Into the Darkness: Christianity and the Dark Ages

[Fade the Butcher]

..AND THE SKY IS FALLING! Quick, let's all become dogmatic transhumanists - it's the only thing that can save us from creationists and their machine of culture destruction! Fade has recently been rehashing some of the most banal endarkenment cliches. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why Petr is so sensitive about this. Christianity has triumphed before in Europe and science has fallen into disrepute. This is exactly what Petr yearns for today. The result was the Dark Ages which began approximately with the demise of the Western Roman Empire in 472 and ended with the recovery of Greek scientific texts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The rise and fall of science in the Islamic world also ran parallel to the translation of Greek scientific texts into Arabic during the eighth and ninth centuries and the ultimate rejection of science by religious fundamentalists after the thirteenth century.

[Petr]

I don't understand why Petr is so sensitive about this. Christianity has triumphed before in Europe and science has fallen into disrepute. This is exactly what Petr yearns for today.
Fade is building up a shameless strawman. I doubt whether he even believes his own rhetoric here. :rolleyes:

Fade has himself formerly admitted that ancient Greeks didn't yet practice genuine experimental science. He also ignores the well-known way post-reformation Christianity has tremendously supported common literacy and other vital ingredients of higher culture around the world. Puritans are a good example.

The state of Kerala, for example, happens to be the most Christian and most highly developed area in the whole Indian peninsula:


"In the educational field, the work of the Christians of Kerala has been noteworthy and it is due to their efforts together with that of the government and of other religious and cultural groups that Kerala became the leading state in India for literacy. Government of India, in 1990, declared that the state of Kerala is 100% literate. This is recorded in the Guinness Book."

http://www.indiacatholic.com/inindiatoday.htm


Petr

[Kodos]

Fade is building up a shameless strawman. I doubt whether he even believes his own rhetoric here.

You seriously haven't noticed that he does this before :D?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I don't understand why Petr is so sensitive about this. Christianity has triumphed before in Europe and science has fallen into disrepute. This is exactly what Petr yearns for today. The result was the Dark Ages which began approximately with the demise of the Western Roman Empire in 472 and ended with the recovery of Greek scientific texts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The rise and fall of science in the Islamic world also ran parallel to the translation of Greek scientific texts into Arabic during the eighth and ninth centuries and the ultimate rejection of science by religious fundamentalists after the thirteenth century.

....(Blinks).....

[Petr]

The rise and fall of science in the Islamic world also ran parallel to the translation of Greek scientific texts into Arabic during the eighth and ninth centuries and the ultimate rejection of science by religious fundamentalists after the thirteenth century.
Christianity and Islam are not the same, not in their view of salvation and not in their approach to natural science. Religions are not equal.

I will annoy Fade even more and claim that Islam's focus on collectivism - its contempt for individualism and private interpretation - have been big obstacles for progress and science.

Ultra-collectivistic cultures stagnate very easily, smugly thinking they've got nothing more to learn from anybody else. Even Japan had to be forcefully shaken awake by the West before it could exploit its communitarian skills properly.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade is building up a shameless strawman. I doubt whether he even believes his own rhetoric here. :rolleyes:

You want to destroy pagan science and establish the dominance of Christianity. Of course, organized religion was never given more credence in the West than during the Dark Ages when civilization all but collapsed and did not begin to revive until the later years of the tenth century.

Fade has himself formerly admitted that ancient Greeks didn't yet practice genuine experimental science.

This is irrelevant. Christians didn't practice science at all during the Dark Ages. Science was founded by the Greeks. Science did not revive in Western Europe until the recovery of Greek scientific texts in the High Middle Ages. Of course, classical science and modern science differ in many ways, but the latter is a direct descendent of the former. It is more accurate to say that there were several schools of classical science that were later synthesized into modern science. Aristotleanism, for example, devalued mathematics whereas Platonism put much importance upon the subject. Similarly, Platonism devalued the natural world whereas Aristotle explained phenomena in terms of natural causes. The empirical element was present in Aristotleanism, but more emphasis was put upon syllogism.

He also ignores the well-known way post-reformation Christianity has tremendously supported common literacy and other vital ingredients of higher culture around the world. Puritans are a good example.

The vast majority of Europeans remained illiterate throughout the Dark Ages and indeed well into the modern age. Christianity played an important role in keeping them illiterate too. Christianity is not necessary to promote literacy either.

The state of Kerala, for example, happens to be the most Christian and most highly developed area in the whole Indian peninsula

Japan isn't a Christian nation, but that hardly means the Japanese are illiterate. Science is a secular enterprise. I established this in the 15 replies to creationist nonsense thread.

