| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Did Christianity destroy ancient science?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Did Christianity destroy ancient science?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2017 at 21:56
Ancient science was pretty much tapped out in late antiquity.
An idea of continuous, constant progress was not really feasible.
Christianity cleared the ground and let a new crop be planted,
so to speak.  You have technological advance during the "dark ages,"
that paved the way for the new science.

The battle between Galileo and the church is really about one set
of scientists vs. another.  The Jesuits were pushing for an Aristotelian/Ptolemiac
model, and Galileo and his friends, (including some priests) were
advocating a "Pythagorean"/Copernican model.  Yes, the Pope and
the inquisition were involved, but that is because Galileo had insulted
the Pope by putting the Pope's argument in the words of the simpleton
of the dialogue.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2017 at 16:26
Vanatu, I recommend you to actually check with the references of the sources and people you refer to rather then just blindly accepting what they say as facs. You know you are cherry picking your sources when your only refrense is Richard Carrier(since the other people sighted don´t make any claims on the subject). It´s true Carrier has a Phd in history but he is not a scholar and makes a living on writing sensational books which thesises is rejected by pretty much every scholar in the field. So yes it is just bogus internett sources that has nothing to do with scholarship in the subject.

"Your sources are promoting a narrative which is fine everyone does this. It does make the opinion biased, because who else is looking to prove that Christianity isn't backwards other than Christians?".

Well that´s an odd claim since the most of the scholars I sight are not Christians at all. Ronald Numbers is an agnostic and David Lindberg and Edward Grant are not Christians to any of my knowledge and these are the scholars that I refer to the most.

As for Hypatia I recomend you pick up Maria Dzielskas biography of Hypatia, it will explain several of the missunderstanding concerning Hypatia and Bishop Cyril.




Edited by Quill & Ink HIstory - 06 Mar 2017 at 18:03
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 09:05
Q&IH

Apart from lambasting Vanuatu, did you have anything to add to this conversation?

It might be good if you were to read Vanuatu's and Franciscosan's posts for some facts.

While it is clear that, in some early cases, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, did in fact ban some scientific thesis as being heretic, my personal opinion is, as I've written earlier, that the Church didn't destroy ancient science so much as retard it's progress.

Franciscosan has provided some individual cases where various early scientists were proscribed not only by the Church, but also other scholars.

 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 11:52
The sources I listed are historians and they do provide evidence of the church in antiquity, regarding religion and black plague, religion and education, religion and heresy and on...it is an actual argument using independent sources to support the claim that religion did not advance science in fact it stifles science. 


The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 16:15
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I may have over exaggerated the absence of 'scientists' in later antiquity.  
Yes because that really goes against the argument that Christianity produced scientists. They happened to be Christians, just the only existing power structure and only road to education.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

But, really science was an appreciation of nature (natural philosophy), and the main reason for appreciating nature (creation) was so that one might appreciate the creator's handwork.  One could do this in paganism, but really only to a limited extent, because if you think about it, even if Zeus is more powerful than the rest, combined.  There are still a variety of "creators."

Yes like the pagan Egyptians

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Again, it is _appreciation_ of nature, the idea that science and technology go hand in hand, is foreign to the ancient world.
Appreciation of nature was foreign to the ancient world? There is no reason to accept that as verifiable in historical sources or even in speculative terms. 

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is not until Francis Bacon, or Machiavelli that one gets the idea of Nature as something that needs to be interrogated, with torture, in order to reveal her secrets.  That is not completely true, there are different models of nature from the ancient world, the Promethean which is modern science, man stealing fire and crafts from the gods.

Got that lesson, Bacon just dogmatized science the way Newton dogmatized the heavens. The way Rome dogmatized everything related to life on earth.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The Orphic, man charming and enticing nature through the arts to give up her secrets.  And Isis, where underneath the veil of nature, there is another veil, and so forth.  (Pierre Hadot).  But modern science is pretty much Promethean, man doing violence to nature to get her secrets.  Under that view of "science," ancient science is deficient.  Ancient science is primarily Orphic (Timaeus), basking in the glory of the heavens, without too much of a preoccupation with mathematical fine points.
Newton hid his Hermetica, the new science was church proof that's how smart he was and Bacon was begging to be a Newton. The church wanted things formalized and it helped the advance of the scientific method. Science has also been stubbornly stupid, plate tectonics, population of the Americas, leeching..

