[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Unknown_Enemy]

the underlying structure of the church was instrumental in both the preservation of knowledge and education

Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.

[Krsqk]

/me reluctantly enters the discussion...

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that you did not cite any sources for your claims, which some people seem to think is only a problem when I make Posts.

No, Fyron. You want other people to quote their sources, while your rebuttals consist of "I have objective proof that you're wrong. I have read it myself. I just don't have it available here right now." Fine, so you have proof that convinces you. So post it, so we can dissect and/or rebut it. I'm not saying anything about the validity of your sources, just that you can't expect everyone to accept your argument when what you've posted is basically "Take my word for it, there's good proof." To accept your proofs sight unseen is at least as grevious an error as to accept anyone else's assertions sans source.

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible was written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)

No, I am arguing that the Church's actions of clinging to old (false) beliefs about the nature of the world prolonged the European Dark Ages because questioning the Church was heresy. How can you come up with new ideas when you are branded as a heretic for doing so? If the Catholic Church was not there, there would have been a different Church that would have done just about the same exact thing.

The first two sentences are true (although old does not always equal false). The third belies your mistrust of religion (and of anything else not scientifically provable). Where's the proof that "a different Church...would have done just about the exact same thing"? The RCC (at least those in power) during the EDA (and, some would argue, even now) was hardly a Bible-practicing church, as has been previously alluded to. Should church and government not have been married ~AD325, things may have turned out quite differently.

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.

[edits-stoopud keebored, removing an "n't"]

[ March 11, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:

quote:

---

the underlying structure of the church was instrumental in both the preservation of knowledge and education

Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.

---

Knowing what is morally right and wrong is quite possible without the help of the chruch. In fact some would argue the opposite. (something along the lines that you can do whatever you want and then confess your sins and still get into heavan)It has always bothered me how some people seem to think that if you don't believe in God then you don't know what is right and wrong. (and no I am not accusing you of this but some people seem to believe this)

[Fyron]

No, Fyron. You want other people to quote their sources, while your rebuttals consist of "I have objective proof that you're wrong. I have read it myself. I just don't have it available here right now."

I never said that. My point was that people keep calling on me for not doing that, while ignoring it when everyone else does it.

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible wasn't written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)

Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?

although old does not always equal false

I never said that. But, a lot of the old "scientific" beliefs that the Church clung to were indeed wrong. It is more of a coincidence than some sweeping statement about old beliefs = wrong beliefs.

Where's the proof that "a different Church...would have done just about the exact same thing"?

That was stated as an opinion, not a fact.

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.

I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this.

Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.

Actually, a lot of those "barbarians" (such as the Celts) were more civil and moral than the Romans were.

The "barbarians" had their own systems of moral values that, while not the same as those of Catholicism, were by no means inferior.

I say "barbarians" because they were not normally barbaric, esp. compared to the Romans. A lot of them did not do things like place the heads of all rebels on pikes in front of newly conquered cities. They did not go in and force whole villages to move elsewhere so that they would not know the land around them, and would have a harder time forming a resistance. Or was that the Macedonians (under Alexander the Great)? Probably both.

They are only labeled as "barbarians" because the Romans used a word in Latin that the English "barbarian" is derived from. But, that word meant "foreigners" and not "savages". It is the original English translation that has caused a lot of misconceptions as to people assuming that all of the tribes that fought against the Romans were savage.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never said that. My point was that people keep calling on me for not doing that, while ignoring it when everyone else does it.

You described (in the other thread, if not in this one) in great detail that you have read such and such, and the authors don't have an ax to grind, etc. You also said that you don't have the sources available to post. The whole point of my post (as opposed to the snippet you quoted) was that your proof might satisfy you, but don't expect it to satisfy those who haven't seen it. Since your replies frequently include phraseology such as "That's not true, according to basic historical facts" yet you haven't posted the facts, I assume you want us to take your word for it.

quote:

---

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible wasn't written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)

Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?

---

Let's not quibble over that extra "n't" in my post, 'kay? I knew I missed something in my edits. The (corrected) point still stands--it is your responsibility to prove there is reasonable cause to doubt the pre-existence of prophetic material.

quote:

---

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.

I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this.

---

No, it was just extra food for thought. It ties in with the current topic by showing that the EDA weren't a sudden regression in scientific knowledge, but a more pronounced era of a general trend.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Fyron]

Let's not quibble over that extra "n't" in my post, 'kay? I knew I missed something in my edits. The (corrected) point still stands--it is your responsibility to prove there is reasonable cause to doubt the pre-existence of prophetic material.

No, the burden of proof lies on those that claim that the Bible has prophetic ability. That claim is false without any supporting evidence. I did not randomly come out and say that the Bible has no predictive ability. I said that the people that said it does have those abilities were wrong. They had no convincing proof to back up their claims, and so they were wrong. I only have to debunk the effects of their evidence (or the evidence itself) to prove them wrong.