[Fade the Butcher]

Christianity and Islam are not the same, not in their view of salvation and not in their approach to natural science. Religions are not equal.

There is really no such thing as Christian science or Islamic science. There is only one scientific tradition. Science was founded by the Greeks during Antiquity and evolved into its present form over the centuries. Science ceased to exist in Western Europe in the Dark Ages during the heydey of Christianity.

I will annoy Fade even more and claim that Islam's focus on collectivism - its contempt for individualism and private interpretation - have been big obstacles for progress and science.

Collectivism has nothing to do with the matter. Japan is one of the most collectivist societies in the world, but Japan is a world leader in scientific research. I will annoy Petr by pointing out that science only revived in Western Europe after pagan scientific texts were rediscovered and translated into Latin.

Ultra-collectivistic cultures stagnate very easily, smugly thinking they've got nothing more to learn from anybody else. Even Japan had to be forcefully shaken awake by the West before it could exploit its communitarian skills properly.

The tension between science and religion has always been present, as religion is always in danger of being discredited by science because it is founded upon falsehood. The Bible is nothing but another book. It was written by ordinary men who were ignorant of the natural world. This can be seen in the ignorance of countless generations of Christians who took its laughable claims at face value.

[Petr]

You want to destroy pagan science and establish the dominance of Christianity.
You keep pushing the meme that science is somehow essentially "pagan" - that unbelievers have some sort of copyright to it. Nonsense, true science is based on the observable laws and patterns of this God-made universe and therefore Christian. It can function excellently without overt speculations of evolutionists which are mere atheistic philosophical materialism, not hard science.

Of course, organized religion was never given more credence in the West than ever before during the Dark Ages when civilization all but collapsed and did not begin to revive until the later years of the tenth century.
This stereotype that medieval Europeans in general were somehow especially pious is a false stereotype, partly promoted by Catholic apologists who try to portray the era as a "golden age of faith". Rodney Stark has some interesting data on that.

"But let me emphasize here the facts that Mr. Stark's research brought out about American religious history: In 1776 only about 17 percent of Americans were churched, and by 1850 that percentage had doubled. In the early 20th century slightly more than half of the U.S. population was churched, and adherence rates have recently been a bit over 60 percent."

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11334

Actually majority of Europeans in general were probably much more committed to the church and religion in the 17th and 18th centuries than in the Middle Ages!

This is irrelevant.
Fade is pooh-poohing evidence, and also contradicting his earlier statements.

Christianity played an important role in keeping them illiterate too.
Fade is parroting dumb endarkenment propaganda. Put that "Catholicism" instead of Christianity and you might be a bit closer to truth, but only a little.

Already in the Law of Moses there is a very strong theoretical basis for common literacy:

Deuteronomy 6:6
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
6:7
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
6:8
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
6:9
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Stoic philosopher Seneca admitted that the Jews of his time were in general better educated than pagan masses:

"They at least know the reasons for their ceremonies; but the mass of the rest of mankind know not why they do what they do"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=472&letter=S

Christianity is not necessary to promote literacy either.
Evolutionist speculations and dogmas are not necessary to have a functioning science.

Japan isn't a Christian nation, but that hardly means the Japanese are illiterate.
Irrelevant comparison. The stimulus from a Christian West was necessary for Japan to reach its present condition, and like I've pointed out:

"Despite the gap between faith and science, we can still see several times as many Christians among scientists and academics in Japan as there are in the public at large."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5256&highlight=japan

Science is a secular enterprise. I established this in the 15 replies to creationist nonsense thread
You didn't establish anything. You cut and pasted off stuff from a middle-brow popularizing science magazine.


Petr

[Petr]

There is really no such thing as Christian science or Islamic science.
There is no such thing as pagan science. The Greeks do not have a copyright to the correct observations they happened to make about this world, but the Creator of this world does.

Science ceased to exist in Western Europe in the Dark Ages during the heydey of Christianity.
A blatant untruth. The "dark ages" were not the heyday of Christianity. That heyday is actually still ahead of us. :cool:

Collectivism has nothing to do with the matter.
Hyper-collectivism certainly does stagnate societies and hinder progress, but you simply refuse to accept such a conclusion because of your personal bias.

Japan is one of the most collectivist societies in the world,
Japan is nowhere so collectivistic as it used to be in its pre-modern era. It has had to make significant concessions to individualism.

(Btw, it's typical for anti-individualists and anti-Christians to project their own fantasies to Japan, thinking it as some sort of ideal wonderland.)

Japan is a world leader in scientific research.
May I see some statistics on this? Just recently you were ferociously denying that Orientals had surpassed Scandinavians in science.