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Vanuatu, I imagine that some scholar said that about the Leyden Papyrus, it is what Plato would call "a likely story" (a myth).  It could be true, but it is probably beyond our knowledge.  It sounds like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."  A logical fallacy meaning "after this, therefore because of this."  It is something that sounds like it might make a good story in a video, and ultimately we don't know that is wrong."  Of course, there may be evidence in the find that points to that (but I don't know what it is), therefore one might ask if the expert is someone careful about their assertions, and can back up what they say.

It was in a lecture by Adrian Gilbert, I'll rate his knowledge of the Hermetica above yours for now at least.




Edited by Vanuatu - 09 Mar 2017 at 16:17
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 17:19
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is not until Francis Bacon, or Machiavelli that one gets the idea of Nature as something that needs to be interrogated, with torture, in order to reveal her secrets.  

The idea of nature having secrets to give comes from alchemy, the idea of torturing nature to get to those secrets is Bacon. He was known as an alchemist and as a Christian. Wouldn't you say that alchemy can be studied from more than one discipline?

 
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Alchemy is something different.


Science is as science does, the early apparatus for distillation are basically still in use today that is real science. The trouble is the aspect of experience in alchemy as with most heresies. The church is jealous of the individual's experience with god and always wants to dictate what form communion takes. This keeps the church indispensable to the lives of people baptized into a protection agreement from the pope.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 20:34
To what Toyomotor was saying, Q&IH started this thread, I think he was just sticking to his original purpose of wanting feedback on his video.  The Maria Dzielskas biography that Q&IH recommended is interesting, I believe that is the one I read, besides some ancient short biographies in _Alexandria_.

I don't know what you mean as a "discipline" in this context.  Vanuatu, If you mean that it can be studied from more than one angle, or more than one religious background, then sure.  By Bacon, I mean Francis Bacon, which means that the Prometheus model (or one might say Faustian?) of nature and her secrets does not come into dominance until after the Middle Ages.

Maybe you mean how metals and planets/astrological/astronomical symbols, and the elements and animal/vegetable/mineral, strife/love are all united alchemy.

I wonder if the idea of nature having secrets is older than alchemy, or at least the known history of alchemy.

I may have over exaggerated the absence of "scientists" in late antiquity, _however_, I suggest trying to name a "scientist" from late antiquity, (besides Hypatia whom I have already mentioned).  They are there, but most of the new ideas are Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic in origin.  Most late antiquity scientists require some kind of specialized knowledge to know of them, not general knowledge.  I'll have to go back and watch Q&IHs video again.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 00:13
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

To what Toyomotor was saying, Q&IH started this thread, I think he was just sticking to his original purpose of wanting feedback on his video.  The Maria Dzielskas biography that Q&IH recommended is interesting, I believe that is the one I read, besides some ancient short biographies in _Alexandria_.
Quill asked for feedback, it happens that he didn't like it. Does that invalidate opinions on the claims he makes in his video?

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Don't know what you mean as a "discipline" in this context.  Vanuatu, If you mean that it can be studied from more than one angle, or more than one religious background, then sure.  By Bacon, I mean Francis Bacon, which means that the Prometheus model (or one might say Faustian?) of nature and her secrets does not come into dominance until after the Middle Ages.

I mean what it has always meant, franciscosan studied from more than one perspective. You didn't mean Kevin Bacon? Wink

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

you mean how metals and planets/astrological/astronomical symbols, and the elements and animal/vegetable/mineral, strife/love are all united alchemy.

I wonder if the idea of nature having secrets is older than alchemy, or at least the known history of alchemy.

I may have over exaggerated the absence of "scientists" in late antiquity, _however_, I suggest trying to name a "scientist" from late antiquity, (besides Hypatia whom I have already mentioned).  They are there, but most of the new ideas are Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic in origin.  Most late antiquity scientists require some kind of specialized knowledge to know of them, not general knowledge.  I'll have to go back and watch Q&IHs video again.

Don't really know who all the early scientists were, do we? Can't name them since their names would have been recorded, probably in writing, probably in a book of some kind....and then the  christians had a red hot book sale!