You started responding too soon, and probably missed half of my edits to that long post.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Rigelian]

Re quoting sources: sorry Fyron, agree with most of your points but you can't operate double standards on that one. Trouble is, a trawl of sci-fi fans and wargamers rarely results in a crop of historians. So most of us are arguing from a pretty incomplete recollection of what is (at best) a very patchy body of evidence to begin with...

To throw a few points in that have been neglected I think.

This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education.

With the exception of an early post mentioning Arabic (actually Indian, folks) numerals, the role of the Islamic world has been overlooked here. Many of the works of classical civilisation were preserved by Islamic scholars, along with many of the humanistic values of that civilisation. There is an argument that the beginnings of (relatively) peaceful contact with the Ottoman Empire in the post-crusading period were the main trigger for the Renaissance. Those classical texts were 'rediscovered' by Western scholars through those contacts. Remember that Europe was a complete backwater for almost a thousand years.

There has been an explosion of interest in the Classical period in recent years; making a massive generalisation, I would say that (rose-tinted of course) admiration for the Hellenistic civilisation often takes the form of considering 'us' to be closer to 'them' than to the people of the intervening couple of millenia. And I would argue that modern Christianity is an expression of this trend also.

The Christianity as practiced, and certainly as expressed by the church, in that intervening period has borne little relation to the tolerance and forgiveness espoused in the New Testament. On the contrary, it has far more often taken the form of the vicious, desert-tribe, patriachal nastiness of the Old. So has the church changed and 'evolved' (irony intentional) towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values of its own accord? Or is it an organisation forced, kicking and screaming to adapt to the civilisation it forms an increasingly smaller part of? I refer you to the example of the recent scandals in the Catholic church; voluntary or kicking-and-screaming reform? Ironically this of course arises from the one Classical practice indisputably preserved in the monasteries - pederasty.

So how did this religion occur, that can preach 'an eye for an eye' as well as 'turn the other cheek'? I would argue that New-Testament Christianity is a product of its time and place - the Hellenistic world. The values that many think of as uniquely Christian are nothing of the sort, they are Greek, to the extent that any single source for them can be postulated. The relationship between the modern Western state and the church is now quintessentially Roman of course - "any religion you like, just pay your taxes..".

But, back on the main line of the thread (or one of them). Did religion hold back advancement in Europe in the period between the Ancient and Modern periods? (not getting into the EDA timeframe scrap). I would say absolutely yes, because the fundamental mental landscape was that of 'argument from authority', rather than 'argument from evidence'. [much much more detail in the 'Galilieo' debate at the tail end of the parent thread]. This is an Achilles heel of all religions - it is the Secularism, not the Christianity, of the Western world that has allowed us to outstrip the rest so spectacularly.

One Last direct response:

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent man"-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie).

Please, please not a Hancock or (much worse) Von Daniken plug here I hope? But if you are just saying that earlier ages were composed of people just as intelligent as we are, then I heartily agree. But I would say that the 'prevalent' view, even now, is still the romantic motion of 'wise ancient civilisations'. This has not been true for centuries of course, but the majority of the populace today STILL mistrusts science, underestimates massively and tragically the extent to which technology has transformed their lives relative to their ancestors, and hankers for some mythical pastoral dream as the 'perfect' life. Try David Brin's website for more elequent arguments along this line than mine.

tesco, count me in as a heretic, once my copy of Gold arrives

[Fyron]

Re quoting sources: sorry Fyron, agree with most of your points but you can't operate double standards on that one.

I am not operating any double standards. Again, my point was that some people keep posting that stuff about my Posts that don't cite evidence, while ignoring any Posts made by anyone else that do the same thing mine do. I never once said anything about someone else's post that did not cite evidence.

[Krsqk]

You need to stop editing once I start replying.

I'm not referring to their contention that the Bible contains prophetic material. That's another matter entirely.

What I'm referring to is your assertion that the prophetic material in the Bible was written after the fact. You never backed that assertion, although your argument that the Bible cannot be prophetic was based (at least in part) on it. As such, it must be treated as an assumption, and not fact, until such time as you present your evidence (which has obviously convinced you).

"Proving" the prophetic nature of the Bible is a matter of determining the date of its writing and comparing the written account to the actual event. As such, it is dependent on the timeline debate. My observation is that you have not presented proof for your argument regarding the timeline aspect of this debate.

Is that all clear?

Again, my point was that some people keep posting that stuff about my Posts that don't cite evidence, while ignoring any Posts made by anyone else that do the same thing mine do.

I think that's because you do such an adequate job of pointing out their Posts yourself.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[QB]

"Proving" the prophetic nature of the Bible is a matter of determining the date of its writing and comparing the written account to the actual event. As such, it is dependent on the timeline debate. My observation is that you have not presented proof for your argument regarding the timeline aspect of this debate.

Is that all clear?
[QB]

Nope. I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.