Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Had the Roman Empire not fallen

Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 10:13:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?

You mean "What if the Roman did not embrace Christianity", Dark Age are not the consequences of the decline in Roman power and authority - The Roman Empire was pretty much alive and continue to advance in their technology and sophistication while the rest of Europe were obstructed by religion conservatism, it just wasn't based on Rome...

To answer your question, given that Rome had never entering Dark Age and never significantly fallen to a waves of barbarian invasions (but still experienced it), I think the result wouldn't be that much of a different to our time line in term of technological development. The Byzantine was, in every sense but linguistic, a successor of Roman Imperial which has never experienced the Dark Age caused by religion conservatism as in the rest of Europe (at least not to the same extent) yet the technological advantage has never been cleared. The Ottoman who inherited the legacy of the Byzantine also following the same path as in the Roman unaffected by Christian Dark Age, yet again, it is difficult to say that the Ottoman are significantly more advance than their European counterpart - at least they are not advance enough to stay ahead of Europe once modern scientific disciplines had been established.

So basically, if Rome had never fallen and never suffer the Dark Age, I think they will look pretty much like the Ottoman in historical context. They might adopted guns a few year earlier, discover chemistry a bit faster but that's pretty much it. They will still have to invest significant amount of resources to defend themselves against a waves of invasion so technological development was unlikely to be any better. Beside provided that they had never lost territory to any one, including the Islamic Conquest, I am pretty sure that they will not discover the New World by the time the Spanish do, without the lost of Egypt, the Roman would still have direct access to the Silk Road and the Arabian Sea which is the most lucrative trade rout in the world, overshadowing any attempt to find a better route through risky and unexplored Atlantic. The Middle East was likely to be the centre of the world rather than Europe, colonialism might occurred earlier in Africa rather than in America, and overall technological development might take 50-100 less year to achieve what they Europe had archive today and the overall civilization should look more like an advanced version of the Arab World (Geographically speaking, including the Islamic African state).

Oh and we will probably speaking Greek today rather than English.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 12:38:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually I'll clarify what I'm asking

What change{s} saved Rome
When did that change{s} happen
Any other details?
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 2:04:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.

Thats besides the points. This is purely hypothetical. Basically I am asking had the Visigoths not sacked Rome and the Empire had magically gotten itself back on track, where would we be today.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 2:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
anywhere. we may still live in the same technological age, or the East may have advanced us to early gunpowder. Or Rome may have experienced such a hit that it begins advancing technologically. We could theoretically be on other planets now. If they developed at a similar rate to us, we would have had modern technology about 600-700 possibly. By 1,000 we can't really say where we'd be. Dang that leaves an entire 1,000 years.

Of course it depends on the smaller details. Some believe that Rome couldn't survive unless it had abolished Slavery early on (possibly slowly during the earliest Imperial Ages, since abolishment too early would have prevented Roman citizens from being able to devote such manpower to War). Some also believe that Rome needed to develop small Primary Formations, rather then maintaining a Large Primary Formation given their circumstances. Many say conquering Germany instead of giving it up may have prevented much hassle later, as much of their weakness later came from invasions from Germany, and past the Vistula the populations became signifigantly thinner, meaning a "large" migration from there wouldn't have been near the size of the German Migration.

Ultimately it depends on the circumstances that helped Rome survive. Simply saying they survived the Germans, and rebuilt the Empire leaves too much to question
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:57:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.

didn't intend to make it sound religion bashing, I apologize for that. What I mean is conservatism will always existed in some form, Islam used to be progressive by the time it was first introduced in the middle age - now they become the force of conservatism just like what the Christian used to be a 1000 years ago. There are a lot of thing that can make one civilization become overly conservative, religion, past tradition, family dynasty, outdated ideology (as in authoritarian regime of North Korea etc.), Christianity just happened to be the force that trigger conservatism in Roman Empire, and definitely the main reason for Dark Age to exist.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 4:05:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 10:57:09 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.

didn't intend to make it sound religion bashing, I apologize for that. What I mean is conservatism will always existed in some form, Islam used to be progressive by the time it was first introduced in the middle age - now they become the force of conservatism just like what the Christian used to be a 1000 years ago. There are a lot of thing that can make one civilization become overly conservative, religion, past tradition, family dynasty, outdated ideology (as in authoritarian regime of North Korea etc.), Christianity just happened to be the force that trigger conservatism in Roman Empire, and definitely the main reason for Dark Age to exist.