Edited by Vanuatu - 18 Mar 2017 at 00:27
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 06:37
Vanuatu Kevin Bacon? Kevin Bloody BACON?

He was a Labor politician in Tasmania, ptshooey!!! YUK!!

And I don't eat pork ham or any other product of pig.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 23:04
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu Kevin Bacon? Kevin Bloody BACON?

He was a Labor politician in Tasmania, ptshooey!!! YUK!!

And I don't eat pork ham or any other product of pig.

Oh my, my, my, you gave me THE LAUGH OF THE DECADE.
Kevin Bacon is an american actor there is a pseudo theory about him as the center of the universe but a Labor politician in Tasmania named Kevin Bacon is the funniest Kevin Bacon joke EVER. ClapPig
 
Theory that by six or less degrees of separation, every actor is connected to Kevin Bacon, possibly making him the center of the universe. A cult trivia game among movie fans, players choose one actor and create links by naming movies in which they worked with someone, who in turn is related to someone else, and so on, until the final person is directly connected to Kevin Bacon. Created by Craig Fass, Brian Turtle and Mike Ginelli and made famous in 1994 when Jon Stewart invited them to play on his show.
Kevin Costner is one link: Both were in JFK. Julia Louis-Dreyfus of TV's Seinfeld takes all six degrees of Kevin Bacon: She was in Christmas Vacation with Randy Quaid, who was in Major League II with Tom Berenger, who was in Shattered with Greta Scacchi, who was in Presumed Innocent with Harrison Ford, who was in Raiders of the Lost Ark with Karen Allen, who was in Animal House with Kevin Bacon.

The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 23:23
Well, in intellectual history, there is Francis Bacon, and before him is Roger Bacon.  and then there is Kevin Bacon, and then there is Vanuatu who is a natural ham.Wink

Our modern definition of science formed really in the 1400's and 1500's and since.  Before that it was natural philosophy, even Isaac Newton, held a 'chair' in "natural philosophy" at the University.  Until Julian Huxley in the 1800s, most of natural science was not professional science at the university, but pastors and hobbyists doing field observations.  Huxley _chose_ to make evolution an issue, because he could use it to argue for the professionalization of science.  Darwin's "bulldog" went after the naturalists, because he believed in evolution (survival of the fittest is, I believe, is phrase), but he also did it to support his own vested interests.  And frankly, look where it has gotten us, Socio-Darwinism and eugenics.  When I think of atheistic societies, I think of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union.  Sure, you had the inquisition and the crusades in "Christendom," the Thirty-years War.  As far as numbers, and percentage of the population murdered, I think that Hitler and Stalin were much worse.  Of course, I have not studied it in depth, and I may be biased towards thinking modern atrocities outdo "early modern" ones. 
But my original point was that the problem is not necessarily that we don't records of pre-modern "scientists," but rather, by our modern definition we don't consider them "scientists."  For example, if you look at Johannes Kepler's writings, they're very mystical, reflecting his "Pythagoreanism".  We remember him for his 'three laws of planetary motion,' but we just take his conclusions (that orbits are elliptical), and leave the rest.  Kepler's main gig was as a fortuneteller for the Holy Roman Emperor, who protected him.  Just think, Galileo had Kepler's book, but was mad at him for supporting his (Kepler's) mentor, Tycho Brahe, and so didn't read it.  If he had, Galileo would have known about the elliptical orbits, and maybe, maybe he would have developed calculus.  Makes a good alternate history story.

And for the important stuff, I have heard the biggest difficulty in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is relating silent movie stars to someone in talkies, I assume both because people don't know silent movie stars, but also because silent movie stars often didn't make the transition to talkies. 


Edited by franciscosan - 18 Mar 2017 at 23:30
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 00:11
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Well, in intellectual history, there is Francis Bacon, and before him is Roger Bacon.  and then there is Kevin Bacon, and then there is Vanuatu who is a natural ham.Wink