The tension between science and religion has always been present, as religion is always in danger of being discredited by science because it is founded upon falsehood. The Bible is nothing but another book. It was written by ordinary men who were ignorant of the natural world. This can be seen in the ignorance of countless generations of Christians who took its laughable claims at face value.[/
Blah, blah, blah. This blather has very little relevance to my actual comments about the connection between overt collectivism and stagnation - Fade is just talking to himself and being tedious.


Petr

[Sulla the Dictator]

Japan is a world leader in scientific research.


....(Blink).....

[Petr]

Sulla, I'd wish your contributions to this thread were a little more comprehensive than that...


Petr

[Donny the Punk]

....(Blink).....
ROFL was anyone timing him? :rofl:

[Fade the Butcher]

There is no such thing as pagan science.

This is false. How many times now have I pointed out to you that science was founded by the Greeks?

The Greeks do not have a copyright to the correct observations they happened to make about this world, but the Creator of this world does.

Earth was not created by a supernatural deity. That's preposterous. There is nothing really unusual about our solar system. Plenty of extrasolar planets have been identified in the last several years alone.

A blatant untruth. The "dark ages" were not the heyday of Christianity. That heyday is actually still ahead of us. :cool:

This is false. Christianity was dominant during the Dark Ages in a way that it was not in later centuries. Science did not revive until the High Middle Ages in the West and Christianity had to compete with pagan and secular knowledge after the twelfth century.

Hyper-collectivism certainly does stagnate societies and hinder progress

Science itself is a collective project. Thomas Kuhn and other historians of science have pointed this out.

. . . but you simply refuse to accept such a conclusion because of your personal bias.

This is also false. My acceptance of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with my political views. Potyondi has also said he believes in evolution. A strong case can be made, however, that your rejection of evolution stems from your irrational religious attachments.

Japan is nowhere so collectivistic as it used to be in its pre-modern era. It has had to make significant concessions to individualism.(Btw, it's typical for anti-individualists and anti-Christians to project their own fantasies to Japan, thinking it as some sort of ideal wonderland.)

The Japanese have become more individualistic because Japan is a far wealthier country than it was several generations ago. This trend towards expressive individualism can be found in all modern industrial nations and stems from socioeconomic changes. Individualism is an effect, not a cause, of Japan's prosperity. Social networks decay when they lose their utility.

May I see some statistics on this?

I dealt with this in the other thread.

Just recently you were ferociously denying that Orientals had surpassed Scandinavians in science.

That would be the thread I am referring to. You are confusing two different arguments. It is one thing to say that Japan is a world leader in scientific research; that Japan is one of the top nations in the world in this respect. No reasonable person familar with the subject denies this. It is quite another to say that Japan and China have overtaken Northern Europe in this respect.

Blah, blah, blah.

Christianity was at odds with heliocentrism during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Christian fundamentalists are opposed to evolution and therapeutic cloning today.

This blather has very little relevance to my actual comments about the connection between overt collectivism and stagnation - Fade is just talking to himself and being tedious.

Petr has yet to tell us why the Dark Ages were not a time of fantastic scientific progress given the relative absence of pagan knowledge and the almost uncritical acceptance of the Good Book in Western Europe in the five hundred years after the fall of the Roman Empire. Oh wait. We are supposed to believe that this was when Christianity was establishing the foundation of modern science. :p

You keep pushing the meme that science is somehow essentially "pagan" - that unbelievers have some sort of copyright to it. It can function excellently without overt speculations of evolutionists which are mere atheistic philosophical materialism, not hard science. You didn't establish anything. You cut and pasted off stuff from a middle-brow popularizing science magazine.

Yes. Science was founded by the pagan Greeks who attempted to explain phenomena in terms of natural causes.

Scientific Naturalism (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=7&catID=2)

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms."

This stereotype that medieval Europeans in general were somehow especially pious is a false stereotype, partly promoted by Catholic apologists who try to portray the era as a "golden age of faith".

This is a straw man. You are distorting my argument. I argued above that Christianity was never given more credence in Western Europe than during the Dark Ages, that is, Christianity did not have to compete with pagan and secular learning as was the case in later centuries. I did not say that illiterate Europeans writhing in poverty were devout Christians.

Actually majority of Europeans in general were probably much more committed to the church and religion in the 17th and 18th centuries than in the Middle Ages!

So, Petr is telling us that Christianity was more authoritative in Europe during the Enlightenment, in Revolutionary France, than it was during the Dark Ages.

Fade is pooh-poohing evidence, and also contradicting his earlier statements.

Another straw man. Where have I said that classical science was modern science?

