You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 214-238   239-263   264-288   289-293       
 
Author Message
25 new of 293 responses total.
gull
response 239 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 14:54 UTC 2003

I would venture to say that it seems to us that all useful inventions
came from Europe because the history we learn is mostly European.  Some
things were, in fact, genuinely invented there; others were filtered
through Europe and improved there.  Europeans do seem to have had more
drive to do adventurous things with technology, but I'm not convinced
the church had anything to do with that.  I think it had more to do with
wars and the need of many European countries to expand their sphere of
influence outwards to get precious resources from elsewhere.
twenex
response 240 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 16:44 UTC 2003

Europe is also probably the nicest place to live in the world, from an
agricultural standpiont; not too hot, not too cold, no monsoon,
tornados, relatively few earthquakes and volcanos, plenty of fertile
land, not too many forests, not much ice or snow. Interestingly,
Britain was one of the last places the Romans colonized and one of the
first they left. It was also one of the first to go over the sea (it
would have been impossible to, say, invade France by that time), and
one of the last to retreat from its imperialist ways. [I hope any
Irish people on GREX will not take offence if I point out that the
Romans never bothered with Ireland.)
jep
response 241 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 16:56 UTC 2003

re resp:235: In resp:201 I stated that I think Middle Eastern based 
Judao-Christian moral principles are the basis for modern nationalism 
and the conversion of our lifestyles from being based on agriculture to 
being based on industry.

What I see by way of counter-argument is speculation that maybe another 
culture would have gotten there too.  I have no problem with that, 
except that it has nothing to do with the point I made and which is 
presumably being refuted.

It is a fact that Western European culture has become dominant over the 
last 500 years.  Maybe it got to this state despite Christianity, and 
not because of it.  Maybe Buddhism or Hinduism or Samurai culture or 
something else would have gotten there eventually instead.  My only 
argument to that is that none of them did.  Shouldn't that count for 
*something*?  Even if it is stylish on Grex to hate Christianity?

I was responding to resp:200 which questions why anyone would want to 
adopt Judaism or it's offshoots, Christianity and Islam, given that 
there's a political mess in the Middle East.  I'd say (I did say) the 
political mess isn't the most important thing ever to result from the 
Middle East.
gull
response 242 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 17:04 UTC 2003

Re resp:241: I just think "Western European culture is majority
Christian, and Western European culture has dominated, therefore
Christianity is responsible for the dominance of Western European
culture" is pretty dodgy, logically.  You could just as easily use that
line of reasoning to argue that Western European culture advanced more
quickly because it's majority white, for example.
twenex
response 243 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 17:05 UTC 2003

You're right as far as you go in #241.
bru
response 244 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 17:15 UTC 2003

Lets be a bit more specific.

Charles Dickens is responsible for the advancement of 
western european culture as we know it today.
rcurl
response 245 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 17:15 UTC 2003

Re #241: the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian-Muslim, including
monothesism, are derivatives of Zoroastrianism, so shouldn't we say that
our western culture arose from that? You just can't cut off the roots and
claim what's left to be the "origin". (The "Mazda" name for lights that
came from the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda is a modern secular
consequence.) 

keesan
response 246 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 18:08 UTC 2003

Christianity promoted warfare (Crusades, conquering the Americas and enslaving
the inhabitants).  That led to increased wealth.  The Romans were also big
on war and technology.  Europe used to be all forested, including the
Mediterranean.
rcurl
response 247 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 18:19 UTC 2003

The Mediterranean was forested? Well, yes, when it wasn't full of water....
jep
response 248 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 18:29 UTC 2003

re resp:242: You could indeed state that there was/is something special 
about white European Caucasians, but then I'd think you'd have to 
identify that characteristic.  Their general skin color is another 
trait specific to Western Europeans, along with the Roman Catholic 
Church.  I loosely identified the Judao-Christian philosophy of self-
improvement, and their work ethic, as things that contributed to 
Western European dominance.  It seems more likely to me than skin 
color, somehow.