Our modern definition of science formed really in the 1400's and 1500's and since.  Before that it was natural philosophy, even Isaac Newton, held a 'chair' in "natural philosophy" at the University.  Until Julian Huxley in the 1800s, most of natural science was not professional science at the university, but pastors and hobbyists doing field observations.  Huxley _chose_ to make evolution an issue, because he could use it to argue for the professionalization of science.  Darwin's "bulldog" went after the naturalists, because he believed in evolution (survival of the fittest is, I believe, is phrase), but he also did it to support his own vested interests.  And frankly, look where it has gotten us, Socio-Darwinism and eugenics.  When I think of atheistic societies, I think of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union.  Sure, you had the inquisition and the crusades in "Christendom," the Thirty-years War.  As far as numbers, and percentage of the population murdered, I think that Hitler and Stalin were much worse.  Of course, I have not studied it in depth, and I may be biased towards thinking modern atrocities outdo "early modern" ones. 
But my original point was that the problem is not necessarily that we don't records of pre-modern "scientists," but rather, by our modern definition we don't consider them "scientists."  For example, if you look at Johannes Kepler's writings, they're very mystical, reflecting his "Pythagoreanism".  We remember him for his 'three laws of planetary motion,' but we just take his conclusions (that orbits are elliptical), and leave the rest.  Kepler's main gig was as a fortuneteller for the Holy Roman Emperor, who protected him.  Just think, Galileo had Kepler's book, but was mad at him for supporting his (Kepler's) mentor, Tycho Brahe, and so didn't read it.  If he had, Galileo would have known about the elliptical orbits, and maybe, maybe he would have developed calculus.  Makes a good alternate history story.

And for the important stuff, I have heard the biggest difficulty in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is relating silent movie stars to someone in talkies, I assume both because people don't know silent movie stars, but also because silent movie stars often didn't make the transition to talkies. 
 Alright you are a brilliant guy, - just do not see where you are going with the Nazis. Don't we ( by we I mean democrats) auto shut down people who introduce nazis into the conversation?

No need to prove whether the christian church was worse than nazis, its clear the church was much worse because they they did it all under the guise of christian love. and truly abused the Christ personage. Whether historical or allegorical Christ did not advocate stifling ideas.

I realize your point was not about records. My point was about records. You can't accept the churches' history of science, not when as the only power structure in existence they could erase any one from existence.

Yes an alternate Galileo history would be astonishing.

Yep Talkies were trouble for Mary Pickford.

The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 01:06
Actually I think I made a mistake, and I thought you would catch it.
I think Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest," Huxley came up with "law of tooth and claw."

My point is that Nazis and Communists are atheists, although a lot of German Christians went along (and a lot didn't.  Christians may have outnumbered Jews in the camps, but not been identified as such).

How long did the 1000 year reich last?  How long did communism last?  not just Stalin, but Mao, Pol Pot.  
Christianity has lasted 2000+ years, sure there are a few bumps in the road, but not like the 80 year window of communism, nor the 15 year window of national socialism.  Until Constantine, Christians were on the receiving end of the persecution from the pagans.  It is unfortunate, but payback and abuse of power are very human.

Have you read "Name of the Rose"? or seen the movie?  It is pertinent because censorship in the Middle Ages was not as pervasive as you seem to think.  "Totalitarianism is a modern concept, and even today, it is a misnomer, there is no such thing as total oppression, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as the total absence of oppression.


Edited by franciscosan - 19 Mar 2017 at 01:25
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 02:09
Darwin said survival of the fittest. If I know that I'm sure you do too. And I'm not looking to pick apart little errors like that when I know that you know-better. 

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

The attitudes and actions of German Catholics and Protestants during the Nazi era were shaped not only by their religious beliefs, but by other factors as well, including:

Backlash against the Weimar Republic and the political, economic, and social changes in Germany that occurred during the 1920s

Anti-Communism

Nationalism

Resentment toward the international community in the wake of World War I, which Germany lost and for which it was forced to pay heavy reparations

These were some of the reasons why most Christians in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They were also persuaded by the statement on “positive Christianity” in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, which read:

"We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good."

Despite the open antisemitism of this statement and its linkage between confessional "freedom" and a nationalistic, racialized understanding of morality, many Christians in Germany at the time read this as an affirmation of Christian values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml

Sounds familiar. This is not so different from the break in Clement's time, the Pentateuch is no longer about Jews, Moses and Abraham. Clement and his contemporaries believed themselves to be living in the Mystery Form of the Kingdom of Christendom -Jews had no part to play, their arguments were inconvenient. Just as the Nazis saw themselves as the National Reich Church and cast off the bible for Mein Kampf .