Fade is parroting dumb endarkenment propaganda. Put that "Catholicism" instead of Christianity and you might be a bit closer to truth, but only a little. Already in the Law of Moses there is a very strong theoretical basis for common literacy:

The vast majority of Europeans were illiterate well into the modern age. Indeed, the majority of Americans were illiterate until the late nineteenth century and America was one of the first nations to pioneer modern public education.

Stoic philosopher Seneca admitted that the Jews of his time were in general better educated than pagan masses:

I challenged Petr in the other thread to point out a single significant accomplishment in science that can be attributed to the ancient Hebrews. He never responded.

Evolutionist speculations and dogmas are not necessary to have a functioning science.

What do scientists have to say about that? Wait. Every major scientific organization in the West endorses evolution through natural selection. The overwhelming majority of scientists are agnostics or outright atheists.

Irrelevant comparison. The stimulus from a Christian West was necessary for Japan to reach its present condition, and like I've pointed out

Christians never introduced literacy to Japan. Literacy also goes back centuries before the advent of Christianity too.

[Jofreidr_1488]

(Btw, it's typical for anti-individualists and anti-Christians to project their own fantasies to Japan, thinking it as some sort of ideal wonderland.)

There is no projection involved, for instance many Folkish Pagans relate to Shinto very easily. (I have even considered making an Aryan Pilgrimage to the Yakusuni Shrine to thank the Japanese for fighting the Yankee-judea. It's not really that far for me since I live on the Left Coast)

[Petr]

Fade's comments are becoming less and less meatier, mere dogmatic re-statements of his original position, so I will be less versatile about my responses as well.


How many times now have I pointed out to you that science was founded by the Greeks?
Define science. As far as mere observation of patterns of this universe goes, the Mesopotamians were superior to the Greeks in many areas of mathematics and astronomy (even Diophantus came from Babylonia). The Egyptians preceded them in geometry.

Of course the Greeks hugely developed the knowledge and theories they received from the Middle East - but likewise, medieval Christians hugely developed the Greek inheritance.

Btw, I will boldly posit that European Christians would have discovered scientific method on their own, sooner or later.

Earth was not created by a supernatural deity. That's preposterous.
This conclusion of yours is not based on hard science, but on blind philosophical materialism. And simply calling it "preposterous" is an empty emotional attack.

There is nothing really unusual about our solar system. Plenty of extrasolar planets have been identified in the last several years alone.
Irrelevant diversion, and one based upon uncritical acceptance of evolutionist propaganda at that.

This is false. Christianity was dominant during the Dark Ages in a way that it was not in later centuries.
Define "dominance". Christianity took a much greater grip on the minds of European masses in the modern age, as people learned to read the Bible. After the Counter-Reformation, even Roman Catholicism in general got a much tighter grip on its flock than during the pretty anarchic Middle Ages.

Perhaps you don't realize that Christianity's true spiritual power is not measured on just such shallow level as the obedience of rulers towards the pope or similar elitistic political schemes.

For example, Christianity's power was growing steadily for centuries in the Roman Empire before the Roman establishment took any positive official notice to it - and then one day it just took over. We are pioneers of underground culture, and even today much of our real influence is unseen by the glitterati.

Science itself is a collective project.
So what? Too much collectivism is still lethal for progress - where's your sense of Aristotelian moderation?

Thomas Kuhn and other historians of science have pointed this out.
Speaking of Kuhn:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north147.html


"Then there is the fact of establishment control. Certain facts and lines of reasoning are turned into official dead ends. The most important book on this is now 40 years old: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. He is an historian of science. His book shows how successful movements in an academic guild gain control, and once they do, they create an official history that shows how they, neutral pursuers of the truth, discovered it. They re-write the story of the struggle, especially if the losers still have a plausible case to make.

Winners write the history books that get published, even in chemistry and physics. Losers disappear from public view. So do rebel historians who write the unofficial version. In the field of the history of science, the premier example is Pierre Duhem. He gave too much credit to medieval scientists. The French academic establishment kept the second five volumes of his life’s work from being published for over four decades. If you want to know how the academic game really works, click here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/duhem.htm

This is also false. My acceptance of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with my political views.
Yeah right. The idea of "neutrality" is a false abstraction anyways, and we all have our own motivations to believe in the things we believe.

The Japanese have become more individualistic because Japan is a far wealthier country than it was several generations ago.
The Japanese took a huge step towards individualism already when they abolished the old inefficient feudal Shogunate system.

