barbarian invasion, and the spread of Islam cutting them off from the East, the Catholic church was more or less the only force preserving culture and science in western Europe.

And if you argue that monotheism led to such a downfall, then why was the same period such a golden age for progress in the Muslim world?

I never said that Christianity deserves the _blame_ for it. Quite the contrary, I see the retreat into Christian stupidity as more the product of the general collapse than the cause of said collapse. As I've been saying before too, e.g.: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4484712&postcount=45

But I don't see any historical reason to give it credit for the recovery either. And much less for the rise of science. Especially since, again, they were using an explanation that was pre-Christian all right and hadn't needed Christianity to happen. There's a reason why it was called the aristotellian system.

Basically same as even though I don't blame someone's nervous breakdown on their running with pencils up the nose and underpants on the head, and in fact I even see that as a product of that breakdown, I feel no need to credit their recovery to said running with pencils up the nose and underpants on the head either.

Whatever progress happened was more in spite of the religion, than by any kind of using the religion as a framework.

Europe eventually re-discovered the Greek and Roman philosophy, and the best that can be said about the church there is merely that it was in no position to stop it. Though, again, it at least made deals that the parts that contradict the bible not be studied or thought.

And those Arabs really just continued the pre-Christian Persian tradition. The best thing that can be said about the caliphate and Persia at the time is basically that they had never discovered monotheistic bigotry yet -- even the big M himself mostly dealt with administration in his later suras, rather than dogma -- and never got that divine plan get in the way much. The fundie Islamism isn't how the Islam always worked, but essentially the Islamic equivalent of counter-enlightenment, and at any rate something virtually non-existent before Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab in the 18'th century. The frame of mind that everything must fit in the framework of that infallible plan of Allah isn't something to credit for that golden age, but something which didn't hinder it because it didn't exist yet.

 

[Cavemonster]

OK

Are you saying the church was not responsible for the lack of scientific advancement during the dark ages?

Yes, it was not the prime cause for that lack.

Do you know how the church rose to power during what came to be known as the dark ages?

Yes, I know that, many other things happened in that same period, including the decline of the Roman Empire.

Were you aware of the scientific advances made since the 6th century BCE that were lost during the dark ages?

Yes. But if you contend that the Church was directly responsible for that loss, you have the burden of proof to show how.

If it wasn't for the church and their 1000 years of lost science Columbus might not have landed in the Americas but on the moon.

False. Or at least unsupported.

 

[noreligion]

OK


Yes, it was not the prime cause for that lack.

And what was in your own words please.

Yes, I know that, many other things happened in that same period, including the decline of the Roman Empire.

Can you please say the reason, it is quite well known and if you are arguing against it you must know what it is.

Yes. But if you contend that the Church was directly responsible for that loss, you have the burden of proof to show how.

Actually I don't have that burden and your claim that the majority of historians agree with you is false.

 

[Cavemonster]

And what was in your own words please.
Can you please say the reason, it is quite well known and if you are arguing against it you must know what it is.

I've said it earlier in this thread that the prime causes of the dark ages were the dissolution of the Roman Empire, Numerous invasions, and the rise of Islam in the East, cutting off Europe from the Eastern world.

Actually I don't have that burden and your claim that the majority of historians agree with you is false.

You do, you are making a positive claim. You seem to be saying that since your positive claim is popular you don't have the burden to prove it, but I assure you, you do.


If you're really interested in what historians think made the dark ages so grim, read this.

Origins: The later Roman Empire
Main articles: Late Antiquity, Decline of the Roman Empire, Migration Period, and Byzantine Empire
Map of territorial boundaries ca. 450 AD

The Roman empire reached its greatest territorial extent during the 2nd century. The following two centuries witnessed the slow decline of Roman control over its outlying territories. The Emperor Diocletian split the empire into separately administered eastern and western halves in 285. The division between east and west was encouraged by Constantine, who refounded the city of Byzantium as the new capital, Constantinople, in 330.

