Were people in the Dark/Middle Ages dumber than other ages?

[PhoneLobster]

Well actually the whole "Reconquista" thing was really the most far flung outpost of the empire crumbling due to infighting between Berbers and Arabs, ruling family members, and various successful generals being given the whole Julius Caeser treatment.

In the face of a (slightly) more unified barbarian invasion by the Christians the region (reinforced by holy fanatics from across Europe) the local franchise of the empire fell apart slowly over an extended period. And though it was certainly never a case of the Muslims ceasing to innovate or the barbarians adopting technology before winning the Christians certainly looted technology along with vast material wealth as certain key strongholds fell under their influence.

The Christians even cut deals with Jews and other Christians (and maybe some Muslims too) that had been living peacefully under Arab rule and let them join the victors as long as they converted to Catholicism (very much a conversion at sword point thing) so as to gain the skills of various translators, scribes, architects, and other technical types.

Then once Spain was safely under their sway they implemented the Spanish Inquisition, a body which at least initially primarily slaughtered the converted and their descendants, because they never REALLY trusted those filthy heathens...

[Username17]

The radicalization of Islam can mostly be traced back to Aurangzeb's rule of the Mogul Empire in northern India starting from 1658. All the sissy shit of Akbar the Great where they got along with other religions and patronized art and science was thrown to the ground in exchange for Taliban-like fanaticism. The army stopped being professional and non-denominational and started being a a howling horde of religious nut jobs. His human wave tactics and "burn heretics" strategies allowed him to conquer huge swathes of India, but ultimately destroyed the empire - not only smashing the power of India's technological superiority, but also allowing Europeans inroads into the continent. From his death in 1707, the subcontinent was conquered and divided by European colonialists, reaching a point of maximum subjugation 150 years later.

Thus, the Eastern fringe of the rocket-powered muslim science engine exploded. Fanatic luddite mullahs got the most powerful empire in the world to adopt their policies and everything came crashing down. The Western regions had been brought low some 300 years earlier. With Timur the Lame lighting fire to Baghdad's libraries in 1401, Ahmad I al-Mansur sacking the libraries of Timbuktu in 1591, and of course the Christian devastation of the Middle East in the Crusades.

Basically knowledge advancement requires a lot of building blocks. If you burn everything down, you lose all your knowledge within a generation or two. And in the Songhai, Mogul, and Persian empires this totally happened. Not all at once, but once it's done it is done.

The light of Reason can be extinguished. And monotheists are trying to do just that, as they always have been. When the Christians destroyed the library of Alexandria in 391, that was not a isolated event.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The light of Reason can be extinguished. And monotheists are trying to do just that, as they always have been. When the Christians destroyed the library of Alexandria in 391, that was not a isolated event.

-Username17

Frank, I lived in the United States from years 2000-2008. We don't need any elaboration.

I mean. Making up reasons to go to war, being called out in front of everyone, and still going to war anyway. I didn't think it could get any worse than that, but then the 2004 elections came. And it got far, far worse.

[cthulhu]

Then once Spain was safely under their sway they implemented the Spanish Inquisition, a body which at least initially primarily slaughtered the converted and their descendants, because they never REALLY trusted those filthy heathens...

Which they paid the price for, in turn getting crushed by the english.

I guess its just natural selection in action.

[Username17]

Yeah, but they dispossessed all their Jews and Muslims in 1492 and didn't lose their armada until 1588. While it eventually doomed them to go backwards like that, that "eventual" comeuppance took 96 years - 3 or 4 generations of the period - to actually arrive.

-Username17

[cthulhu]

Oh yeah, if you create a situation where you have a tough time innovating, its going to have to wait until the other guys actually have innovated to screw you.

[tzor]

PhoneLobster, I refuse to reply to your post because it flamebaited tzor for no reason.

No it's not flamebait, but it is a perfect example of using b broad historical brushes to tar whole groups who were probably for the most part from from whole.