Already in the late 19th century, traditional Japanese society was being severely challenged by Western individualism, and progressive Japanese identified Christianity with positive Western energy:


"True, the early reactions to Western music were adverse: on hearing a child in song in Hawaii, Norimasa Muragaki, a member of the very first Japanese embassy to the United States in 1860, compared the sound to "a dog howling late at night."16 Within a few years, however, Japanese heard Western music much more favorably, to the point that the music drew some individuals into Western religion. In 1884, Shoichi Toyama argued that "Christianity ought to be adopted for, first, the benefit of progress in music, second, the development of compassion for fellow men and harmonious cooperation, and third, social relations between men and women."17 Note that he lists music first.

Before long, some Japanese discovered that Western music expressed their feeling far better than anything in their own tradition. As he left French soil, the leading writer Nagai Kafu (1879-1959) mused wistfully on the beauty of French culture:

No matter how much I wanted to sing Western songs, they were all very difficult. Had I, born in Japan, no choice but to sing Japanese songs? Was there a Japanese song that expressed my present sentiment—a traveler who had immersed himself in love and the arts in France but was now going back to the extreme end of the Orient where only death would follow monotonous life? . . . I felt totally forsaken. I belonged to a nation that had no music to express swelling emotions and agonized feelings.18


http://www.meforum.org/article/407

Petr has yet to tell us why the Dark Ages were not a time of fantastic scientific progress
Perhaps because Christendom was still fighting for its very existence against barbarian hordes during this time? Still in the 10th century, Moors, Vikings and Magyars were terrorizing practically all areas of Western Europe.


Perhaps you don't think that barbarian attacks can prevent people from properly concentrating on metaphysical issues, that the barracks-atmosphere isn't necessarily too healthy for the development of science?

In Sparta, the one Greek territory that was militantly collectivistic and always ready to the warpath, there was no scientific progress whatever. The Roman lack of interest for the fancies of theoretical science was similarly motivated.

Dar-al Islam is also theoretically supposed to be one huge strictly-disciplined war-camp, always ready for mobilization.

Therefore, in the Muslim worldview, defying the authority of mullahs was seen as a mutiny in the ranks during the wartime - something that had to be squelched with extreme prejudice and no questions asked.

(In the Christian tradition, there was and is actually even a romantic ideal of defying corrupt clerics, like Jesus Christ defied the Pharisees. Nothing like that can be found in Islam.)

On the other hand, the Christian ideal of pacifism provided many clerical people that precious schole, leisure-time to concentrate on the arts of peace.

Oh wait. We are supposed to believe that this was when Christianity was establishing the foundation of modern science. :p
This was not the era when those foundations were laid, and I've never claimed so. The foundations was there ready right there on the pages of the Bible, ready to be appropriated by Christians, which they did just about as soon as they had a little breathing space in the 11th century.

Scientific Naturalism (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=7&catID=2)

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms."
What is that link supposed to prove? A mediocre article that I linked a thorough rebuttal to.

And as for "methodological naturalism":

The rules of the game

As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/rules.asp

I argued above that Christianity was never given more credence in Western Europe than during the Dark Ages, that is, Christianity did not have to compete with pagan and secular learning as was the case in later centuries.
You have a very reductionist and elitistic view of what "given credence" means. In the so-called "Dark Ages", most Europeans weren't even Christians at all. And Christianity can actually thrive in competition.

So, Petr is telling us that Christianity was more authoritative in Europe during the Enlightenment, in Revolutionary France, than it was during the Dark Ages.
In general terms, yes. The Reformation (and also counter-reformation) raised the public culture, literacy and Christian commitment of European masses tremendously.

The 17th century wasn't any enlightenment era either. Like Rodney Stark put it:

From For the Glory of God, by Rodney Stark, pp. 123-4:

"As part of this discussion, I show that the leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overwhelmingly were devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. Turning to an assessment of the "Enlightenment," I show it to have been conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by such self-appointed cheerleaders as Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise - a pattern that still continues."

The vast majority of Europeans were illiterate well into the modern age. Indeed, the majority of Americans were illiterate until the late nineteenth century and America was one of the first nations to pioneer modern public education.
Are you saying the the Reformation, and Christianity in general, didn't have a huge positive impact on European literacy?

Ancient philosophers like Plato even denigrated writing in favor of oral communication:

"Therefore every man of worth, when dealing with matters of worth, will be far from exposing them to ill feeling and misunderstanding among men by committing them to writing. In one word, then, it may be known from this that, if one sees written treatises composed by anyone, either the laws of a lawgiver, or in any other form whatever, these are not for that man the things of most worth, if he is a man of worth, but that his treasures are laid up in the fairest spot that he possesses. But if these things were worked at by him as things of real worth, and committed to writing, then surely, not gods, but men "have themselves bereft him of his wits." "

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/seventh_letter.html

It was not until Julian the Apostate, who tried to counter Christianity with its own medicine, that an important pagan concretely tried to educate and uplift ordinary pagan masses.