The dark ages were the result of Barbarian invasions (not the fall of Rome even). And in truth few historians consider the age to be dark scientifically. Many believe that the Dark ages simply saw science slow to a crawl (but not go backwards), due to everyones efforts moving to survival, and because such things as learning became secondary expenditures for the often penniless serfs.
But many today do still believe that Science did in fact continue to advance (even if slowly) during this age, with the biggest hit being quality of production. The only reason it still is called "Dark" is because of our lack of knowledge into the cultures of those ages. In fact the Church is actually credited with saving knowledge, as it was their monasteries that devoted vast amounts of time to copying books from older ages (not just the bible either), and actually most scientific develop during that age came from the monks and members of these monasteries who had the education needed, and had the free time.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:28:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?

The Roman Empire's fall in 1453 was the only reason why the Renaissance happened. If it had not fallen to the Turks in 1453, I would argue that the dark ages would have gone on until Istanbul fell to the Turks, or some type of doubt. We would be around 300 years backwards if the Roman Empire did not fall.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:42:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:28:18 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?

The Roman Empire's fall in 1453 was the only reason why the Renaissance happened. If it had not fallen to the Turks in 1453, I would argue that the dark ages would have gone on until Istanbul fell to the Turks, or some type of doubt. We would be around 300 years backwards if the Roman Empire did not fall.

By the point it fell, Constantanople was hardly Rome. It may have been a successor state, but it wasn't Rome. Some would say it stopped being Rome after the 4th Crusade.

Either how, the OP's asking about the Classical Roman Empire not falling. Pre-Schism Rome
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 11:42:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:42:16 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:28:18 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?

The Roman Empire's fall in 1453 was the only reason why the Renaissance happened. If it had not fallen to the Turks in 1453, I would argue that the dark ages would have gone on until Istanbul fell to the Turks, or some type of doubt. We would be around 300 years backwards if the Roman Empire did not fall.

By the point it fell, Constantanople was hardly Rome. It may have been a successor state, but it wasn't Rome. Some would say it stopped being Rome after the 4th Crusade.

Either how, the OP's asking about the Classical Roman Empire not falling. Pre-Schism Rome

don't see how Constantinople was hardly Rome. I mean aside from language, they practised Roman culture and continue to develop Roman technology more than any European civilization and was continuously existed for 1000 of years.

The Roman was great because they incorporated the wealth, territories, culture, and technology of the Alexander Empire in to their own existence, unless you are talking about Classical Roman as in their republican era, the centre of the Empire was always to the east. Rome was more or less an cultural icon rather than a real powerhouse of the Empire.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 4:44:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?

I would like to point out that technology didn't decay. It still boomed in India, China, and the Islamic World. The worlds technological level isn't determined by Europes level.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 9:03:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 4:05:42 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:57:09 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.

didn't intend to make it sound religion bashing, I apologize for that. What I mean is conservatism will always existed in some form, Islam used to be progressive by the time it was first introduced in the middle age - now they become the force of conservatism just like what the Christian used to be a 1000 years ago. There are a lot of thing that can make one civilization become overly conservative, religion, past tradition, family dynasty, outdated ideology (as in authoritarian regime of North Korea etc.), Christianity just happened to be the force that trigger conservatism in Roman Empire, and definitely the main reason for Dark Age to exist.

The dark ages were the result of Barbarian invasions (not the fall of Rome even). And in truth few historians consider the age to be dark scientifically. Many believe that the Dark ages simply saw science slow to a crawl (but not go backwards), due to everyones efforts moving to survival, and because such things as learning became secondary expenditures for the often penniless serfs.
But many today do still believe that Science did in fact continue to advance (even if slowly) during this age, with the biggest hit being quality of production. The only reason it still is called "Dark" is because of our lack of knowledge into the cultures of those ages. In fact the Church is actually credited with saving knowledge, as it was their monasteries that devoted vast amounts of time to copying books from older ages (not just the bible either), and actually most scientific develop during that age came from the monks and members of these monasteries who had the education needed, and had the free time.