Military expenses increased steadily during the 4th century, even as Rome’s neighbours became restless and increasingly powerful. Tribes who previously had contact with the Romans as trading partners, rivals, or mercenaries had sought entrance to the empire and access to its wealth throughout the 4th century. Diocletian’s reforms had created a strong governmental bureaucracy, reformed taxation, and strengthened the army.[7]

These reforms bought the Empire time, but they demanded money. Roman power had been maintained by its well-trained and equipped armies. These armies, however, were a constant drain on the Empire's finances. As warfare became more dependent on heavy cavalry, the infantry-based Roman military started to lose its advantage against its rivals. The defeat in 378 at the Battle of Adrianople, at the hands of mounted Gothic lancers, destroyed much of the Roman army and left the western empire undefended.[7] Without a strong army, the empire was forced to accommodate the large numbers of Germanic tribes who sought refuge within its frontiers.

Known in traditional historiography collectively as the “barbarian invasions”, the Migration Period, or the Völkerwanderung ("wandering of the peoples"), this migration was a complicated and gradual process. Some of these "barbarian" tribes rejected the classical culture of Rome, while others admired and aspired to it. In return for land to farm and, in some regions, the right to collect tax revenues for the state, federated tribes provided military support to the empire. Other incursions were small-scale military invasions of tribal groups assembled to gather plunder. The Huns, Bulgars, Avars, and Magyars all raided the Empire's territories and terrorised its inhabitants. Later, Slavic and Germanic peoples would settle the lands previously taken by these tribes. The most famous invasion culminated in the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410, the first time in almost 800 years that Rome had fallen to an enemy.

By the end of the 5th century, Roman institutions were crumbling. Some early historians have given this period of societal collapse the epithet of "Dark Ages" because of the contrast to earlier times. The last emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the barbarian king Odoacer in 476.[7] The Eastern Roman Empire (conventionally referred to as the "Byzantine Empire" after the fall of its western counterpart) had little ability to assert control over the lost western territories. Even though Byzantine emperors maintained a claim over the territory, and no "barbarian" king dared to elevate himself to the position of Emperor of the west, Byzantine control of most of the West could not be sustained; the renovatio imperii ("imperial restoration", entailing reconquest of the Italian peninsula and Mediterranean periphery) by Justinian was the sole, and temporary, exception.

As Roman authority disappeared in the west, cities, literacy, trading networks and urban infrastructure declined. Where civic functions and infrastructure were maintained, it was mainly by the Christian Church. Augustine of Hippo is an example of one bishop who became a capable civic administrator.

The Romans fell, barbarians rushed in. Greece had a similar dark ages from aroud 1100BC to 800BC.

 

[noreligion]

I've said it earlier in this thread that the prime causes of the dark ages were the dissolution of the Roman Empire, Numerous invasions, and the rise of Islam in the East, cutting off Europe from the Eastern world.

Seems like you didn't understand the question. We are discussing the church and it's involvement in the dark ages. What event brought the church into the forefront of what is called the dark ages?

You do, you are making a positive claim. You seem to be saying that since your positive claim is popular you don't have the burden to prove it, but I assure you, you do.

Then you do not know history at all. Can you please tell me what happened with Galileo and when it happened and when the church reversed their decision?

 

[HansMustermann]

Sort of. One doesn't fully disculpate the other. While the plagues and the barbarians did cause the collapse and rise of Christianity, it doesn't make Christianity something good and pure and all scientific either.

Regardless of what caused it earlier, you can't deny such bad influences as that when the church essentially tried to apropriate the University Of Paris in 1200 AD (and that's already way out of the dark ages, you'd think) the charter drew the lines as to what from Aristotle's system they're allowed to teach and what they're not allowed to teach because it contradicts the bible and church dogma.

Or the fact that when they did back a system, yes, it was one which thoroughly rejected empyrical observation and was based more on numerology and wishful thinking. And that the scientific method, when it eventually appeared, had to basically rock the boat and go against the church-sanctioned kind of science.