re resp:245: I have no problem with that description, though I'd say 
that almost all of the people who have been so dominant over the last 
500 years were specifically Christian or Muslim.  Almost none of them 
ever even heard of Zoroaster.
happyboy
response 249 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 18:45 UTC 2003

but the *influence* is there anyway...sort of how most americans
prolly have no idea of who pastor ashcroft is even though he's
busy as a little fundamentalist bee taking away their rights.
flem
response 250 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 18:56 UTC 2003

It seems to me that there is a lot of significance in the fact that
technological progress in western europe was mostly stagnant before, and
increased rapidly after, the protestant revolution.  To pick a couple of
the specific inventions in resp:232 that jep uses as evidence of the
Catholic technological prowess:  The printing press was invented and
popularized by protestant men who wanted to print and distribute copies
of non-latin translations of the bible, in direct defiance of the
Catholic church.  And, most of the technological progress with respect
to clocks was made by people, mostly dutch protestants, who needed it
for navigation on long sea voyages.  
rcurl
response 251 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 19:46 UTC 2003

Re #248: it doesn't matter whether anyone has heard of Zoroaster or not.
You have probably never heard of some of your ancestors too. What is important
is what they contributed. Judeo-Christian-Islam is based in Zoroastrianism,
but they took it from there and built their own edificies upon it. 
lk
response 252 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 20:57 UTC 2003

Is not. Jews didn't much encounter Zoroastrianism until the Babylonian
captivity, at least 600 years after Judaism was established. You aren't
thinking of Mesopotamian myths (Gilgamesh) which are recounted in the
Old Testament, are you?  Or perhaps the monotheistic Pharaoh (Akhnaten)?

Flem, I'd guess that the same forces that drove the scientific renaissance
also drove the Protestant reformation. As such they'd be cousins rather
than the reformation itself directly leading to scientific breakthroughs.

Nonetheless I think this whole discussion is misguided. Europe was much
more heavily influenced by the polytheistic Greeks than by many other
things -- for better and worse. Recall that the Church was often pushing
Aristotle's teachings, and great as he may have been on some fronts, he
was nonetheless a victim of his time in scientific fields.

John, I'm not sure there is a difference in saying that someone's skin
color (or less superficially, their genetics) has less to do with this
than someone's religion. What is it about the religion that propelled this?
Did it teach to question or explore?  Does it demand submission or did it
tolerate a diversity of thought?

Note: I'm not saying that genetics had anything to do with it, either.
Just that a blanket statement that religion may have somehow contributed
is not very convincing -- especially when the religion in question was
often intolerant of questioning, exploration and diversity of thought.
bru
response 253 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 23:29 UTC 2003

quit accusing Christians of causing warfare.  Sure they did, but they were
not the only ones.  The jews. islam, jainists, budhists and just about any
religion you can name have started and fought wars.
happyboy
response 254 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 23:32 UTC 2003

which war did the jains start, which war did *the* "budhists"
start?  
jmsaul
response 255 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 18 23:48 UTC 2003

Re #241:  What I'm saying (as opposed to what you may be hearing, which is
          often different in a BBS conversation) is that polytheistic
          societies DID overcome tribalism and practice nationalism, without
          the help of Judeo-Christianity-Islam.  Repeatedly.  Hell, look
          at Rome.

          As for industrialization -- yes, that did originate in Christian
          countries.  The causal link is not a given, though, since there
          were other factors that led to its originating in Northern Europe.
          (Read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ for more on this.)
jep
response 256 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 04:42 UTC 2003

re resp:252: Did you see resp:248, Leeron?  Religions come with 
philosophies; ways of looking at the world; standards by which to live 
one's life.  None of these things are genetic.  They're learned.  It's 
certainly different to say that you were born into an environment 
which encouraged innovation and personal self- and exterior 
improvement, than to say you were born with those genetic tendencies 
because of your skin color.