I agree with the religion hypothesis though. Christianity has always been an enemy of science, especialy during dark ages. Pretty much every important scientific discovery has faced church opposition at some point. Pre-Constantine Rome, and even barbarians, have always had much more practical religions that do not interfere much with the way people live their lifes or do their jobs. Abrahamic religions have the peculiarity of meddling in every aspect of the life of a person, and as a result become the number one priority of followers. The barbarian and greek religions are also an important aspect of life for the followers of course, but certainly they remain in the background if compared with the personal ambitions and concerns of the follower.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:30:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 9:03:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:05:42 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:57:09 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.

didn't intend to make it sound religion bashing, I apologize for that. What I mean is conservatism will always existed in some form, Islam used to be progressive by the time it was first introduced in the middle age - now they become the force of conservatism just like what the Christian used to be a 1000 years ago. There are a lot of thing that can make one civilization become overly conservative, religion, past tradition, family dynasty, outdated ideology (as in authoritarian regime of North Korea etc.), Christianity just happened to be the force that trigger conservatism in Roman Empire, and definitely the main reason for Dark Age to exist.

The dark ages were the result of Barbarian invasions (not the fall of Rome even). And in truth few historians consider the age to be dark scientifically. Many believe that the Dark ages simply saw science slow to a crawl (but not go backwards), due to everyones efforts moving to survival, and because such things as learning became secondary expenditures for the often penniless serfs.
But many today do still believe that Science did in fact continue to advance (even if slowly) during this age, with the biggest hit being quality of production. The only reason it still is called "Dark" is because of our lack of knowledge into the cultures of those ages. In fact the Church is actually credited with saving knowledge, as it was their monasteries that devoted vast amounts of time to copying books from older ages (not just the bible either), and actually most scientific develop during that age came from the monks and members of these monasteries who had the education needed, and had the free time.

I agree with the religion hypothesis though. Christianity has always been an enemy of science, especialy during dark ages. Pretty much every important scientific discovery has faced church opposition at some point. Pre-Constantine Rome, and even barbarians, have always had much more practical religions that do not interfere much with the way people live their lifes or do their jobs. Abrahamic religions have the peculiarity of meddling in every aspect of the life of a person, and as a result become the number one priority of followers. The barbarian and greek religions are also an important aspect of life for the followers of course, but certainly they remain in the background if compared with the personal ambitions and concerns of the follower.

Christianity has almost never be the enemy of Science. Most of the greatest scientists in European History were monks, including the father of genetics. And Christianity is the only reason that west maintains many of it's oldest texts.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:38:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 9:03:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
I agree with the religion hypothesis though. Christianity has always been an enemy of science, especialy during dark ages. Pretty much every important scientific discovery has faced church opposition at some point. Pre-Constantine Rome, and even barbarians, have always had much more practical religions that do not interfere much with the way people live their lifes or do their jobs. Abrahamic religions have the peculiarity of meddling in every aspect of the life of a person, and as a result become the number one priority of followers. The barbarian and greek religions are also an important aspect of life for the followers of course, but certainly they remain in the background if compared with the personal ambitions and concerns of the follower.
Very few scientific advancements faced Church criticism. This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. Not only were many of our most important discoveries made by faithful church followers, but the Church had built many of our greatest schools and Universities. The habit of Abrahamic faiths to be involved in the lives of the average follower means literally nothing here. Islam did this, and it's people experienced an intellectual high. Church investment in it's people has done wonders for them. The Church built a phenomenal amount of our hospitals, some of which very well use the most advanced technology they have available.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:31:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 8:30:41 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/21/2015 9:03:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/1/2014 4:05:42 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:57:09 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/30/2014 12:21:55 PM, Unitomic wrote:
Ignoring the religion basher.

The question we need to hear is what are the circumstances. Can you give us a little background thoughts about why the Empire didn't fall? That is incredably important to the situation.

didn't intend to make it sound religion bashing, I apologize for that. What I mean is conservatism will always existed in some form, Islam used to be progressive by the time it was first introduced in the middle age - now they become the force of conservatism just like what the Christian used to be a 1000 years ago. There are a lot of thing that can make one civilization become overly conservative, religion, past tradition, family dynasty, outdated ideology (as in authoritarian regime of North Korea etc.), Christianity just happened to be the force that trigger conservatism in Roman Empire, and definitely the main reason for Dark Age to exist.

