No Church of Anything

[Rie]

Just let your mind roam over hundreds of years of anger, hatred and hypocrisy and ask yourself what it all could have been like if there had been no Church, no Christianity.

[Garnet]

People would have found other reasons to engage in anger, hatred and hypocrisy.

[rog]

6GAHFrLAxzM
:dunno:

[rog]

What if Socrates had got free meals for life?

[Notta]

Look at the early human societies: lots of wars and killings supported by the religious institutions or dogma. If it weren't christianity that precipitated wars over the last several hundred years, it would have been another religion.

[Roo St. Gallus]

It needn't be a religion, it could be anything which enables us to label them as 'other'....'not us'.

[Ray Moscow]

It's impossible to predict a "what if" future, but if religion had not taken over the western world, we might have had the benefits of science centuries earlier.

[Politesse]

It's impossible to predict a "what if" future, but if religion had not taken over the western world, we might have had the benefits of science centuries earlier.
Without religion, especially Islam and Eastern Christian monastics, we might have lost Aristotle and Plato to the fall of Rome, and the Renaissance could have taken centuries longer to arrive.

[Ray Moscow]

Er, no. Byzantium didn't fall until the 15th century. They just didn't care much about most of the ancient knowledge. Nor did Western Christianity until relatively recently.

[Politesse]

Er, no. Byzantium didn't fall until the 15th century. They just didn't care much about most of the ancient knowledge. Nor did Western Christianity until relatively recently.
Byzantium would never have existed if Christianity did not; that empire was ruled through a delicate balance of church and state, both lending legitimacy and power to the other, while also curbing the other's ambitions as necessary and holding both accountable to the Mob. I don't know what would have been fostered in the old Eastern Empire without a church to prop it up, but it wouldn't have resembled historical Byzantium in the slightest. And I doubt that it would have remained a Platonic stronghold in the way that it did. There was a reason neo-Platonist thought maintained currency in the East, and it had a lot to do with the fact that the spiritual thinkers of Byzantium considered it a prescient pagan precursor to the enlightenment of Christ.

[Bouncer]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif

Exactly this.

[Politesse]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif

Exactly this.What is the unit that graph is measuring? Inventions per year?

[Bouncer]

I imagine it's more satire than an actual graph representing a certain unit, but the point still stands that the Christian dark ages did nothing of use.

[Politesse]

I imagine it's more satire than an actual graph representing a certain unit, but the point still stands that the Christian dark ages did nothing of use.
True. But then, neither did most of the Roman years, save for a couple if golden eras. One of the many reasons the empire eventually crumbled was their rigidity in failing to keep up with the technological advances of the "barbarians" assailing them; the same groups who then flung Europe into centuries of savagery, but who to their credit did come up with an awful lot of inventive ways to kill folks, and in point of fact, rather a lot of military technology. Not the best way for science to advance, perhaps, but historically a popular motivation.

[Prosthetic Head]

I think that human beings are to blame for church, or rather the evolution of our brains. I think we would have to be much different first and foremost for church not to have been the massive fuck up that it is.


so imagine if we didnt suck so bad basically. I know im a spoilsport ;p

[Roo St. Gallus]

Why is 'civilization' so good?

Does anybody else get the feeling we've been sold a bill of goods?

[Prosthetic Head]

Why is 'civilization' so good?

Does anybody else get the feeling we've been sold a bill of goods?


If we had no way to record data, we would still be clubing each other with femer bones. Civilizations are just one being built upon another, one recorded bit at a time.

[Ray Moscow]

Er, no. Byzantium didn't fall until the 15th century. They just didn't care much about most of the ancient knowledge. Nor did Western Christianity until relatively recently.
Byzantium would never have existed if Christianity did not; that empire was ruled through a delicate balance of church and state, both lending legitimacy and power to the other, while also curbing the other's ambitions as necessary and holding both accountable to the Mob. I don't know what would have been fostered in the old Eastern Empire without a church to prop it up, but it wouldn't have resembled historical Byzantium in the slightest. And I doubt that it would have remained a Platonic stronghold in the way that it did. There was a reason neo-Platonist thought maintained currency in the East, and it had a lot to do with the fact that the spiritual thinkers of Byzantium considered it a prescient pagan precursor to the enlightenment of Christ.

My point was that there's no much point in blaming the loss of scientific knowledge on the "fall of Rome", because the actual Roman capital (Constantinople) didn't fall for nearly another 1000 years. They just didn't give a shit about science since they had Jesus.

And the "barbarians" who overran Rome itself? Yep, Christians, too.