I challenged Petr in the other thread to point out a single significant accomplishment in science that can be attributed to the ancient Hebrews. He never responded.
"I never responded"? Bullshit. May the gallery take a look in here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5918&page=9&highlight=plato

Every major scientific organization in the West endorses evolution through natural selection. The overwhelming majority of scientists are agnostics or outright atheists.
Fade continues worshipping mainstream opinion. And the things are going to change.

Christians never introduced literacy to Japan.
And of course I never claimed that. Have fun pushing down those strawmen! :)


Petr

[Petr]

many Folkish Pagans relate to Shinto very easily. (I have even considered making an Aryan Pilgrimage to the Yakusuni Shrine to thank the Japanese for fighting the Yankee-judea.
Fade must be really proud to have you by his side. :rolleyes:


Petr

[Hippias]

Earth was not created by a supernatural deity. That's preposterous. There is nothing really unusual about our solar system. Plenty of extrasolar planets have been identified in the last several years alone.

How do you think the universe came about? Or do you believe the universe has always existed?

[infoterror]

I think it makes less sense to talk about labels than to speak of philosophical constructions.

Any belief system that is realistic, relativist (but not relativistic), transcendental and heroic is quintessentially Indo-European.

Christianity can (but rarely does) take this form.

Exceptions: Meister Eckhart, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Arthur Schopenhauer, Adolf Hitler.

[infoterror]

Of course the Greeks hugely developed the knowledge and theories they received from the Middle East - but likewise, medieval Christians hugely developed the Greek inheritance.

How many were Christians and how many were simply Deists? We're bickering over unimportant labels here.

Btw, I will boldly posit that European Christians would have discovered scientific method on their own, sooner or later.

The problem with Christians isn't lack of brains, but a tendency to wax superstitious and deny knowledge.

Some knowledge should be denied (anal sex) but they too often pick the wrong knowledge to deny and end up screwing altarboys anyway.

This conclusion of yours is not based on hard science, but on blind philosophical materialism.

Three paths:

a) Dualism
b) Materialism
c) Transcendentalism

Christianity took a much greater grip on the minds of European masses in the modern age, as people learned to read the Bible. After the Counter-Reformation, even Roman Catholicism in general got a much tighter grip on its flock than during the pretty anarchic Middle Ages.

I disagree; people who cannot read are held more in the sway of mysticism, it seems to me. Teaching them to read later doesn't help :)

The most important book on this is now 40 years old: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. He is an historian of science. His book shows how successful movements in an academic guild gain control, and once they do, they create an official history that shows how they, neutral pursuers of the truth, discovered it. They re-write the story of the struggle, especially if the losers still have a plausible case to make.

Read some of Nietzsche's comments on academics: they get paid to discuss solutions, not find the right one.

Before long, some Japanese discovered that Western music expressed their feeling far better than anything in their own tradition.

Ugh. False deracination.

In Sparta, the one Greek territory that was militantly collectivistic and always ready to the warpath, there was no scientific progress whatever.

Did they want "progress"?

As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true.

Science is a study of material method; it will find the methods of creation, not its impetus.

In the so-called "Dark Ages", most Europeans weren't even Christians at all. And Christianity can actually thrive in competition.

Competition, as in a democracy? Whoever wins the election should be shot!

Are you saying the the Reformation, and Christianity in general, didn't have a huge positive impact on European literacy?

Teaching people to read who cannot understand what they read... is progress? Oh, the individualism! Oh, the gross assumptions!

Ancient philosophers like Plato even denigrated writing in favor of oral communication:

"Therefore every man of worth, when dealing with matters of worth, will be far from exposing them to ill feeling and misunderstanding among men by committing them to writing. In one word, then, it may be known from this that, if one sees written treatises composed by anyone, either the laws of a lawgiver, or in any other form whatever, these are not for that man the things of most worth, if he is a man of worth, but that his treasures are laid up in the fairest spot that he possesses. But if these things were worked at by him as things of real worth, and committed to writing, then surely, not gods, but men "have themselves bereft him of his wits." "

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/seventh_letter.html

He's right. As Spengler noted, the best societies don't write anything down... writing it down allows lesser people to understand half of it. You know the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

They weren't just talking about MS Windows.

Fade continues worshipping mainstream opinion.

Mainstream opinion also favors the individualism you espouse here.