The dark ages were the result of Barbarian invasions (not the fall of Rome even). And in truth few historians consider the age to be dark scientifically. Many believe that the Dark ages simply saw science slow to a crawl (but not go backwards), due to everyones efforts moving to survival, and because such things as learning became secondary expenditures for the often penniless serfs.
But many today do still believe that Science did in fact continue to advance (even if slowly) during this age, with the biggest hit being quality of production. The only reason it still is called "Dark" is because of our lack of knowledge into the cultures of those ages. In fact the Church is actually credited with saving knowledge, as it was their monasteries that devoted vast amounts of time to copying books from older ages (not just the bible either), and actually most scientific develop during that age came from the monks and members of these monasteries who had the education needed, and had the free time.

I agree with the religion hypothesis though. Christianity has always been an enemy of science, especialy during dark ages. Pretty much every important scientific discovery has faced church opposition at some point. Pre-Constantine Rome, and even barbarians, have always had much more practical religions that do not interfere much with the way people live their lifes or do their jobs. Abrahamic religions have the peculiarity of meddling in every aspect of the life of a person, and as a result become the number one priority of followers. The barbarian and greek religions are also an important aspect of life for the followers of course, but certainly they remain in the background if compared with the personal ambitions and concerns of the follower.

Christianity has almost never be the enemy of Science. Most of the greatest scientists in European History were monks, including the father of genetics. And Christianity is the only reason that west maintains many of it's oldest texts.

Marco Antonio de Dominis was murdered by the church because of his scientific explanation of the Rainbow.

While in ancient greece pythagoras already believed the Earth was round, and it may well have been common knowledge amongst greeks, christianity established during the Middle Ages the primitive concept of a flat Earth, and in XIV century, burned alive astronomer Cecco d'Ascoli because of him suggesting otherwise.

Copernico had his astronomical works banned from being sold. Giordano Bruno was burnt alive for suggesting both that the earth goes round the sun, and that there was more galaxies than ours. Galileo was tortured for the same reason.

Gessner, one of the fathers of modern zoology, had his works also banned from being sold.

Darwin himself was afraid of church opposition, stating that evolution was a God-driven process and life was created by God, while expressing his atheism in private, and slowly removing the role of God from evolution in successive editions of his work.

Some authors estimate that only 1% of pre columbian works survived the conquest of these civilizations. The rest destroyed by christian priests that saw the culture and advances the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs, as a threat to Christianity. It is known that the Mayan civilization lasted about 3000 years, and had important astronomic and mathematical knowledge. Unfortunately, now we can only speculate on "what they knew" and "how they knew it" thanks to the Church.

During the Dark Ages there was an important shortage of the scientific theories produced. Some may call it a coincidence, but those naive explanations do not satisfy me. I think there is a reason why the Dark Ages had no scientific progress: something was preventing that progress from happening. Now think about what was the number one priority of everyone during Dark Ages: God. There has been no other period in history where faith has been so intense, and where science has been so stuck.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:04:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 8:32:43 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
Had Rome not fallen, where do you think we would be today? What I mean by this is if we did not ever have a 1000 years of technological decay (Dark Ages) how advanced would our species be today?

An interesting video series on the topic: https://www.youtube.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:31:05 AM, Otokage wrote:
Marco Antonio de Dominis was murdered by the church because of his scientific explanation of the Rainbow.

Ok firstly get your facts straight. de Dominis was not murdered by the church for anything scientific. He was imprisoned as a relapsed Heretic, as he believed the papal system was not the true church. He died in prison, of natural causes. And he didn't develop any theories about rainbows. He developed theories about the passage of light through raindrops. It was Newton who would later claim that Dominis had developed the first theory of Rainbows, however that is often denounced in favor of Descartes {1}

1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

While in ancient greece pythagoras already believed the Earth was round, and it may well have been common knowledge amongst greeks, christianity established during the Middle Ages the primitive concept of a flat Earth, and in XIV century, burned alive astronomer Cecco d'Ascoli because of him suggesting otherwise.