The Roman Catholic Church may have been, as you say, often intolerant 
of questioning, exploring and diversity of thought, but it certainly 
encouraged (among some people) very tight reasoning according to 
strict rules.  People spent their lifetimes developing arguments for 
such questions as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  
They were hot issues for centuries.  The logical rules turned out to 
be practically useful as the basis for mathematical and scientific 
arguments.

re resp:250: I have no problem with anything that you said.  The 
navigational clocks part didn't come along until the 18th century, 
though.  The monks invented mechanical clocks and then later, spring 
clocks in the 13th and 14th centuries to more accurately determine the 
hour of the day.

re resp:255: Joe, you can say I overstated the "nationalism" bit.  I 
still think my main point stands; that the Middle Eastern religions 
were indispensable to the development of Western European culture; 
through it, to the Industrial Revolution; and that they should not be 
dismissively disparaged.  Maybe another type of philosophy would have 
gotten there anyway.  No one knows that.  What we know is, it didn't 
happen that way.
russ
response 257 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 05:56 UTC 2003

Re #232:  I strongly suggest that you read "Guns, Germs and Steel".
It is bound to make you reconsider your ideas of why the Iroquois,
or the Incas, or the Polynesians didn't take over Europe rather
than the reverse.
keesan
response 258 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 06:39 UTC 2003

The Chinese had clocks.  Eastern Europeans have the same skin color as western
ones.  So do northern Chinese.  Northern Europe was supposedly settled from
western Asia.  The Catholic Church may have been superficially monotheistic
but it had three gods and a lot of saints (local gods).
lk
response 259 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 07:09 UTC 2003

John, I saw #248 but in some sense I think "skin color" does have more
influence on a person than a religion.  Who is more culturally similar?
A black and a white southern baptist or a white southern baptist and a
white Church of Christnik?

As an Israeli, I often look at Americans as terribly materialistic
(and wasteful). Is this my Jewish upbringing?  Doubtful.  Just look
at the NY and West Bloomfield "JAPs".  Concentrate on the "A" in that.
(Just because I can pass as the "All American boy"....)

Are French, Polish and Italian Catholics more similar than a German
Catholic and a German protestant?  I doubt it.

So what I'm saying is that I agree with you that there are REGIONAL
influences that shape our lives, but religion is just one component
of that. Nationality, skin color and other family/tribal customs
and traditions also have such influences.

The weight of these factors is not constant and there's going to be
a varying deviance, too. I just think you're putting too much weight
into the religious component, which (I think) you are presenting as
the major component if not the only component.
bru
response 260 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 14:40 UTC 2003

"western Asia.  The Catholic Church may have been superficially monotheistic
but it had three gods and a lot of saints (local gods)."

keesan, where did you learn religion?  This is not the christianity I learned.
If you don't understand the trinity, don't try and explain it.
jp2
response 261 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 15:32 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jep
response 262 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 16:28 UTC 2003

re: the book "Guns, Germs and Steel": It's been recommended twice now, 
and maybe I would find it interesting, but I doubt if anyone here reads 
whole books to pick up a point someone else is making about a drift 
thread in a discussion item.  I certainly don't.

If I were to read the book (which I may), I would then doubtless have 
many questions and points to make with the author, some of which you 
might address, but likely not most.

Meanwhile, why not *make a point yourself*?  I am utterly unimpressed 
by someone saying, in essence, "I'm not going to bother to say 
anything, but I'll point you at some book, it's really good, and has 
something to say; just assume whatever you find impressive is my point 
and therefore that I'm really smart".

Now, if you want to invite the author here to debate his points, then 
you'd have done something useful to contribute to the discussion.

Joe, at least, was supplementing his points with the book reference.

Imagine a discussion where we debate points by citing authors and 
books?  "I read _A Treatise on Medieval Church Influences_, what do you 
say to that?"  "Oh, yeah, well, _Arabic Technology Comic Books_ 
answered that one; read issues #111-115."  What wonderful reading (and 
fun) that would be.  As if any of us has enough attention span to 
follow an item that covers more than a day, let alone months.
flem
response 263 of 293: Mark Unseen   Dec 19 17:02 UTC 2003

Ironically, that is almost exactly the mode of argumentation most widely
respected by scholars during the period of Catholic dominance. 

> Flem, I'd guess that the same forces that 
> drove the scientific renaissance also drove 
> the Protestant reformation. As such they'd be 
> cousins rather than the reformation itself 
> directly leading to scientific breakthroughs. 

Plausible...  but in either case, the Catholic church remains an active
obstacle to progress, not a facilitator thereof.  
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 214-238   239-263   264-288   289-293       
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss