I think you need to read my posts again, and this time more carefully as you seem to have misunderstood all of them. Perhaps you should also notice that it is argued by some in this thread that because Europe became Christian, then all scientific advances were the direct result of Christianity. This is total nonsense and is what I am arguing against. And what is this nonsense about "counterfactual history". I am posing the question that if no advances had been made from us being hunter gathers to the time of Christ, what advances would then have taken place due to Christianity. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and one I have posed several times now without reasonable answer. The purpose is to point out that were we are today, all the advances since AD, are built on the advances BC and are a natural progression, not the result of belief in the supernatural, specifically in the context of the OP, Christianity. If you had read my posts more carefully you would have seen that I apply the same criteria to pre Christian advances when we were all "pagans", and I have not once wrote that Christianity actively opposed science, and I don't know why you are trying to say that I have. It's not me that should "pick my words more carefully", it is you who should read them more carefully.
Christianity vs Ancient culture: who contributed more to the Western Civilization?
- Thread starter Copernicus
- Start date
- Tags ancient christianity civilization contributed culture western
Then you need to quote a sentence directly from that debater you think made that assertion and respond to it instead of just spouting out randomly that: "And there is the Antikythera mechanism, long before Christianity, and not surpassed until long after Christianity had become the only religion in Europe" which I perceived as an insinuation that the medieval Christians's technological knowledge was inferior to Pagans. What clearly was NEVER the case.
No, that is nonsense and it obviously becomes clear that you don't know how the historical methods work today in the academia. Counterfactual history, and not "counterfactual history", is actually a concept that is refuted by the historians for obvious reason.
When an event has found place there are written and archeological sources. From them the historians can try to construct a lucid interpretation of the past as best as possible.
A "what if"-scenario has not found place, and there are no written nor archeological sources. For that reason the historians cannot construct any lucid interpretation of it. It is pure speculation.
You like to speculate what would happen if Jesus and Christians lived in Stone Age, and speculate what would had happen after that and how the world be today? Fine. I don't. And almost all trained historians don't do that.
If I have misrepresented your opinons then I apologise. Perhaps it will help if you qoute directly instead of posting randomly about that Antikythera mechanism not being "surpassed until long after Christianity had become the only religion in Europe". Because I took it as a respond to me and something that questioned the technological skills of Medieval Christians.
No, that is nonsense and it obviously becomes clear that you don't know how the historical methods work today in the academia. Counterfactual history, and not "counterfactual history", is actually a concept that is refuted by the historians for obvious reason.
When an event has found place there are written and archeological sources. From them the historians can try to construct a lucid interpretation of the past as best as possible.
A "what if"-scenario has not found place, and there are no written nor archeological sources. For that reason the historians cannot construct any lucid interpretation of it. It is pure speculation.
You like to speculate what would happen if Jesus and Christians lived in Stone Age, and speculate what would had happen after that and how the world be today? Fine. I don't. And almost all trained historians don't do that.
If I have misrepresented your opinons then I apologise. Perhaps it will help if you qoute directly instead of posting randomly about that Antikythera mechanism not being "surpassed until long after Christianity had become the only religion in Europe". Because I took it as a respond to me and something that questioned the technological skills of Medieval Christians.
You have deliberately misunderstood the point I have been making, that religion is not the driver of scientific advance. I have not speculated about Jesus and Christians living in the Stone Age in the way you have deliberately contorted my posts, I have speculated if any scientific advances would take place if Christianity appeared in a world in which we were still hunter gatherers. This is to show that we would not be where we are today without the advances that did of course take place before Christianity, but that Christianity was not the driver of further advances, as "paganism" was not the driver of advances before Christianity. This is a pertinent point and directly addresses the OP.
Do you really not understand what I am saying. Do you really need to try and make a post about the antikythera mechanism seem a "random" post when it was directly under, and clearly related to the post on the sundial calendar. Did you really not understand the context of that post at all. I think know, you are playing games, and you can play with yourself.
Do you really not understand what I am saying. Do you really need to try and make a post about the antikythera mechanism seem a "random" post when it was directly under, and clearly related to the post on the sundial calendar. Did you really not understand the context of that post at all. I think know, you are playing games, and you can play with yourself.
Last edited:
Christianity is only a part of a society's culture. "Ancient culture" includes not only "Ancient religions", but nearly all aspects of that culture from philosophy to government to spending habits. I don't think it's a fair comparison because one side encompasses way more than that of the other, so it's easier for "Ancient culture" to take credit for an accomplishment committed in ancient times, whereas it's harder for Christianity to take credit for an accomplishment committed in a Christian dominated culture.