So with that let's consider Paul and the generally sordid history of scroll burning. There is a lot in the writings that are not said and the biggest problem at the time of Paul were the "Gnostics." Apart from the whole secrecy of the cult and the fact that they were known to absorb various elements of the faiths around them (including the new followers of the way) they were massively prolific writers.

(In fact if you think they annoyed Paul, think of what they could have done to a modern "Scripture Alone" Protestant. Most of their arguments were in fact based on "Christian" writings. Peter writes about how they "twist the writings of Paul to their own damnation as they did the other scriptures" indirectly suggesting that the letters of Paul were at the time worthy to be considered scriptures. The whole evolution of "Apologetics" maintaining a direct connection to Apostolic tradition is based on dealing with arguments from the Gnostics.)

Gnostic gospels included a gay Jesus, a version of a post infancy narrative that had the child Jesus giving life to clay animals on the Sabbath and so on.

This lead to attitudes on scroll burning in many "Christian" communities that lasted for centuries. I will never defend any of the scroll burners and the destruction of the library of Alexandria was a crime committed by savages, but then again the icon smashers of the "Iconoclastic" controversy also considered themselves "Christian." The fact is that there is no one solid image of what "Christian" is just as there was no model of what the perfect "Roman" was.

That's why I also dismissed the original argument of Spain. Those were a bunch of ruffians and cutthroats who raided an empire in decline and then tried to get "foreign" support after the fact by saying it was a "Christian" victory. The edicts of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492 (forced conversion or leave the land) were prime examples of European power mad royalty and the calling of the Inquisition because they thought some of the converts were cheating is a dark mark on the part of Catholic Spain equal to the age of the KKK in the Protestant Southern United States.

[PhoneLobster]

You seriously intend to defend Christianity and religion in general by justifying their common and eternal anti knowledge/technology/intellectual freedom agenda with some half assed story about some minor sectarian disagreements?

Much as with the bath example you are using an incredibly narrow focus on complete triviality to try and create a smoke screen for a exceptionally long and well established historical habit of Christian oppression of scientific and social advancement.

I mean what? Creationists trying to sabotage scientific education to this day with insane religious dogma? Not their fault or an ongoing trait associated with their religion since it's foundation.

No, it's the fault of remaining trauma from some guy over a thousand years ago who like made up and kept a written copy of some crazy gay Jesus shit that didn't make the final cut when some other guy over a thousand years ago decided he didn't want gays in his official compiled edition of crazy made up written Jesus shit.

But even on your narrow points I spot factual errors. The reconquista gained support as a holy Christian war before and during the fact, NOT just after it.

As for proceeding to blame the local monarchy for religiously inspired slaughter in a period where the church was the effective equivalent of a federal government for the Catholic empire and held a harshly enforced monopoly on religious inspiration and was in its own eyes the primary beneficiary of violently enforced religious obedience... That's like blaming a state governor for Bush's no child left behind debacle, only more so.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You see, no one has yet to convince me that Christianity is the reason people did that horseshit.

I contend that people will latch on to anything they think will justify them in doing whatever it is they are doing. Everyone ignores certain parts of their faith, philosophy, or ethics when it suits them, it's just that some will do it when there's either a great need or their current ideas no longer work, and other people just ignore what they don't agree with.

Christianity is a non-sentient non-entity. It can't do anything to human culture. Some people latch on the the being helpful to your fellow man, and some people latch on to the more destructive portions of the faith. Those people would be equally destructive pagans, jews, muslims, hindus, atheists, pastafarians, or whatever they happened to follow.

If Christianity hadn't have taken hold in Europe, there would be little difference. Details would be different, but there'd be just as much slaughter and destruction otherwise. People are just stupid, destructive, and violent. Christianity was only what they used to justify what they were going to do anyhow.

Ironic. This implies that I have a far more negative view on Humanity than Phone Lobster does. (PL, correct me if this is wrong, but you seem to be saying that humans need prodding to do evil, and I feel that humans need little encouragement to act like beasts.)

[PhoneLobster]

You see, no one has yet to convince me that Christianity is the reason people did that horseshit.

I contend that people will latch on to anything they think will justify them in doing whatever it is they are doing.

The problem with this is the in built assumption that these people "doing what they are doing" have done so without any kind of input, influence or inspiration.

Christianity, and religions in general aren't just an amorphous anything goes label. They are also complex sets of memes with genuine power to influence peoples decision making. Christianity is also a powerful organisation with leadership and an authority structure and its own organisational goals and motivations.

And finally it is a basic world view and strategy for determining actions that leads to distinctly counter-productive, non-scientific and anti social actions. God tells you to do stuff, much of it measurably observably bad stuff, and you HAVE to do it in order to get super happy unprovable heaven eternity fun time. Failure to do it, or worse the act of questioning it or observing that it is wrong, those are unforgivable sins that banish you to unprovable horrible icky eternity hell place.

To accept Christianity as your most important influencing meme is to accept a strategy for dealing with the world that is not actually connected with observable reality or positive results in observable reality in any way shape or form and which actively regards strategies based in observable reality as an evil that must be fought.

From a Christian view point it is right to go burning texts that might bring doubt about the truth of the bible, ranging from excluded scriptures to pagan histories to ideas about science and engineering or analytical thought. Because they all bring doubt and challenge faith and as in all religions doubt in god, the holy texts, the random sacred rules and the ruling sacred classes is the most unforgivable sin of all.

If you burn the works of Aristotle or even Archimedes you are saving people from eternal damnation. Of course in the reality based community you are destroying valuable knowledge that could genuinely better peoples REAL lives for generations.

Christianity is a non-sentient non-entity. It can't do anything to human culture. Some people latch on the the being helpful to your fellow man, and some people latch on to the more destructive portions of the faith. Those people would be equally destructive pagans, jews, muslims, hindus, atheists, pastafarians, or whatever they happened to follow.

There are several things wrong with this.

First of all the inclusion of a brief smattering of random humanism within the philosophies of religions does nothing to make religions not be evil. They have a lot of random shit in their rules on how to live your life, some of it is bound to be not entirely horrible, and that is before you account for the massive propaganda value of the stuff.

Being able to say "Oh yeah, and Love Thy Neighbour" to lure in the impressionable to attend the big sermon about killing your neighbour and raping his daughters because god commanded it. That's a big deal, don't think for a second that humanism elements aren't milked for everything they are worth and more by religious recruiters and apologists everywhere.

This could almost make religions good if only they included enough humanist ideas and if only they didn't fill their rules and philosophies with other ideas that allow exceptions to or out right contradict their humanist elements. But the reality is that for every love thy neighbour Christianity has a contradictory "kill him", an exceptional "unless he is a godless heathen", a pointlessly mean "but hate him if he is gay" and a totally bizarre exhortation "to never eat four legged birds". The sum of religious philosophy is in practice never humanist, and always distinctly anti humanist in nature.

Secondly Atheists and Pastafarians are oddly LESS inclined to be psycho murderer bitches. There aren't mass murderers lining up to tell you "God didn't tell me to do it". Studies indicate that nations that are more religious suffer from higher crime, more violence, more violence against women, more rape, more murder, worse medical care, and more poverty. But most importantly atheism and the like very firmly lacks the exhortations to violence, ignorance and evil which religions simply drown in.

Finally you are arguing equivalency of evil. Which is a silly argument. In this case manifesting as "well if Christianity didn't plunge Europe into a thousand years of primitive brutality someone else totally would have!" A claim which is neither provable, logical, or especially relevant

Ironic. This implies that I have a far more negative view on Humanity than Phone Lobster does. (PL, correct me if this is wrong, but you seem to be saying that humans need prodding to do evil, and I feel that humans need little encouragement to act like beasts.)

The less encouragement you think they need the more you should be against traditions, organisations, philosophies and texts that encourage them to do so.

And this is equivalency of evil again only more so, Evil exists in humans anyway, so the evil of religion is forgivable because it is the same. That is more than just pessimistic. It's immoral, defeatist, and utterly useless as a means of improving anything for anyone ever.