Again, learn your stuff. No one of intellectual standing believed the flat earth theory. It did not exist. It was first spoken of in the pseudo-non-fiction biography of Christopher Columbus. Basically a story book. Think American Sniper movie. This book presented a false account of Columbus' issues in getting a grant. {2} The true reason the Spanish Crown hesitated was because their scholars told them that Christopher was gravely underestimating the distance from Europe to Asia (and they actually had the right distance). They knew you could get to Asia by going west. They didn't do it because they knew their ships couldn't hold enough supplies, especially if they also plan to bring back material to trade.

2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Copernico had his astronomical works banned from being sold. Giordano Bruno was burnt alive for suggesting both that the earth goes round the sun, and that there was more galaxies than ours. Galileo was tortured for the same reason.

Copernicus did not draw any controversy. Until a rival astrologer tried to shut out opposition. And managed to convince the church that Copernicus was a heretic.
Bruno was put under charges of dogmatic heresy, of which his scientific theories were minimal. Some of his charges involved denying whole parts of Catholic Dogma.

The true problem here is that you have cherry picked characters from the same time period, in particular, a time period full of hundreds of scientists. Cherry Picking a few examples, which can be summed up to either misrepresentation or simple grudges being played out through corruption and string pulling, don't work here. I would also like to point out that some of these trials took place over years, because the Catholic Church actually gave some of the fairest trials in the European world at those times.

Gessner, one of the fathers of modern zoology, had his works also banned from being sold.

Gessner was not attacked for his work. He was attacked for being Protestant. His scientific work suffered from it, but it was not his scientific work that was directly attacked.

Darwin himself was afraid of church opposition, stating that evolution was a God-driven process and life was created by God, while expressing his atheism in private, and slowly removing the role of God from evolution in successive editions of his work.


Darwin did not speak of God-Driven Evolution. His opponents did. And the Church argued against Evolution, but arguing against something is not the same as oppressing it.
Some authors estimate that only 1% of pre columbian works survived the conquest of these civilizations. The rest destroyed by christian priests that saw the culture and advances the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs, as a threat to Christianity. It is known that the Mayan civilization lasted about 3000 years, and had important astronomic and mathematical knowledge. Unfortunately, now we can only speculate on "what they knew" and "how they knew it" thanks to the Church.

This is entirely unsubstantiated. Christian Priests did not destroy entire Native cultures. Conquerors did. And they conquered for Glory and Gold. Mayans fell off the map of their own self destruction. You are basically blaming the church for the actions of Kings and Soldiers.
During the Dark Ages there was an important shortage of the scientific theories produced. Some may call it a coincidence, but those naive explanations do not satisfy me. I think there is a reason why the Dark Ages had no scientific progress: something was preventing that progress from happening. Now think about what was the number one priority of everyone during Dark Ages: God. There has been no other period in history where faith has been so intense, and where science has been so stuck.

The Dark age, as I have said, are not Dark. They are so named because we know little of the culture. And this is an incredibly simplification of the situation. They produced mininal theories because, with the fall of Rome, centralization and security fell through. People were busy fighting wars and staying alive, and didn't have time to experiment. You are commiting false causation. You are saying that Because God was well followed, that he caused the Dark Ages. I would argue that he was so important, because of the dark ages. Religious supremacy didn't cause the dark age (which actually started before the Franks made Christianity the official religion), the situations during the dark ages caused religious supremacy. And this doesn't matter anyhow. Correlation does not amount to Causation. You must prove Causation.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:12:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 9:44:14 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:05 AM, Otokage wrote:
Marco Antonio de Dominis was murdered by the church because of his scientific explanation of the Rainbow.

Ok firstly get your facts straight. de Dominis was not murdered by the church for anything scientific. He was imprisoned as a relapsed Heretic, as he believed the papal system was not the true church. He died in prison, of natural causes. And he didn't develop any theories about rainbows. He developed theories about the passage of light through raindrops. It was Newton who would later claim that Dominis had developed the first theory of Rainbows, however that is often denounced in favor of Descartes {1}

1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

While in ancient greece pythagoras already believed the Earth was round, and it may well have been common knowledge amongst greeks, christianity established during the Middle Ages the primitive concept of a flat Earth, and in XIV century, burned alive astronomer Cecco d'Ascoli because of him suggesting otherwise.