The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 02:42
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

 

How long did the 1000 year reich last?  How long did communism last?  not just Stalin, but Mao, Pol Pot.  
Christianity has lasted 2000+ years, sure there are a few bumps in the road, but not like the 80 year window of communism, nor the 15 year window of national socialism.  Until Constantine, Christians were on the receiving end of the persecution from the pagans.  It is unfortunate, but payback and abuse of power are very human.

How long has religious persecution lasted? Where did it start? Can't possibly know for certain. At any rate, the fact that the church linked to the Empire and rooted itself as a power structure for 2 thousand years only affirms the ruthless control over the minds and lives of human beings, it does not prove that humans achieved further evolutionary superiority because of religious belief systems. 

Didn't you say something about the world not changing on a grand scale but merely continuing on in equal states of ups and downs? Nothing makes your point more sharply than the alternating terror/compassion of the christian church. 


Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Have you read "Name of the Rose"? or seen the movie?  It is pertinent because censorship in the Middle Ages was not as pervasive as you seem to think.  "Totalitarianism is a modern concept, and even today, it is a misnomer, there is no such thing as total oppression, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as the total absence of oppression.
I guess I saw a different movie called Name of the Rose starring Sean Connery. The film I saw was about monks hiding forbidden books and poisoning the pages so that anyone who read the books would die. The book was written in the 1980's and just as you and I are speculating, so was the author. 

If there is no total oppression it may be because the spirituality of some of us has forced humans to be what we are in the face of the hypocrisy of the church. And this is a discussion of history right? We are not talking about the 700 club. In that case you are speculating as much as anyone. 
Does it matter who does the oppressing? I think it does when it's an enormous power structure pretending to be Christ-like.
It's not like we have to go very far into the past to witness, without speculation, the manipulative and deceptive power of the church used to maintain appearances. We also have real time proof that human suffering was accepted in the United States in order to protect that power structure. Now this scrambling to tidy it all up, like the democrats say- move on.


Edited by Vanuatu - 19 Mar 2017 at 02:43
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 04:22
Quote Does it matter who does the oppressing? I think it does when it's an enormous power structure pretending to be Christ-like.

It's not like we have to go very far into the past to witness, without speculation, the manipulative and deceptive power of the church used to maintain appearances. We also have real time proof that human suffering was accepted in the United States in order to protect that power structure. Now this scrambling to tidy it all up, like the democrats say- move on.

I agree entirely. Just think for a minute on the world wide scandal which has enveloped the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but other organisations as well. The sexual abuse of young boys was covered up by those in authority for decades, and now there's much gnashing of teeth, beating of chests to the chant of "mea culpa, mea culpa".

Far too many of the perpetrators of these crimes have escaped punishment by cleverly dying before their sins were revealed. But too many also still exist, including those who did the covering up.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 23:19
And how many people did the Nazis kill in their short time? and how many people did the communists kill in their short time?  There has always been someone using power to beat others down, but not on the scale and thoroughness of Nazism and Communism, which are basically atheistic.  Religion has developed moralities over time, which hinder the oppressor.  Atheism, as far as being a state-actor, has not yet developed a moral compass.  So atheism such as Nazism and Communism has all the excesses and abuses, but none of the moral compass.  I am not saying that people always pay attention to 'their' moral compass, I am just saying it is there, unless you are someone like Hitler or Stalin.

And what about science under the Nazis and communists?  Kinda twisted.  I mean Germany was probably the most advanced nation before Nazism, and they kinda took a big step _down_ when they embraced National Socialism.

Of course, national socialism didn't get along with communism (international socialism), they were too close to each other, siblings quarreling.  I see Nazism as a phenomenon on the left, as is Baathism, not the right so much.  

Yes, that 'Name of the Rose" with Sean Connery.  The book is better and one of the plays off the name is Rose window, the stained glass window above the entrance to the Church.  The characters in the book are a mix of vibrant colors, different from each other and put together they make up the rose window.  They all play a part in making up the beauty of this ancient monastery, which of course, never existed (as such), but which makes up the Middle Ages.  But they had their own kind of knowledge and science.  Science in the middle ages was Aristotelian and descriptive.  When Copernicus came along, he used Pythagoreanism as an alternative, but it still was explained in terms of antiquity.  The monks and others who opposed Galileo were Aristotelians who opposed him based on their Aristotelianism.  Galileo and his mathematization of science were not the cutting edge of science, he was the bleeding edge of science, and they were a little, just a little behind the curve.