This leads me to the second point. I'm seeing a lot of "evidence" being used that I simply don't think is good enough. Just because something was invented in a Christian society doesn't mean the invention was directly caused by Christianity. Just because a Christian invented something doesn't mean his faith was the direct cause of his achievement. I'll be more convinced to see quoted evidence about how, say, the Church funded universities which allowed a particular someone in said university to invent something important. This is contrary to "Ancient culture", in which the term encompasses so much of everything that if one part of "ancient culture" wasn't to take credit for a particular ancient invention, some other part of said "ancient culture" probably would. Hence why I think it's an unfair comparison.
I think this graph sums up a lot of what I said:
This leads me to the second point. I'm seeing a lot of "evidence" being used that I simply don't think is good enough. Just because something was invented in a Christian society doesn't mean the invention was directly caused by Christianity. Just because a Christian invented something doesn't mean his faith was the direct cause of his achievement. I'll be more convinced to see quoted evidence about how, say, the Church funded universities which allowed a particular someone in said university to invent something important. This is contrary to "Ancient culture", in which the term encompasses so much of everything that if one part of "ancient culture" wasn't to take credit for a particular ancient invention, some other part of said "ancient culture" probably would. Hence why I think it's an unfair comparison.
I think this graph sums up a lot of what I said:
Last edited:
Your link doesn't provide the ancient texts that are the source for its claims. What is the ancient source of knowledge for its claims of ancient female Egyptian physicians. And the article only talked about a woman head of a medical school, which isn't the same as proving a an entire school of female physcians as you claim. The article does dismiss the statements of female Egyptologist Barbara Wattson that female Egyptian physcians were very rare, but does not actually provide sources to prove her wrong. Like you, the article merely makes assertion.
Some of the arguments the article made are laughable. That a goddess was associated with medicine doesn't say much about whether that female Egyptian physcians were common. Athena was the goddess of wisdom, yet the Greeks were extremely patriarchal and there were extremely few female ancient Greek scientist and philisophers
Those references do not support your claims. That do not provide evidence of The House of Life invovled in legal their, or in the study of mathematics, nor do the references provide examples of famous scientist, mathematicians, or philosophers and the discoveries they made. In short, you haven't done what I asked or proven your point.
It does not answer any of the questions I raised. "All their crafts", is not the samething as "all crafts", and your quote gives no idea of what those particular crafts consisted of. Did it include mathematics? It doesn't say. Did it include the science of metallurgy? It didn't say. The properties of antimony hardening lead was unknown to the ancient Egyptians. Telescopes and microscopes were unknown to the ancient Egyptia.
I never said that there was no concept of organized of organized education pre,dating Christianity, so it would be appreciated if you stop making or implying false claims. I do say that rhese earlier concepts did not match the creation of Christiabity, and I stand by those claims. Despite several opportunities you had, you haven't shown that these anxient creations cover d the same scope of fields of knowledge as universities, or were involved in the same kind of science tific and philosophical debate. There is no evidence these institutions were involved in expanding knowledge. We see a tremosous advament in knowledge in all kinds of fields from the 13th to 19th century, while we see little overall advancement in knolwdge from the 2000 BC to 1000 BC in Egypt, certainly no where near the same advancement we see in Europe.
Ther was not the same systematic experimentation as we find modern times. Ancient technology was nowhere near as advanced as modern technology. Did the ancient Egytpians have reading glasses, telescopes, and microscopes? No, there is no edivence for it, and no discoveries were made by them. Did the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians have mariner magnetic compasses? No. Did the ancient Greeks, Romans, Eqyptians figure out the earth revolves around the sun, or realize the planets move ellispes and calcate the actual orbits of the planets? Caculate the orbit of Halley's comet, and when it would return, or the samething of any other comet? All Nos.
Yes, boring technology demonstratss that overall, the ancient were technologically inferior. Even the simplest things we take for granted they lacked. They lacked the simple theaded fasterner the screw, or the threaded nut and botl. They lacked the simple.windmill. As you got older, you were just out of luck when you could no longer read without assistance. If you didn't have the money to buy/build a house or buy a farm or a piece of technological machinery, you couldn't go to the bank and get a 15 to 30 year loan to buy it. Even if the machine would generate for you a lot more money, like a mechanical reaper, so you could make more in one year with it than you could in in 4 years without, you were still just out of luck. Governments couldn't borrow money for a long term to compensate them for the consequenfes and the loss of tax revenue due to some disaster like a massive flood or drought, or detruction caused by war, so either they either not paid theirntroops (leading to mutinies) or increased the tax burdens on those still able to pay or debased the money supply, a which had negative consequences.
Some of the arguments the article made are laughable. That a goddess was associated with medicine doesn't say much about whether that female Egyptian physcians were common. Athena was the goddess of wisdom, yet the Greeks were extremely patriarchal and there were extremely few female ancient Greek scientist and philisophers
Those references do not support your claims. That do not provide evidence of The House of Life invovled in legal their, or in the study of mathematics, nor do the references provide examples of famous scientist, mathematicians, or philosophers and the discoveries they made. In short, you haven't done what I asked or proven your point.
It does not answer any of the questions I raised. "All their crafts", is not the samething as "all crafts", and your quote gives no idea of what those particular crafts consisted of. Did it include mathematics? It doesn't say. Did it include the science of metallurgy? It didn't say. The properties of antimony hardening lead was unknown to the ancient Egyptians. Telescopes and microscopes were unknown to the ancient Egyptia.
I never said that there was no concept of organized of organized education pre,dating Christianity, so it would be appreciated if you stop making or implying false claims. I do say that rhese earlier concepts did not match the creation of Christiabity, and I stand by those claims. Despite several opportunities you had, you haven't shown that these anxient creations cover d the same scope of fields of knowledge as universities, or were involved in the same kind of science tific and philosophical debate. There is no evidence these institutions were involved in expanding knowledge. We see a tremosous advament in knowledge in all kinds of fields from the 13th to 19th century, while we see little overall advancement in knolwdge from the 2000 BC to 1000 BC in Egypt, certainly no where near the same advancement we see in Europe.
Ther was not the same systematic experimentation as we find modern times. Ancient technology was nowhere near as advanced as modern technology. Did the ancient Egytpians have reading glasses, telescopes, and microscopes? No, there is no edivence for it, and no discoveries were made by them. Did the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians have mariner magnetic compasses? No. Did the ancient Greeks, Romans, Eqyptians figure out the earth revolves around the sun, or realize the planets move ellispes and calcate the actual orbits of the planets? Caculate the orbit of Halley's comet, and when it would return, or the samething of any other comet? All Nos.
Yes, boring technology demonstratss that overall, the ancient were technologically inferior. Even the simplest things we take for granted they lacked. They lacked the simple theaded fasterner the screw, or the threaded nut and botl. They lacked the simple.windmill. As you got older, you were just out of luck when you could no longer read without assistance. If you didn't have the money to buy/build a house or buy a farm or a piece of technological machinery, you couldn't go to the bank and get a 15 to 30 year loan to buy it. Even if the machine would generate for you a lot more money, like a mechanical reaper, so you could make more in one year with it than you could in in 4 years without, you were still just out of luck. Governments couldn't borrow money for a long term to compensate them for the consequenfes and the loss of tax revenue due to some disaster like a massive flood or drought, or detruction caused by war, so either they either not paid theirntroops (leading to mutinies) or increased the tax burdens on those still able to pay or debased the money supply, a which had negative consequences.
In the case of Europe, the spread of classical civilization was a direct byproduct of Christin missionary activities. Anglo-Saxon scholars played a major role in the Carolingisn Revival. Would the Anglo-Saxons have played a duch significant role if they had remained pagans? There is every reason to think the answer would be no. The pagan Scandinavians played no role in European intellectual life until after their adoption of Christianity. The same thing for the Irish. It was not until the Irish adopted Christianity that they acquired writing, and played a major role in the preservation of classical civilization - read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. We have no evidence to suggest the pagan Europeans, Celts, Germans, Slavs, would have become part of an advance literate civilization had they remained pagans as they did after they converted. Within a century and half after they coverted, the Anglo Saxons produced one of the leading scholars of medieval Europe, the Venerable Bede. 300 years after the Germans had contact with the Romans at the time of Caesar, the pagan Germans still had not produced a scholar of any note. Christianity is what made the difference.
Buddhism played a similar role in the East as Christianity did in the West. Ancient centers of learning like Nalanda in India were created by Buddhist, and there disappearance occurred at the same time Buddhism declined in India. Buddhism as brought writing to Japan.
The shape of a society can be determined by religion. Important elements such a marriage, inheritance, what is legal and illegal can be determined by religion. Christianity made divorce difficult for both men and women, even for kings, which meant that the rich and powerful were more likely to have a daughter as their only heir, creating wealthy heiresses, or wind up with a ruling Queens, like Elizabeth
I think this graph sums up a lot of what I said:
[/QUOTE]
Buddhism played a similar role in the East as Christianity did in the West. Ancient centers of learning like Nalanda in India were created by Buddhist, and there disappearance occurred at the same time Buddhism declined in India. Buddhism as brought writing to Japan.
The shape of a society can be determined by religion. Important elements such a marriage, inheritance, what is legal and illegal can be determined by religion. Christianity made divorce difficult for both men and women, even for kings, which meant that the rich and powerful were more likely to have a daughter as their only heir, creating wealthy heiresses, or wind up with a ruling Queens, like Elizabeth
I think this graph sums up a lot of what I said:
I made a post about how correlation doesn't mean causation and you responded with a paragraph that relies on the assumption of "correlation means causation".
1. You say : "The pagan Scandinavians played no role in European intellectual life until after their adoption of Christianity. The same thing for the Irish."
