I agree that sci/tech went retrograde when the church got control - and we'd be in a much worse position without the Islamic scientists preserving Hellenic work for us, until the conquest of Spain by Christians allowed such work to be brought back to Europe and kick started the renaissance.
However, I'd argue that as it is easier to suppress philosophical advancement than science and technology (it's hard to keep denying a measurable phenomenon), our philosophical and moral advancement took an even greater hit than sci-tech capabilities: our ability to work out what we should do is poor compared to what we can do. Effectively the Christian church has turned us into babies with chainsaws. I'd consider this a major contributor to the mess we are in today.
I'd have to say that the commentary on the christian dark ages is probably correct. But I'd have to side more with christopher Hitchens view(which he espouced about the state of russia). It's the christianities effect was more in affecting the credulity of people. In other words, making them accept authority immediately, instead of asking why.
Of course if someone was to say we wouldn't have modern hospitals and medicine without Islam, then I'd definitely disagree. Since modern medicine was in a way founded during, and spread by the caliphate empire(chemistry too, which is good for me, given that my profession). Thats not to say of course, that it was a development that came about entirely due to islam, but that it a less anti-scientific environment.
Is this an entry in your magical thinking series, AV?
The dark ages followed on the decline and fall of Rome as the barbarians gained more control. Something similar will happen when the west is overrun by primitive islamofascists - see the mini dark ages in Afghanistan when the Taliban had control.
Christian monastries provided what science and learning there was in the dark ages, and by the middle ages was recouping the western learning that had been preserved by Averoes and his colleagues, just in time as Islam then entered its own dark ages from which it is yet to emerge.
The dark ages followed on the decline and fall of Rome as the barbarians gained more control.
Weren't these barbarians (Arian) Christians?
Something similar will happen when the west is overrun by primitive islamofascists
Fortunately, SB, this scenario is unlikely in the extreme--as long as Western governments are prepared to defend, rather than water down, secular liberal democracy. It becomes slightly less unlikely the more willing Western governments see faith as something that must be pandered to or respected by default. (The UK's ridiculous faith school initiative, which has led to state-sponsored creationism, is a case in point.) It would also require mass-conversion and revolution on the part of the overwhelmingly non-Muslim populace, not to mention superior military capabilities on the part of said primitive islamofascists (which they don't have). Mark Steyn's paranoid fantasies remain just that--fantasies.
At this point in time, the greatest threat in the West to scientific advancement is posed by followers of Jesus, not Mohammed.
Christian monastries provided what science and learning there was in the dark ages, and by the middle ages was recouping the western learning that had been preserved by Averoes and his colleagues, just in time as Islam then entered its own dark ages from which it is yet to emerge.
I think the relationship between Christianity and science is far more complicated than the diagram makes out. While it ought to be acknowledged that medieval philosophy has had some influence on later developments in modern science and philosophy of science--Ockham's Razor, anyone?--much scientific advancement in the pre-modern and early modern era transpired in spite of Christian theofascism. (E.g. Galileo, Bruno, etc.)
AV: I think the relationship between Christianity and science is far more complicated than the diagram makes out.
Which is why I suggested that the post you linked to was magical thinking. It has more to do with prejudice than logic.
Which is why I suggested that the post you linked to was magical thinking. It has more to do with prejudice than logic.
I agree to some extent. When are you going to apply the same standard to your railing against Islam SB?
There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make against Islam, both moderate and extreme, yet at the very least you consistently demonstrate the kind of prejudice against Islam (and "Leftists" and other out-groups for that matter) you have just kicked up a stink against.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Effectively the Christian church has turned us into babies with chainsaws. I'd consider this a major contributor to the mess we are in today.
This differential between the intelligence to make the tools, and the wisdom to use them properly has been pretty thematic during the West's modern era. I'm wondering that given you have identified a possible cause, if you could expand on it with a blog article Dave?
SB said: The dark ages followed on the decline and fall of Rome
Yep, and I'll run with Gibbon's thesis about the cause ... Christianity, mainly due to Constantine "the 13th apostle" (many of you will have read my blast of Pell's essay on Constantine).
Bruce: Yep. If I don't churn out a post in the next week, remind me with a comment on Balneus!
Bruce: There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make against Islam, both moderate and extreme, yet at the very least you consistently demonstrate the kind of prejudice against Islam (and "Leftists" and other out-groups for that matter) you have just kicked up a stink against.
don't be silly, Bruce. My objections are to certain islamic beliefs practiced by some muslims. For example, the idea that we ruled by sharia law (which is per se a crime against humanity). Or the doctrine of jihad as practised by the islamofascists. Or the anti-multicultural idea that islam is superior, that a muslim can't have a non-muslim as a good friend, that women can't, and men shouldn't, marry outside the religion. These (and elaborations thereof) are the reasons I regularly give to support my views. Yet you, without giving any examples, or anything else to back up your assertion, deem me prejudiced.
Pot. Betel. Crack.
Which is why I suggested that the post you linked to was magical thinking. It has more to do with prejudice than logic.
I usually have something more specific than that in mind when I use the term magical thinking. An argument may lack nuance, or be inadequately put, or even get some or many of its facts wrong. That does not automatically render it an example of magical thinking.
AV: Magical thinking, according to Wikipedia, is "non-scientific causal reasoning."
Here you had a causal argument based on dubious facts. So, while not a classic example, it is within the genre.
Like when someone asserts that the reason carbon dating produces ancient dates is because the scientists have failed to account properly in their equations for the fact that the speed of light is decaying.
AV: Magical thinking, according to Wikipedia, is "non-scientific causal reasoning."
. . . as in "step on a crack, break your mother's back," The Secret, or prayer and faith-healing.
Even of you disagree with the claims advanced in the original article, it doesn't come anywhere near the genre of magical thinking.
You want magical thinking? This is magical thinking!
Folks (especially Bruce), I've responded to Bruce's request and posted a fairly detailed exploration of my "babes with chainsaws" analogy.
Uch, religious propaganda comments.
islam is as bad as christianity, i don't want both.
Thanks to the Advanced Culture of Islam
When the Arab Muslims, a collection of nomadic warrior tribes who did not even have a fully developed script, conquered Egypt, Syria and Iran, they took control over some of the world's largest centres of accumulated knowledge.
To say that 'Muslims' or 'Islamic culture' created the civilizations of the Middle East can be compared to an illiterate person storming into the planet's largest library, killing all the librarians and then claiming to have written all the books there.
The cultural superiority of the Middle East in relations to Europe did not begin with Islam's entry into the area. In fact, it ended with it.
One of the great riddles of history is how this once-dynamic region could become the world's number one problem spot. It so happens that this decline coincides with the region's Islamization, although some would claim that it had already started before this. Islam's much-vaunted 'Golden Age' was in reality just the twilight of the conquered pre-Islamic cultures, an echo of times passed.
Commenting by HaloScan