Anyway count, this meanders a bit beyond dark ages discussion. For that alone the only refutation required is to point out that it is an absolutely confirmed historical fact that Christians did all of the terrible things that made the dark ages so dark and it happened under their ascendency, rule and ultimate power.

[JonSetanta]

One quick question before I back out and lurk the rest of this fascinating discussion;

By 'sorcery' those old asslicks.. uh, I mean Christians of The Church (pre-Catholic?), actually meant 'science', no?
Seemingly unexplainable mental processes that bring about amazing, long-lasting, and at many times laser-accurate results?

It seems shockingly similar to the very same modern war of ideas "between evolution and creationism", or as friends and I like to call it, right and wrong.

[Elennsar]

Science as something that unshakably reliable hasn't even come about yet in most fields, certainly not fields the Church has any problem with (if you think the Church is biased against knowledge on general principle, you are overlooking the architectural savvy it would take to build a cathedral.)

Similarly, something like Greek Fire, the secrets of which were well kept (or at least that was the theory) was most definately approved by the Church.

For better or worse, human knowledge and understanding of how things work (or don't) DID advance between the fall of Rome and the fall of Constantipole a thousand years later.

And assuming the Church had both the power and the inclination to stop that is trying very hard to pretend that didn't happen.

Doesn't mean it did a great deal of good, but the Dark Ages were not dark because of a bunch of monks burning books, they were dark by a bunch of barbarians, both those trying to figure out how to build a civilization and those not giving a shit about it, struggling and finally (1000 AD or so) being in a position to move forward.

Church-bashing is fun and all, but let's actually remember how much real authority (not much) the Church had to enforce anything.

[PhoneLobster]

It seems shockingly similar to the very same modern war of ideas "between evolution and creationism"

The war isn't modern but it IS the very same one. The church has fought science every step of the way since forever every time science produced anything that contradicted the faith based claims of the church science had to be silenced and erased, with violence if need be.

These guys fought tooth and nail against concepts like the world being round or the earth circling the sun instead of being the centre of the universe. There were civilisations that never learned to work metal or write in alphabets that got those right.

Science as something that unshakably reliable hasn't even come about yet in most fields, certainly not fields the Church has any problem with (if you think the Church is biased against knowledge on general principle, you are overlooking the architectural savvy it would take to build a cathedral.)

Fortunately for me this statement is packed with enough ignorance about science and history that I can mostly avoid addressing the rest of your non post.

1) Science as unshakable and reliable is an insano strawman that is used almost exclusively by clinically insane evangelical creationists who know nothing about science.

2) There are no specific fields the Church does or doesn't have problems with.

Even if there were you can't pick and choose your reality and your laws of physics based on how they interact with some bunch of religious nutters ideas about the world.

And even if randomly castrating vast swathes of science were OK for society as a whole that STILL isn't enough because the very basic nature of scientific thought is the most insidious feature of the movement from the church perspective, because it challenges their validity and authority and that as previously mentioned is the most unforgivable sin of all.

3) Cathedral architecture is not an advanced science. Cathedral architecture was a trail and error based craft. The specialists were rare as hens teeth and the structures are not especially sound and often relied on crude buttressing techniques and similar last minute additions that are a signatures of the field.

Worse still what technology they involved was applied almost exclusively to cathedrals and NOT to anything else (maybe the odd castle if you were lucky) all the other actually beneficial public buildings are gone, the roads are gone, the aqueducts are gone, the baths, etc...

Cathedrals were nothing more than a bottomless unproductive sink for what little construction wealth and know how that was left. And it wasn't much.


Anyway you ramble on with a bunch of other insanity like some undescribed complete fantasy about Greek fire and the timing of events ultimately to simply dismiss the church as being completely powerless to have done a damn thing during the one period when it ruled unchallenged across an entire continent.

Yeah sure the church is powerless, what's that you say about "Crusades"? Never heard of them.

[Elennsar]

The Crusades happened because the knights of Europe -agreed- when the Church said "Go forth and do this."