That's why I object to the idea that Christians saved the ancient knowledge from the barbarians. They were the barbarians.

Yes, we do owe much to the Muslims who did value much of the ancient knowledge and preserved it. Of course that ended about 13th century, but still it was a lucky thing that somebody in the world wasn't a complete moron.

[Roo St. Gallus]

Why is 'civilization' so good?

Does anybody else get the feeling we've been sold a bill of goods?


If we had no way to record data, we would still be clubing each other with femer bones. Civilizations are just one being built upon another, one recorded bit at a time.


One can have societies and cultures without having 'civilizations'.

The clubbing each other with femer bones seems a bit of a straw man. How is it that metallurgy arose in uncivilized, barbaric regions? Seems to me that tools like stone points, spears and bows and arrows all antedated 'civilization'.

IIRC, some anthropological researchers showed that the peoples of hunter/gatherer cultures had more recreational time than did peoples of either agricultural or industrial civilized cultures. Civilizations seem to grow and expand and rely upon control of resources beyond themselves, which they tend to control with violence and domination. Property and status...and wealth...all seem to gain inordinate influence.

Recorded 'historical' data is basically subjective propaganda.

[Roo St. Gallus]

That's why I object to the idea that Christians saved the ancient knowledge from the barbarians. They were the barbarians.

Ah...but they were Arian barbarians. Not chock-a-block orthodox.

Of course, it was all complicated by Constantine himself preferring the company of Arians.

It took the remainder of the fourth century for the orthodox to convince the state to destroy the heretics and pagans, with the Theodosian decrees, including those which led to the destruction of the last vestiges of the Alexandrian Library, the Serapeum, as a pagan temple.

[Prosthetic Head]

One can have societies and cultures without having 'civilizations'.
True, but you brough up civilizations, I was just responding in kind, and could have easily extended my comment to societies and cultures, just as you did.



The clubbing each other with femer bones seems a bit of a straw man. It was my way of referring to the famous scene in 2001 a space odyssey. I was attempting to display a very primative ( bit of data ) or a meme, idea, that can be passed on to others, which is simply all that civilization or any other similar aspects are. I was just trying to answering your question "why is civilization so good", to which my answer is its nothing special. Admittedly I may have missunderstood the intent of your question, sorry for that.

How is it that metallurgy arose in uncivilized, barbaric regions? Seems to me that tools like stone points, spears and bows and arrows all antedated 'civilization'. I wont dispute that metallurgy and other tools preceded civilizations. As to how is it possible? Because we can record data.>>> If we had no way to record data, we would still be clubing each other with femer bones. Osteus Head


IIRC, some anthropological researchers showed that the peoples of hunter/gatherer cultures had more recreational time than did peoples of either agricultural or industrial civilized cultures. Civilizations seem to grow and expand and rely upon control of resources beyond themselves, which they tend to control with violence and domination. Property and status...and wealth...all seem to gain inordinate influence. *nods in agreement*


Recorded 'historical' data is basically subjective propaganda.
Sure, but the stuff that gets passed on, say anykind of technological idea or tool isnt, which was what I was referring to in my response. You may not have been addressing my comment on this one, if thats the case just ignore it.

[espritch]

I imagine it's more satire than an actual graph representing a certain unit, but the point still stands that the Christian dark ages did nothing of use.
True. But then, neither did most of the Roman years, save for a couple if golden eras. One of the many reasons the empire eventually crumbled was their rigidity in failing to keep up with the technological advances of the "barbarians" assailing them; the same groups who then flung Europe into centuries of savagery, but who to their credit did come up with an awful lot of inventive ways to kill folks, and in point of fact, rather a lot of military technology. Not the best way for science to advance, perhaps, but historically a popular motivation.

The Romans were no champions of knowledge for knowledge's sake. They saw math as a useful tool, not a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. In Euclid's Window, Leonard Mlodinow described the Roman view of math:

In a Roman textbook, a word problem asked the reader to find a method for determining the width of a river where the enemy occupies other bank. "The enemy" - a concept of questionable utility in mathematics, but a central one in Roman thinking.

After the conquest of Syracuse, Roman soldiers murdered Archimedes, one of the greatest minds of the ancient world. And once Rome went Christian, things went from bad to worse. It was Christian mobs that murdered Hypatia, one of the last major scholars of the Greek tradition, and it was Christian mobs that burned the Library of Alexandria, the greatest collection of knowledge in the ancient world. Long before the fall of Rome, Rome had stifled the growth of science and math.