I don't believe in "science" but I have been given reason to believe in philosophy. Maybe the debate should go to that level?[/QUOTE]

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Define science. As far as mere observation of patterns of this universe goes, the Mesopotamians were superior to the Greeks in many areas of mathematics and astronomy (even Diophantus came from Babylonia). The Egyptians preceded them in geometry.
Petr

Inferior to Mesopotamians? Have you heard about this?

http://jita.czweb.org/cokdyz/antikythera-slide03.jpg

http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/antikythera-full2.jpg

The "Antikythera mechanism" is the oldest known computer. It was discovered in the wreckage of a ship from the first century BC off Antikythera, near Crete, and was used for navigation. Made of bronze, it utilized many principals of mathematics and physics that, until this discovery, were attributed to the last few hundred years of the second millennium. Illustrations: top left: one of several artifacts of the Antikythera mechanism found in the wreckage; top right: schematic of original apparatus after x-ray analysis of the artifact; bottom left and right: two views of a modern reproduction of the navigational device, fabricated by John Gleave of the United Kingdom. The unit stands approximately 12 inches high.

[Sulla the Dictator]

This is false. How many times now have I pointed out to you that science was founded by the Greeks?


Modernity is not Antiquity. Once again, Sulla knows absolutely nothing about the subject. For example, modern science began with the rejection of classical science, with the repudiation of Aristotle's physics and Ptolemy's astronomy.

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5432&page=4&highlight=Romans

[Sulla the Dictator]

LOL

I asserted that modern science has its origins in the Middle Ages, not Antiquity.

--Fade the Butcher

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5432&page=4&highlight=Romans

[Petr]

Inferior to Mesopotamians?
Notice my qualifier: "in many areas of mathematics and astronomy." Their astronomers measured the movements of Mercury with more preciseness than Hipparchus or Ptolemy.

Babylonians also knew the "Pythagorean theorem" many centuries before Pythagoras.

Also, according to a legendary archeaologist Leonard Woolley, the Greek and then Roman architects didn't begin emplying vault in building until after the conquests of Alexander the Great, whereas Nebuchadnezzar had already employed the vault system when he re-constructed Babylon around 600 BC.


Petr

[Petr]

Dar-al Islam is also theoretically supposed to be one huge strictly-disciplined war-camp, always ready for mobilization.

Therefore, in the Muslim worldview, defying the authority of mullahs was seen as a mutiny in the ranks during the wartime - something that had to be squelched with extreme prejudice and no questions asked.
Btw, it has been noted by many observers how droll and dry Islamic prayers seem to be, especially compared to Christian ones - but they are indeed meant to be kind of military exercises, and not supposed to be said in private, but in large public formations. Flawless formal performance of prayer (with all of the bodily movements going along with it) is more important than the inner feelings involved.

To put it succinctly, Muslim prayers are really closer to "one, two, three, four, I love the Marine Core!" than "Our Father who art in heaven".


Martin Luther already noticed how the Muslim institution of marriage was penetrated by this all-embracing martial spirit as well:


"The third point is that Mohammed’s Koran has no regard for marriage, but permits everyone to take wives as he will. It is customary among the Turks for one man to have ten or twenty wives and to desert or sell any whom he will, so that in Turkey women are held immeasurable cheap and are despised; they are bought and sold like cattle. Although there may be some few who do not take advantage of this law, nevertheless, this is the law and anyone who wants to can follow it. That kind of living is not and cannot be marriage, because none of them takes or has a wife with the intention of staying with her forever, as though the two were one body, as God’s word says in Genesis 3, “Therefore a man cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh.” Thus the marriage of the Turks closely resembles the chaste life soldiers lead with their harlots, for the Turks are soldiers and must act like soldiers; Mars and Venus, say the poets, must be together. These are the three points I wanted to mention. I am sure of them from the Koran of the Turks. … "

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2547&highlight=luther+marriage


Petr

[Petr]

I think I'll continue on this "overt militarism/collectivism retards cultural progress" theme...


It may be hard for us today to realize that before the scientific revolution (that began in the late Middle Ages and was a result of a synthesis between Christian theology and Greek philosophy), the concepts of being "cultured and civilized" and "powerful" didn't necessarily go hand in hand - actually they were often seen as explicitly contradicting each other!


If you were considerably civilized, it very often simply meant that you were soft and weak - easy pickings for barbarians to push around and plunder. The most startling example of this were the Mongols who in the 13th century started from the most primitive conditions imaginable and who overran most of the civilized world with an incredible speed.

To put it bluntly, before the invention of gunpowder barbarian invasions were an ever-present Sword of Damocles hanging upon settled peoples. In such conditions, being overtly concerned with metaphysical speculations and "finer things of life" could be dangerous luxury - unless you had primitive peoples acting as mercenaries, ready to defend your welfare.