Now prove Christianity played a role in helping Scandinavians play a role in European intellectual life. Just showing that Christianity was present isn't enough. Just because Christianity was present when something happened, doesn't mean it's the cause. A lot of things can be present when anything happens. I could be eating an ice cream when a tornado hit, doesn't mean me eating said ice cream was what caused the tornado.
2. You say "The same thing for the Irish. It was not until the Irish adopted Christianity that they acquired writing, and played a major role in the preservation of classical civilization - read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill"
Now prove how Christianity helped the Irish acquire writing and how Christianity helped the Irish play a major role in the preservation of classical civilization. And no, I'm not reading an entire book because you told me to. You should quote from "How the Irish Saved Civilization" in order to better your argument, instead of just giving me the book title and telling me to read it.
3. You say "Within a century and half after they coverted, the Anglo Saxons produced one of the leading scholars of medieval Europe, the Venerable Bede."
Now prove how Christianity is what allowed Anglo Saxons to produce leading scholars of Medieval Europe, rather than some other factor. Merely saying Christianity was present doesn't mean Christianity was the cause, that's not evidence.
4. You say "300 years after the Germans had contact with the Romans at the time of Caesar, the pagan Germans still had not produced a scholar of any note. Christianity is what made the difference."
Show how Christianity helped the Germans to produce their first "scholar of any note", don't just say that Christianity was present when it happened. That's not proof. I think I can safely say that a lot of things was present when it happened, but that doesn't mean causation.
Remember, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm trying to improve your argument tactics. Quotes help too. If you improve your argument tactics and prove the points I gave above, I'm more than happy to agree. Lastly, when you say how Germans/Irish/Anglo Saxons haven't produced "leading scholars" or "writing", or whatever.... what about all the non-Christian Romans and Greeks who did produce these things? If it's simply because the Germans/Irish lacked Christianity, then why didn't ALL non-Christians lack "leading scholars" or "writing" or whatever?
A difficult divorce (legally) wouldn't be something I describe as an attribute for modern western civilization. You did show Christianity played a role in affecting divorce for Medieval Western civilization. But at least your argument in this case don't rely on "correlation = causation".
1. You say : "The pagan Scandinavians played no role in European intellectual life until after their adoption of Christianity. The same thing for the Irish."
Now prove Christianity played a role in helping Scandinavians play a role in European intellectual life. Just showing that Christianity was present isn't enough. Just because Christianity was present when something happened, doesn't mean it's the cause. A lot of things can be present when anything happens. I could be eating an ice cream when a tornado hit, doesn't mean me eating said ice cream was what caused the tornado.
2. You say "The same thing for the Irish. It was not until the Irish adopted Christianity that they acquired writing, and played a major role in the preservation of classical civilization - read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill"
Now prove how Christianity helped the Irish acquire writing and how Christianity helped the Irish play a major role in the preservation of classical civilization. And no, I'm not reading an entire book because you told me to. You should quote from "How the Irish Saved Civilization" in order to better your argument, instead of just giving me the book title and telling me to read it.
3. You say "Within a century and half after they coverted, the Anglo Saxons produced one of the leading scholars of medieval Europe, the Venerable Bede."
Now prove how Christianity is what allowed Anglo Saxons to produce leading scholars of Medieval Europe, rather than some other factor. Merely saying Christianity was present doesn't mean Christianity was the cause, that's not evidence.
4. You say "300 years after the Germans had contact with the Romans at the time of Caesar, the pagan Germans still had not produced a scholar of any note. Christianity is what made the difference."
Show how Christianity helped the Germans to produce their first "scholar of any note", don't just say that Christianity was present when it happened. That's not proof. I think I can safely say that a lot of things was present when it happened, but that doesn't mean causation.
Remember, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm trying to improve your argument tactics. Quotes help too. If you improve your argument tactics and prove the points I gave above, I'm more than happy to agree. Lastly, when you say how Germans/Irish/Anglo Saxons haven't produced "leading scholars" or "writing", or whatever.... what about all the non-Christian Romans and Greeks who did produce these things? If it's simply because the Germans/Irish lacked Christianity, then why didn't ALL non-Christians lack "leading scholars" or "writing" or whatever?
A difficult divorce (legally) wouldn't be something I describe as an attribute for modern western civilization. You did show Christianity played a role in affecting divorce for Medieval Western civilization. But at least your argument in this case don't rely on "correlation = causation".
Last edited:
Similar History Discussions
-
Did Christianity destroy ancient science? Debunked.- Started by Quill And Ink History
- Replies: 90
-
When did Christianity become a presence in Ancient Rome? Britain?- Started by DeadCorn
- Replies: 30
-
The Calender of the Ancient World (Before Christianity)- Started by Ceasar
- Replies: 20
-
Ancient paganism, modern paganism, and Christianity- Started by Julian the Apostate
- Replies: 32