When the knights stopped volunteering, we see an abrupt drop in the number of crusades.

Also, your ability to read is missing something: Science as something -that- unshakable and reliable. That being inserted for a reason other than to decorate the post.

Medieval science was simply not very advanced and the Church butting in to the minimal extent it did so is not why.

The Church has a great deal more of a problem with evolution than explosives, and the law on crossbows has nothing whatsoever to do with science vs. the Church (nor was it enforceable to any meaningful degree).

Your bigotry is not matched by your history. Try again after studying how much the Church was actually able to do and how much it didn't even try to mess with.

[Username17]

The idea that science is unshakable is a straw man. Science does no claim that about itself.

The idea that the church interfered only slightly or moderately during the thousand years of darkness is outright laughable. Christian Emperors brought down the empire, and set ablaze all the engineering texts on the way out.

People used to go to Rome to admire the ruins. Not because they were pretty and historical, but because no one could replicate buildings of that quality. Roman concrete techniques were put to the sword- by Christians. Interestingly, Mayan and Aztec concrete techniques were also pretty advanced and those were put to the sword as well - by Christians again.

The entire concept of the First Commandment is antithetical to discourse and progress. It's a really really vile commandment, and everything that comes out of it is tainted.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

The arguement that science then was not as reliable as it is now because of a severe shortage of tools and knowledge to begin with. Science is generally pretty hard to question as a general field, even if specific discoveries get proven to be false or less accurate or incomplete on a regular basis.

So, what about the Huns? What about the Vikings? What about the various things that did advance between AD 476 and AD 1453?

What about the fact that a papal condemnation of crossbows was completely useless (so much for the Church wielding absolute authority)?

Damning thristainity as bringing down the empire and setting ablaze all the engineering texts on the way out is grossly inaccurate.

Funny, we live in a world where despite gunpowder being invented in China, rifles were invented in Europe.

Must be the influence of the pagans.

[PhoneLobster]

I'm just going to have to call out he-who-cannot-be-named for thinking he knows a great deal more than the very little he actually evidences on everything related to what he is muttering about.

Because if I respond to anything else he says it's just going to turn into another of his gibberishfests.

Suffice it to say as usually he adds two and two together and gets "Approximately King Arthur! King Arthur thinks I'm right (King Arthur always lies) I reserve the right to redefine King Arthur at will"

Trying to address that will not get us anywhere.

[Username17]

Indeed, people who refuse to accept the efficacy of basic math can't be expected to make any sense talking about basic history.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Unlike people who think probability will always occur and that rolling worse or better than is probable is so unlikely as to make no difference, whether it happens in actual play or not.

Right. Go on with your Church hating, history mutilating, medieval Europe bashing quest to ignore all the advances in the thousand years from Rome falling in the West to its end in the East.

[PhoneLobster]

Stand back everyone, I'm going to use a smiley, yes I know its dirty and usually below me... lookout...

[ckafrica]

Stand back everyone, I'm going to use a smiley, yes I know its dirty and usually below me... lookout...

[shau]

Unlike people who think probability will always occur and that rolling worse or better than is probable is so unlikely as to make no difference, whether it happens in actual play or not.

God dammit Elennsar what the hell is with you and this? Is there any force on earth that can convince you that things which are likely to happen are likely to happen? I can't believe you are not being deliberately stupid at this point.

[tzor]

You seriously intend to defend Christianity and religion in general by justifying their common and eternal anti knowledge/technology/intellectual freedom agenda with some half assed story about some minor sectarian disagreements?

Much as with the bath example you are using an incredibly narrow focus on complete triviality to try and create a smoke screen for a exceptionally long and well established historical habit of Christian oppression of scientific and social advancement.

I mean what? Creationists trying to sabotage scientific education to this day with insane religious dogma? Not their fault or an ongoing trait associated with their religion since it's foundation.

No, it's the fault of remaining trauma from some guy over a thousand years ago who like made up and kept a written copy of some crazy gay Jesus shit that didn't make the final cut when some other guy over a thousand years ago decided he didn't want gays in his official compiled edition of crazy made up written Jesus shit.