Again, learn your stuff. No one of intellectual standing believed the flat earth theory. It did not exist. It was first spoken of in the pseudo-non-fiction biography of Christopher Columbus. Basically a story book. Think American Sniper movie. This book presented a false account of Columbus' issues in getting a grant. {2} The true reason the Spanish Crown hesitated was because their scholars told them that Christopher was gravely underestimating the distance from Europe to Asia (and they actually had the right distance). They knew you could get to Asia by going west. They didn't do it because they knew their ships couldn't hold enough supplies, especially if they also plan to bring back material to trade.

2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Copernico had his astronomical works banned from being sold. Giordano Bruno was burnt alive for suggesting both that the earth goes round the sun, and that there was more galaxies than ours. Galileo was tortured for the same reason.

Copernicus did not draw any controversy. Until a rival astrologer tried to shut out opposition. And managed to convince the church that Copernicus was a heretic.
Bruno was put under charges of dogmatic heresy, of which his scientific theories were minimal. Some of his charges involved denying whole parts of Catholic Dogma.

The true problem here is that you have cherry picked characters from the same time period, in particular, a time period full of hundreds of scientists. Cherry Picking a few examples, which can be summed up to either misrepresentation or simple grudges being played out through corruption and string pulling, don't work here. I would also like to point out that some of these trials took place over years, because the Catholic Church actually gave some of the fairest trials in the European world at those times.

Gessner, one of the fathers of modern zoology, had his works also banned from being sold.

Gessner was not attacked for his work. He was attacked for being Protestant. His scientific work suffered from it, but it was not his scientific work that was directly attacked.

Darwin himself was afraid of church opposition, stating that evolution was a God-driven process and life was created by God, while expressing his atheism in private, and slowly removing the role of God from evolution in successive editions of his work.


Darwin did not speak of God-Driven Evolution. His opponents did. And the Church argued against Evolution, but arguing against something is not the same as oppressing it.
Some authors estimate that only 1% of pre columbian works survived the conquest of these civilizations. The rest destroyed by christian priests that saw the culture and advances the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs, as a threat to Christianity. It is known that the Mayan civilization lasted about 3000 years, and had important astronomic and mathematical knowledge. Unfortunately, now we can only speculate on "what they knew" and "how they knew it" thanks to the Church.

This is entirely unsubstantiated. Christian Priests did not destroy entire Native cultures. Conquerors did. And they conquered for Glory and Gold. Mayans fell off the map of their own self destruction. You are basically blaming the church for the actions of Kings and Soldiers.
During the Dark Ages there was an important shortage of the scientific theories produced. Some may call it a coincidence, but those naive explanations do not satisfy me. I think there is a reason why the Dark Ages had no scientific progress: something was preventing that progress from happening. Now think about what was the number one priority of everyone during Dark Ages: God. There has been no other period in history where faith has been so intense, and where science has been so stuck.

The Dark age, as I have said, are not Dark. They are so named because we know little of the culture. And this is an incredibly simplification of the situation. They produced mininal theories because, with the fall of Rome, centralization and security fell through. People were busy fighting wars and staying alive, and didn't have time to experiment. You are commiting false causation. You are saying that Because God was well followed, that he caused the Dark Ages. I would argue that he was so important, because of the dark ages. Religious supremacy didn't cause the dark age (which actually started before the Franks made Christianity the official religion), the situations during the dark ages caused religious supremacy. And this doesn't matter anyhow. Correlation does not amount to Causation. You must prove Causation.

The funny thing is that you are stating everything I said indeed happened, but that it wasn't because the scientific works of the authors but because they were "heretics". And yet their scientific work was indeed banned from being sold, etc. So you are accepting that in practice, Church DID opose science.

And btw:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception"

"There is grandeur in this view of life [natural selection], with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator [...]" -Charles Darwin
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:01:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:12:35 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:44:14 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:05 AM, Otokage wrote:
Marco Antonio de Dominis was murdered by the church because of his scientific explanation of the Rainbow.