And to get back on topic, I'm sorry, but basically the scientific method revolution simply started with Galileo. That was the moment when finally the old system just couldn't be reconciled any more with what _is_. It had buggerall to do with the abrahamic religion, or the church or the divine plan. It just became impossible to reconcile the body of actual observations to the system where everything had to follow from the same axioms pulled out of the rear end by some smart guy. At that point you had the choice of whether to continue to pretend the old edifice of logic is still right, reality be damned (and some did just that: they claimed that the moons of Jupiter don't actually exist, because the old system can't be wrong and it needs no extra moons), or that you need to start tweaking science to describe the actual observed reality. You didn't need to believe in any particular divine plan to see that the old system had failed.

 

[Cavemonster]

Seems like you didn't understand the question.

I suppose I must not have

Me: Yes, it was not the prime cause for that lack.
You: And what was in your own words please.

Sounds very much like you're asking me what the prime reason for the lack of progress was, and that's what I gave you. If that wasn't your question, what would you like to know?

 

[Cavemonster]

Sort of. One doesn't fully disculpate the other. While the plagues and the barbarians did cause the collapse and rise of Christianity, it doesn't make Christianity something good and pure and all scientific either.

Oh, come on, you know that's not my argument.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, no, your argument seems to be that belief in the one god and the infallible divine plan was somehow necessary to arrive at science. Which still seems surrealistic to me.

 

[noreligion]

I suppose I must not have

Me: Yes, it was not the prime cause for that lack.
You: And what was in your own words please.

Sounds very much like you're asking me what the prime reason for the lack of progress was, and that's what I gave you. If that wasn't your question, what would you like to know?

Are you for real? You quote what I said but conveniently leave off the remainder of what was said. The full quote was "Seems like you didn't understand the question. We are discussing the church and it's involvement in the dark ages. What event brought the church into the forefront of what is called the dark ages?"

You have just shown me that discussing anything with you is useless since you haven't been honest with your selective quoting.

 

[Cavemonster]

Are you for real? You quote what I said but conveniently leave off the remainder of what was said. The full quote was "Seems like you didn't understand the question. We are discussing the church and it's involvement in the dark ages. What event brought the church into the forefront of what is called the dark ages?"

You have just shown me that discussing anything with you is useless since you haven't been honest with your selective quoting.

I suppose my confusion stemmed from this question:

What event brought the church into the forefront of what is called the dark ages?

Being a bit hard to parse and seemingly unrelated to the earlier question that you accused me of not answering.

What do you mean "Brought into the forefront" Do you mean to ask how the church rose to prominence, or how it came to be associated by historians with the dark ages?

I assure you that I don't mean to deal with you dishonestly, but either you are being very unclear, or I am just failing to follow you.

Either way, I can tell you that accusations and denunciations won't bring us any closer to an understanding.

 

[Cavemonster]

Well, no, your argument seems to be that belief in the one god and the infallible divine plan was somehow necessary to arrive at science. Which still seems surrealistic to me.

Not necessary, but beneficial.

 

[quarky]

When I first encountered the periodic table of the elements; younger than most due to a dad that was a chemist and a devout atheist, I'd thought I had found a reasonable list of the gods and their attributes.

In junior high school, frankly, I saw individuals as elements. I saw relationships as molecules. I sensed trouble brewing in certain bondings, because of the introduction of a new element, with a lower valence; kicking out Charlie, in favor of the predictably more stable Jim.

92 gods it was, back then.
Later on. less...qm stuff...until it blossomed into more deities than even the periodic tables; so sacred to me.

I remain intensely spiritual; regardless of the icons of my worshipiness-thingy-neurosis .

Sign me up for plurality, just in case.

 

[six7s]

Sign me up for plurality, just in case.

Are you positive?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

So I'm not as much interested in what might have happened with different imaginable permutations, but in what did happen historically.

Well, I am

But on a more serious note, it would be like asking which is a more progressive government - a democracy or a dictatorship?

While there have been awful democracies and fantastic dictatorship, on the probabilities, we'll put our money on democracy rather than dictatorship.

Monotheism and Polytheism are working on the same way.

 

[quarky]

Are you positive?

Are you asking for my valence?
Do I feel elementally metallic to you?
Do I smell like someone that donates electrons?


(You're a rascal.)