Edited by franciscosan - 20 Mar 2017 at 00:09
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 00:10
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

And how many people did the Nazis kill in their short time? and how many people did the communists kill in their short time?  There has always been someone using power to beat others down, but not on the scale and thoroughness of Nazism and Communism, which are basically atheistic.  Religion has developed moralities over time, which hinder the oppressor.  Atheism, as far as being a state-actor, has not yet developed a moral compass.  So atheism such as Nazism and Communism has all the excesses and abuses, but none of the moral compass.  I am not saying that people always pay attention to 'their' moral compass, I am just saying it is there, unless you are someone like Hitler or Stalin.

And what about science under the Nazis and communists?  Kinda twisted.  I mean Germany was probably the most advanced nation before Nazism, and they kinda took a big step _down_ when they embraced National Socialism.

Of course, national socialism didn't get along with communism (international socialism), they were too close to each other, siblings quarreling.  I see Nazism as a phenomenon on the left, as is Baathism, not the right so much.  


franciscosan-But what has all of this got to do with Christianity destroying ancient science.

Communism and Nazism are modern constructs, each with a slightly different view on the sciences.

While they may have had a hand in suppressing science in some ways, they're certainly not Christian in their ideology in any way, shape, matter or form.

I think perhaps this conversation has run it's course.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 00:28
No, that my point, you have to choose your 'poison,' your passion.  The modern alternative to Christianity, is atheism which politically means in the West, either Nazism or Communism.  Individuals may be able to 'throw off' Christianity, but when a society does so as a whole, you have Nazism or Communism.  Both Nazism and Communism were abusive through science.  Christianity in contrast, has a rather 'benign neglect' of science.  The creationism is a rather new phenomenon and a reaction to eugenics, socio-darwinism, and the total exclusion of any teaching of the Bible in school.  (If creationism is a "science," then you have to teach bible in schools, which considering how culturally important the bible is, should be taught anyways.)

Christianity is part of liberal democracy, get rid of it, I am not sure you will have liberal democracy anymore, of course some people might not mind, I would.

You missed what I added to my last post. 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 01:06
Quote  Individuals may be able to 'throw off' Christianity,but when a society does so as a whole, you have Nazism or Communism

Really???

I think a lot of Japanese people, for example, would disagree, and so would the citizens of other countries whose predominant religeon is not Christianity.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 01:21
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

No, that my point, you have to choose your 'poison,' your passion.  The modern alternative to Christianity, is atheism which politically means in the West, either Nazism or Communism.  Individuals may be able to 'throw off' Christianity, but when a society does so as a whole, you have Nazism or Communism.  Both Nazism and Communism were abusive through science.  Christianity in contrast, has a rather 'benign neglect' of science.  The creationism is a rather new phenomenon and a reaction to eugenics, socio-darwinism, and the total exclusion of any teaching of the Bible in school.  (If creationism is a "science," then you have to teach bible in schools, which considering how culturally important the bible is, should be taught anyways.)

Christianity is part of liberal democracy, get rid of it, I am not sure you will have liberal democracy anymore, of course some people might not mind, I would.

You missed what I added to my last post. 

The new Christianity is the Liberal screaming - "your a racist! your homophobic! your xenophobic! your a Trump lovin Nazi! your misogynist! 
But me? I'm a good person bc I'm Liberal and I'm all up on my gay acronyms and willing to cover my face and destroy public property. 
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 22:03
The alternative in the West to theism is atheism, which means nazism or communism.  Other cultures have had hundreds if not thousands of years to evolve other religions, such as Buddhism and to a certain degree, Shintoism in Japan.  Atheism will also evolve a moral code, but if you look at it more immediately, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.  There is a little _problem_ of a 10s of millions of dead through violent ends.  So, yes, India and Japan have different traditions, although Japan had its flirtation with fascism.  But we can't import those whole sale and make them ours.  There can be jubus and the beats can convert to Buddhism, but wholesale, no.  Individuals yes can convert or revert or whatever, and over time political atheism will mellow, but if you want have ethics, dealing with moral traditions in place, no matter how imperfect, is probably best how to deal with them.  Science is probably in the best shape, when it is not overseen by government, or for that matter religion.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 01:16
Wow that's a very good answer. 
Are you saying that the young will repeat each stage of older generations?
Going from everyone matters to only the poor matter, to only those who make the trains run on time matter? 
Not in jest, are you saying that this pattern will just keep repeating?
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 01:11
I tend to see the purest philosophy as being the Presocratics, Pythagoras going into Socrates, Plato, and to lesser extent Aristotle, after Plato, you start getting things diluted, which is necessary because philosophy was too powerful for society.  The purest modern science in many ways is the early moderns (Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton) until the 20th century physicists, and Darwin, Mendel and so forth.