Ok firstly get your facts straight. de Dominis was not murdered by the church for anything scientific. He was imprisoned as a relapsed Heretic, as he believed the papal system was not the true church. He died in prison, of natural causes. And he didn't develop any theories about rainbows. He developed theories about the passage of light through raindrops. It was Newton who would later claim that Dominis had developed the first theory of Rainbows, however that is often denounced in favor of Descartes {1}

1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

While in ancient greece pythagoras already believed the Earth was round, and it may well have been common knowledge amongst greeks, christianity established during the Middle Ages the primitive concept of a flat Earth, and in XIV century, burned alive astronomer Cecco d'Ascoli because of him suggesting otherwise.

Again, learn your stuff. No one of intellectual standing believed the flat earth theory. It did not exist. It was first spoken of in the pseudo-non-fiction biography of Christopher Columbus. Basically a story book. Think American Sniper movie. This book presented a false account of Columbus' issues in getting a grant. {2} The true reason the Spanish Crown hesitated was because their scholars told them that Christopher was gravely underestimating the distance from Europe to Asia (and they actually had the right distance). They knew you could get to Asia by going west. They didn't do it because they knew their ships couldn't hold enough supplies, especially if they also plan to bring back material to trade.

2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Copernico had his astronomical works banned from being sold. Giordano Bruno was burnt alive for suggesting both that the earth goes round the sun, and that there was more galaxies than ours. Galileo was tortured for the same reason.

Copernicus did not draw any controversy. Until a rival astrologer tried to shut out opposition. And managed to convince the church that Copernicus was a heretic.
Bruno was put under charges of dogmatic heresy, of which his scientific theories were minimal. Some of his charges involved denying whole parts of Catholic Dogma.

The true problem here is that you have cherry picked characters from the same time period, in particular, a time period full of hundreds of scientists. Cherry Picking a few examples, which can be summed up to either misrepresentation or simple grudges being played out through corruption and string pulling, don't work here. I would also like to point out that some of these trials took place over years, because the Catholic Church actually gave some of the fairest trials in the European world at those times.

Gessner, one of the fathers of modern zoology, had his works also banned from being sold.

Gessner was not attacked for his work. He was attacked for being Protestant. His scientific work suffered from it, but it was not his scientific work that was directly attacked.

Darwin himself was afraid of church opposition, stating that evolution was a God-driven process and life was created by God, while expressing his atheism in private, and slowly removing the role of God from evolution in successive editions of his work.


Darwin did not speak of God-Driven Evolution. His opponents did. And the Church argued against Evolution, but arguing against something is not the same as oppressing it.
Some authors estimate that only 1% of pre columbian works survived the conquest of these civilizations. The rest destroyed by christian priests that saw the culture and advances the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs, as a threat to Christianity. It is known that the Mayan civilization lasted about 3000 years, and had important astronomic and mathematical knowledge. Unfortunately, now we can only speculate on "what they knew" and "how they knew it" thanks to the Church.

This is entirely unsubstantiated. Christian Priests did not destroy entire Native cultures. Conquerors did. And they conquered for Glory and Gold. Mayans fell off the map of their own self destruction. You are basically blaming the church for the actions of Kings and Soldiers.
During the Dark Ages there was an important shortage of the scientific theories produced. Some may call it a coincidence, but those naive explanations do not satisfy me. I think there is a reason why the Dark Ages had no scientific progress: something was preventing that progress from happening. Now think about what was the number one priority of everyone during Dark Ages: God. There has been no other period in history where faith has been so intense, and where science has been so stuck.

The Dark age, as I have said, are not Dark. They are so named because we know little of the culture. And this is an incredibly simplification of the situation. They produced mininal theories because, with the fall of Rome, centralization and security fell through. People were busy fighting wars and staying alive, and didn't have time to experiment. You are commiting false causation. You are saying that Because God was well followed, that he caused the Dark Ages. I would argue that he was so important, because of the dark ages. Religious supremacy didn't cause the dark age (which actually started before the Franks made Christianity the official religion), the situations during the dark ages caused religious supremacy. And this doesn't matter anyhow. Correlation does not amount to Causation. You must prove Causation.

The funny thing is that you are stating everything I said indeed happened, but that it wasn't because the scientific works of the authors but because they were "heretics". And yet their scientific work was indeed banned from being sold, etc. So you are accepting that in practice, Church DID opose science.