But even on your narrow points I spot factual errors. The reconquista gained support as a holy Christian war before and during the fact, NOT just after it.

As for proceeding to blame the local monarchy for religiously inspired slaughter in a period where the church was the effective equivalent of a federal government for the Catholic empire and held a harshly enforced monopoly on religious inspiration and was in its own eyes the primary beneficiary of violently enforced religious obedience... That's like blaming a state governor for Bush's no child left behind debacle, only more so.

I will always “defend” those who are wrongly accused by the broad brush of over generalizations. This is especially true of the field of science, because few people are really aware of the history of science over the span of human history. Just as you can’t pick and choose a selection of United States Presidents in an effort to prove the nation was a despotic evil empire, you can’t pick and choose your way to prove that religion and science are dramatically at odds with each other.

The Bible Belt does not reflect all of Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition does not reflect all of Christianity. The French Revolution doesn’t reflect all of Secularism. The Soviet Union doesn’t reflect all of Atheism. (As you can see I’m against all large brushes not just large brushes against religion.)

So back to the dark ages; we often hear about “Roman Science.” Now that oxymoron is a real laugh. Romans weren’t in general scientists, not in the way we think of the term. They were instead engineers. The dark ages was made worse because engineering generally requires a strong governmental structure to ensure they are maintained. Even the Greeks before them weren’t really into science, except for theoretical science. Experiments were generally considered beneath them. Inconvenient truths (such as the fact that PI can’t easily fit into a ratio) were considered “state secrets.” And the big thing in the library of Alexandria was an attempt to unify various pantheons.

As a point of fact one of the biggest problems in the Middle Ages was that the Church actually considered the Greeks an unquestionable authority in some areas of science. The bad science of the Greeks probably held science back for at least a century if not a couple.

(Well I have to go sing. I'll be back this evening to continue this.)

[Maxus]

As a point of fact one of the biggest problems in the Middle Ages was that the Church actually considered the Greeks an unquestionable authority in some areas of science. The bad science of the Greeks probably held science back for at least a century if not a couple.

Fair enough, though it's not Aristotle's fault that later generations thought that the sun shone out of his ass.

[PhoneLobster]

As a point of fact one of the biggest problems in the Middle Ages was that the Church actually considered the Greeks an unquestionable authority in some areas of science. The bad science of the Greeks probably held science back for at least a century if not a couple.

Except that it is a historical fact that in practice that isn't what happened. Much like the rest of what you propose in your post.

See the Romans took the technology and science of the Greeks (at whatever questionable level it was at) and applied it practically and advanced it further to produce real public wealth across the continent.

The Catholics ruled across a pretty similar if slightly smaller region with pretty similar power but without that knowledge and produced NO PUBLIC WEALTH.

The remaining technology and science of the Greeks, added to by the Romans fell into the hands of the rising Islamic empire to the east.

THEY applied it practically and advanced it further to produce real public wealth across their own similarly sized empire.

When it finally fell back into European hands through Spain, Sicily and the Crusades then THEY applied it practically and advanced it further to produce real public wealth across the Catholic empire, which then crumbled into smaller (but wealthier, and more free) states as the wealth and knowledge let them break loose from the evil iron fist of Rome (indeed required them to if they wanted to apply it).

Now this is important. At no step in the process did having the "inferior" science and knowledge of past generations set anyone back. Those factions that kept the knowledge managed to advance it and apply it. The only faction that DIDN'T advance knowledge and apply it for the betterment of real human lives was the bunch of religious fanatics who actively destroyed knowledge and fought against its development and application.

This isn't a broad sweeping brush. This is what actually happened. You are the one who keeps trying to pull the single triviality as an example to prove a broad point. The fact is that Christianity has fought against knowledge from Archimedes to Galileo to Darwin to modern stem cell researchers trying to cure horrible diseases for the benefit of millions.

You can produce nothing to disprove that "broad brush" of a history of firm and consistent examples other than the odd triviality.