I tend to see two threads of thinking introduced in the 20th century, fascism/nazism/communism "totalitarianism" and anarchism, which becomes on the right, libertarianism.  After the Spanish Civil War, anarchism starts getting diluted, communes, free love of the sixties, libertarianism, I kind of consider those in the family of anarchism, 'dirty' hippies, so forth.  "totalitarianism" (which is not total) also becomes diluted.  But it also becomes defuse, the nanny state is a kind of 'totalitarianism' lite, for people's "own" good.  So there is a repetition of things, but on a more defuse, diluted level, if it was more "pure" fascism or whatever, people as a whole would recognize it, but more defuse, and even perhaps, more benign.  There were positive things that the fascists and the nazis did, like in Italy the trains ran on time, in Germany they made the autobahn (which they promptly used in the war and perhaps the extermination business).  But it is good in the nanny state that people wear their seatbelts, it is just bad that they are made to do so.  But, those complaining don't matter, and very scientific social studies (probably) show that people are happier because they wear them.  For those complaining, when does blind obedience become more than just doing what is good, and becomes, well, blind.
But yes, you have echoes, and then echoes of echoes.  Every once in a while you have a Rwanda, or Syria, and people go, "where did that come from?"  or Yugoslavia for that matter.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 17:58
Do the courts today represent the same power to restrict the individual as the Christian church of 3rd century Alexandria? In Your Opinion?

To your point about events like Yugoslavia 2000 appearing to come out of nowhere- there was a resistance to Milosevic. It is accepted generally that the court allowing Milosevic to refuse to concede the election to Vojilsav Kostunica is what finally forced people to the "Bulldozer Revolution." I don't understand why you say; franciscosan-

 "Every once in a while you have a Rwanda, or Syria, and people go, "where did that come from?"  or Yugoslavia for that matter."

It wasn't really out of nowhere. Rwanda wasn't either. As far as Syria, do you mean the latest US/Russian/Assad debacle?
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 22:24
No it doesn't come from nowhere.  But for the 1st world, especially America which tends to be culturally isolated from the rest, all of a sudden Rwanda or Yugoslavia, or Syria appears in the news, every day, and it appears with great tragedy.  To the average mope, it seems like it came out of nowhere and disturbed his beer.  He's probably jealous, and maybe for some cause.  He seems to miss out that he is holding out for a $30 an hour union job, when refugees are much more easy to satisfy with, just about anything.

I don't see the courts today as anything like the Christian church in 3rd century Alexandria.  What you probably had to worry about in 3rd century Alexandria, was the mob, sometimes lead by a firebrand like ?Basil? but all he could do is point the mob, and let it go at it.  In Alexandria and the ancient world, I see very traditional societies run by aeons of custom, of which the Church was the latest twist, advocating reform (ye who is without sin, cast the first stone), but really is for the time, just an icing on the cake.  Over time, Christianity will become the tradition, the custom and will become the knee jerk reaction. but before Constantine, it is too much just reacting to the persecution.  Sometimes that reaction is a coalescing or formation, but a lot of times, it is just dying in the arena, but in doing so, undermining the great and brutal Roman Empire.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2017 at 07:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Over time, Christianity will become the tradition, the custom and will become the knee jerk reaction. but before Constantine, it is too much just reacting to the persecution.  Sometimes that reaction is a coalescing or formation, but a lot of times, it is just dying in the arena, but in doing so, undermining the great and brutal Roman Empire.

After Constantine the Christian Church becomes the Empire, remains great and brutal.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.