There is nothing "funny" about facts. They were banned due to affiliation with the "heretics" whom published them, not due to the scientific information inside. This is petty attempt to twist the information to your side. The Church opposed affiliation with heretics. Nothing elsse.

And btw:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception"

"There is grandeur in this view of life [natural selection], with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator [...]" -Charles Darwin

He spoke of it nearer the end of the issue, only after being convinced that it was the best thing to do. you cannot act like he made the claim the whole time.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 12:51:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:01:11 AM, Unitomic wrote:
There is nothing "funny" about facts. They were banned due to affiliation with the "heretics" whom published them, not due to the scientific information inside. This is petty attempt to twist the information to your side. The Church opposed affiliation with heretics. Nothing elsse.

It seems to me that it is you who is twisting the facts. Scientific works were banned by the Church. That's the main point. Your interpretation as to "why" is certainly irrelevant.

And btw:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception"

"There is grandeur in this view of life [natural selection], with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator [...]" -Charles Darwin

He spoke of it nearer the end of the issue, only after being convinced that it was the best thing to do. you cannot act like he made the claim the whole time.

On the contrary, those kind of things he said at the start of his works, while slowly removing comments like that after the sixth edition. He also showed his skepticism in his personal life but rarely in public. And were are talking about Darwin, XIX century. People in the Dark Ages were a hundred times more afraid from Church than Darwin was.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:49:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 12:51:07 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:01:11 AM, Unitomic wrote:
There is nothing "funny" about facts. They were banned due to affiliation with the "heretics" whom published them, not due to the scientific information inside. This is petty attempt to twist the information to your side. The Church opposed affiliation with heretics. Nothing elsse.

It seems to me that it is you who is twisting the facts. Scientific works were banned by the Church. That's the main point. Your interpretation as to "why" is certainly irrelevant.


So the only way you can win is to remove context ("why"), so as to twist the matter into your favour? It seems I can take my leave with victory.
happyjuggler
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 5:04:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:49:04 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 3/20/2015 12:51:07 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:01:11 AM, Unitomic wrote:
There is nothing "funny" about facts. They were banned due to affiliation with the "heretics" whom published them, not due to the scientific information inside. This is petty attempt to twist the information to your side. The Church opposed affiliation with heretics. Nothing elsse.

It seems to me that it is you who is twisting the facts. Scientific works were banned by the Church. That's the main point. Your interpretation as to "why" is certainly irrelevant.


So the only way you can win is to remove context ("why"), so as to twist the matter into your favour? It seems I can take my leave with victory.

This thread's gone way off topic, but I've just gotta chime in.

In what world is the institution responsible for witch trials during the time period in question ALSO being labeled as having the fairest trials of the period? Unless the claim is being made that all of those people imprisoned, tortured, and murdered were in fact witches in league with Satan.

Claiming a scientist wasn't persecuted for his research, but that he was persecuted for being a heretic, and therefore the church didn't oppose scientific advancement... is ridiculous. The church would sometimes claim that the scientific discovery itself was heresy. Galileo for example. The heliocentric model of the universe went against Catholic teachings, and so were deemed heretical. How is that not opposing the advancement of science? Even if the scientist was tried as a heretic for some OTHER heresy, and so the church wouldn't "affiliate" with him by banning all his works: that is still the church persecuting and repressing a scientist because the scientist said something that their imaginary friend disagreed with. Sure they didn't oppose ALL science, just as long as it was in line with their religion. That is opposition of scientific advancement.

As for conquerors destroying other cultures and not Christian priests, are you saying the forced conversion of others from their religion to another is not detrimental to that culture? Events such as the Massacre of Verden where 4500 Saxons were executed for rebelling against conversion to Christianity from Germanic paganism have nothing to do with the church? What about the Inquisitions, of which there were several? What about the church actively absorbing aspects of other religions (Eostre, Saturnalia) and telling people that the deities they worship are actually demons (Cernunnos, Pan)? That also seems pretty destructive to a culture, to tell them they're worshiping the wrong deity, or worshiping the right day but for the wrong reasons. The conquerors certainly played their part, but so did the church backing them.