Why do you think that and what are your academic sources?... But as far as science goes Christianity inhibits it rather than helps its progress.
That is a bit of exaggeration. For all the the acclaim of the Greek philosophy, post classical philosophies that developed in an Christian environment are as important. The works of Locke and others had a greater role in shaping US government and hence the effect on daily life than Greek philosophy.I live in an ultra-Christian country and i hear many people say that European culture is based on Christianity and that even atheists should respect the "Christian heritage of Western Civilization". Is it true or false? I believe that whilst Christianity played an important role it was ancient Greece and Rome that truly shaped us:
1. Romans and Greeks developed philosopical trends like stoicism or epicureism, Christianity only took them and used to its profit. Well, epicureism was forbidden in Middle Ages becasue it was seen as ungodly...
Not true. Gothic architecture is not based on Greek conceptions, the Greeks didn't ivent the pointed arch or even the arch for that matter, and the use of windows as a major architectural element is absent in Greek and Roman buildings, but was is an essential feature in medieval and modern architecture.2. All our architecture from Anqtiquity through Middle Ages to modern day is based on Roman and Greek conceptions. Christian temples may be suited for Christian tastes, but they are influenced by Pagan shrines.
The expanse of Latin was due to the work of Christians, and it would have been a dead and unused language today if not for them. It was Christians who made Latin the language of learning in countries like Sweden which had never been under Roman rule.3. History of European science began in Antiquity.
Besides, while nations conquered by Romans sooner or later adapted Latin culture (except for the East which was Hellenic), while after 1500 years Christianity still has not entirely asimilated any nation and many Pagan rituals are celebrated until today, only covered by Christian ideology. What do you think?
We could argue this all day, and in the end, it will simply be our opinions. However, no other religion of which I am aware - at least in the western world, taught to love others as self. Hammurabi had his code, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but there is a difference between justice as revenge or getting even and mercy and compassion that encourages one to turn the other cheek - not that many of us are able to practice this consistently, but it still a moral code. And the 10 Commandments are the basis for much of our laws. I am not sure of any other code that is as thorough, extensive and persuasive as this.As for as Christianity being more "moral", I refer to the thread linked to by Dios, and point out for the umpteenth time that the morals Christianity or any of the Abrahamic religions are most certainly not superior to Ma'at.
On judgement after death, all Egyptians needed to have proclaimed before the 42 assessors [judges] that they had not committed any of the 42 "negative confessions", "sins" in Christian terms. There were a further 40 "negative confession" for all priests. Given that everybody who worked in a temple was also a priest, even the lowliest janitor, this includes a significant percentage of the entire population who had to pass a total of 82 "negative confessions". Just the basic 42 "negative confessions" cover far more than the Ten Commandments.And the 10 Commandments are the basis for much of our laws. I am not sure of any other code that is as thorough, extensive and persuasive as this.
While I will agree with those words as applied to Ma'at, would you reconsider and ask yourself if they are still applicable to the Ten Commandments, that's merely ten, not forty two or eighty two.I am not sure of any other code that is as thorough, extensive and persuasive as this
Contrary to what you imply, Egyptian medicine is nowhere near comparable to modern medicine. The other 50% of the medicines not used by the ancient Egyptians were far more important to modern health and increased life span.About 50% of medicines used by the Egyptians are still in use, and they invented prosthetics.
To insist religion played no role at in the development of science is not valid.On the topic, I think it wrong to say that any advance in science is the result of religion, and to point to the likes of Isaac Newton and say that as he was a Christian then it is Christianity that is responsible in some way for his discoveries. Likewise being a "pagan" had no influence on Archimedes. They did what they did because they were capable of great things in their own right, not because of a belief in superstitious mumbo jumbo.
The Christians brought an end to infanticide, which was a common feature in the ancient world, among other things.As for as Christianity being more "moral", I refer to the thread linked to by Dios, and point out for the umpteenth time that the morals Christianity or any of the Abrahamic religions are most certainly not superior to Ma'at.
What I actually said about Egyptian medicine was that 50% of the medicine they used back then is still in use today, without any implication that their medicine was better than ours, so why distort what I wrote?Contrary to what you imply, Egyptian medicine is nowhere near comparable to modern medicine. The other 50% of the medicines not used by the ancient Egyptians were far more important to modern health and increased life span.
Development of instutions like modern university, which were a direct outgrowth of the medieval universities created by the Church, played an important role in the development of modern medicine.
The allowing of human dissection by the Church, which the ancient pagans did not allow, was critical for the development of modern human anatomy and modern medicine. Gslen's work is full of anatomical errors that had to be later corrected.
To insist religion played no role at in the development of science is not valid.
Religion can play s major role in the development of science by creating the instutions that foster the growth of science, like the University as I have said, and also by fostering the mindset that also helped the creation of modern science. The idea that the universe was created by a rational God made the study of the natural a worthwhile study, for to understand creation is to gain understanding of the creator. Reason is both important and vslusble tool
But just as important, and this is where the ancient Greeks failed, is the belief that revelation trumps reason. If an observable fact doesn't match the theory, then the theory must be replaced or modified. While God and his universe he made is rational, Christians unlike the ancient Greeks were willing to acknowledge they wouldn't necessarily understand all of. The Greeks would persist with a theory despite it conflicting with observable facts, if they felt their reasoning was sound, such as Aristotle's law's of motions, which have been easily disproved if he had bothered to conduct done experiments or made some careful observations.
Another factor that aided science was the idea of universal literacy, which was a direct outgrowth of religion. In the desire to encourage people reading sacred writing, both Christians and Buddhist encouraged literacy. It was the Buddhistd who brought literacy to Japan, snd Christians who brought writing to Ireland and other parts of Europe. The ancient world had no desire if encouraging literacy among the common. Increased literacy is a benefit to science.
Modern science wasn't created by the ancients. Pagan Greek science in 300 CE was not significantly more advance than it was in 300 BC, a thousand years later. However, European science was significantly more advance in the 17th century than it was in the 7th century.
The Christians brought an end to infanticide, which was a common feature in the ancient world, among other things.
Nor did Ma'at play any role in the ending slavery, which Christianity did. Christian influence played an essential role in ending slavery, even though it did not create the institution. (While it took a little time. Christians did eventually lead the effort in stamping out the instution. Despite just as long a time, Ma'at made no effort at all.).
And even if Ma'at encouraged charity, it never encouraged international charity - Ma'at never encouraged sending aid to another country suffering a famine, or from an earthquake. Christianity has.
In other areas, encouraging people not to rob, murder, I agree Ma'at is probably not much different.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Did Christianity destroy ancient science? Debunked.||Religious History|
|When did Christianity become a presence in Ancient Rome? Britain?||Ancient History|
|The Calender of the Ancient World (Before Christianity)||Ancient History|
|Ancient paganism, modern paganism, and Christianity||Religious History|