This is how the ancient Romans saw their role in the world - they would concentrate on maintaining "law and order", and would let the subject peoples like Greeks to take care of the high culture under their protecting shield. Virgil put it best in his epic Aeneid:

Let others better mold the running mass
Of metals, and inform the breathing brass,
And soften into flesh a marble face;
Plead better at the bar; describe the skies,
And when the stars descend, and when they rise.
But, Rome, 't is thine alone, with awful sway,
To rule mankind, and make the world obey,
Disposing peace and war by thy own majestic way;
To tame the proud, the fetter'd slave to free:
These are imperial arts, and worthy thee."

http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/aeneid.6.vi.html


Fade has admitted that Roman elites in general had very little interest on cultural and philosophical matters that didn't bring forth immediate and concrete benefits for the maintainance of imperial order. Even Cicero, one of the most Hellenophilic and philosophical of ancient Romans, shared this attitude:


"(24) It may not be amiss to set down here a very remarkable testimony of the great philosopher Cicero, as to the preference of "laws to philosophy: — I will," says he, "boldly declare my opinion, though the whole world be offended at it. I prefer this little book of the Twelve Tables alone to all the volumes of the philosophers. I find it to be not only of more weight,' but also much more useful." — Oratore. "

http://www.prophecyforum.com/josephus/apion-2.htm


One could probably say that in the late antiquity, many Christian church fathers appreciated Greek philosophy much more than pagan Roman administrators who had no time for such otherworldly flim-flam!

Those Germanic tribes who overran Rome had perhaps even greater mistrust towards overt sophistication - the famous Ostrogothic ruler of Italy, Theoderic the Great, specifically wanted to keep Roman and Goths as two nations apart, and to make sure that Goths wouldn't get involved on Roman civilization, for it would ruin their fighting spirits. He liked to say that "a bad Roman wants to be a Goth, and a bad Goth wants to be a Roman."

And so, during the so-called "Dark Ages" many Germanic nobles followed Theoderic's example and consciously avoided from becoming too civilized, seeing it as the business of the monks and priests who were seen almost as feminine characters.


We can actually still see the impact of this mentality on antebellum American Southerners, who concentrated on being splendid gentlemen, and neglected overtly philistine scholarly or economic concerns - but the scientific revolution had taken place, and mere primitive bravery could no longer guarantee victory!

Still later, antiquated notions about military honor and tactics caused horrendous casualties on all armies participating in the First World War.


And so I would blame the cultural stagnation of the Byzantine Empire on this imperial Roman inheritance of statist concentration that strongly grabbed even the Christian church into its ceasaropapist stranglehold.

Further strengthening this unbending siege-mentality, the Byzantines also had to fight almost all the time against powerful barbarian nations under such pressing conditions that ancient Romans began to face such only in the 3rd century AD. They had no room for internal harmony-disturbing private judgment or private interpretations in their worldview!

(The Czarist Russia - long under a constant threat from Tatars - inherited this worldview as well.)


Petr

[Sulla the Dictator]

"(24) It may not be amiss to set down here a very remarkable testimony of the great philosopher Cicero, as to the preference of "laws to philosophy: — I will," says he, "boldly declare my opinion, though the whole world be offended at it. I prefer this little book of the Twelve Tables alone to all the volumes of the philosophers. I find it to be not only of more weight,' but also much more useful."


This speaks to the virtue of the Twelve tables of Roman law. Applied practice, not mewling theory. And he's right. I share his preference.

[Kodos]

This is false. How many times now have I pointed out to you that science was founded by the Greeks?

The Greeks were not empiricists... modern empirical science was founded by the anti scholastic natural philosophers of the late renaissance.

[Fade the Butcher]

The Greeks were not empiricists... modern empirical science was founded by the anti scholastic natural philosophers of the late renaissance.

I'm well aware of that. I never said classical science is modern science. The project of science itself goes back to the Greeks though. Science is a single tradition that has evolved over the course of many centuries. A recent addition to the philosophy of science would be falsifiability.

[Boleslaw]

Fade, have you gone insane?

I distinctly remember the discussion you had here in which you said that science as we know it emerged with the Scholastics. Makes sense, since Thomas Aquinas did outline many of the basic tenents of what we now call the laws of physics in his five proofs for the existance of God.

Also you mentioned that the Dark Ages were anything but, and that numerous advancements(especially in military technology and tactics) were made during the Dark Ages.

And numerous other shit. Do you remember saying any of this?

This little charade of yours is getting quite tiresome!

[Kodos]

I distinctly remember the discussion you had here in which you said that science as we know it emerged with the Scholastics

It emerged with the anti scholastic natural philosophers... specifically it emerged as a reaction against the scholastics methods but in tune with their general worldview of a rational universe.