In the 1,100 years of their recorded existence, dating from 750 B.C., history does not mention one Roman theorem proved, nor even one Roman mathematician.

[espritch]

IIRC, some anthropological researchers showed that the peoples of hunter/gatherer cultures had more recreational time than did peoples of either agricultural or industrial civilized cultures.

This is true. Farming was adopted not because it gave more leisure time (or a better diet - hunter gatherer societies tended to have a more varied and healthy diet than early farming societies), but out of necessity. Hunter gather societies only work if the population is small. At a certain point, the growth of a population outstrips the resources available through hunting and gathering. Either the society has to control population (babies left in the wilderness) or it has to adopt farming.

It is also worth noting that hunter gather societies were not particularly peaceful. Inter tribal warfare is common in most hunter gather societies and you are more likely to die of violence in those societies than in our current technological society. Modern civilization has not been all good, but it hasn't been all bad either.

And at this point, alternative options are limited. If we all tried to go back to a hunter gatherer way of life, most of the human population would starve.

[Roo St. Gallus]

It was Christian mobs that murdered Hypatia, one of the last major scholars of the Greek tradition, and it was Christian mobs that burned the Library of Alexandria, the greatest collection of knowledge in the ancient world. Long before the fall of Rome, Rome had stifled the growth of science and math.

I have to quibble here because the 'Library of Alexandria' was not burned by 'Christian' mobs. The Alexandrian Library, or the largest portion of it, was destroyed by Roman troops invading A small portion of it survived and that included the Serapeum, the Temple to Serapis, which became the storage site for the surviving documents. It was destroyed by 'Christian' mobs.

In the 1,100 years of their recorded existence, dating from 750 B.C., history does not mention one Roman theorem proved, nor even one Roman mathematician.

But of course. You defeat and enslave the effete mathematicians and/or their families and they do your bidding. That's what underlings are for.

[Roo St. Gallus]

IIRC, some anthropological researchers showed that the peoples of hunter/gatherer cultures had more recreational time than did peoples of either agricultural or industrial civilized cultures.

This is true. Farming was adopted not because it gave more leisure time (or a better diet - hunter gatherer societies tended to have a more varied and healthy diet than early farming societies), but out of necessity. Hunter gather societies only work if the population is small. At a certain point, the growth of a population outstrips the resources available through hunting and gathering. Either the society has to control population (babies left in the wilderness) or it has to adopt farming.

I understand that female humans on the move with hunter/gatherer cultures have lower reproduction rates as the activity dampens fertility somehow.

It's sedentary living that allows populations to soar beyond replacement. That's possible where agricultural surpluses are easy due to the fertility of the soils. A nomadic culture which happens upon a site or innovation which makes sedentary life attractive, has to decide to commit to agriculture and its demands. Once committed, and more surplus is realized, there seems to have been no way back.

It is also worth noting that hunter gather societies were not particularly peaceful. Inter tribal warfare is common in most hunter gather societies and you are more likely to die of violence in those societies than in our current technological society. Modern civilization has not been all good, but it hasn't been all bad either.

And at this point, alternative options are limited. If we all tried to go back to a hunter gatherer way of life, most of the human population would starve.

I don't think we can point to many examples of non-violent human societies. Agricultural societies seem just as violent as hunter-gatherer cultures. Industrial societies seem to be more so, but that is probably due to the killing effectiveness of the weaponry.

I seem to remember anthropological note about inter-tribal conflicts in hunter-gatherer cultures being a lot of posturing with crowds and few participants actually killed or injured. 'Champions' were quite popular amongst many 'barbarian' tribes of the classical era....whole armies come together to see champions selected up by both sides slug it/chop it out and the champions' battle determines the outcome of the 'war'.

That's a helluva lot different than nuking a city where 90% or more of the victims are non-combatants. I don't think you can typify hunter-gatherer culture as more violent.

I agree that at this point alternatives are limited. I don't expect violence or the exercise of raw power to disappear, so when resources become limited, violence will be exercised. Many will starve. Disease will most likely break out after public health measures are overwhelmed. The rich and powerful, the plutocrats, will attempt to cordon it all off and 'ride it out'. I think the major cities will be major catastrophes of human suffering. In the frantic grasping, I expect nuclear weapons to be used.

What happens when the food runs out? It's not if, but when. With a perpetually increasing population, can it continue indefinitely? No, it cannot. Can everybody on the planet also live the lifestyle of a typical American citizen? No. It cannot continue. Particularly in the manner in which we come by it and the waste we make of it. Sooner or later there will be collapse. It will be big. Human population will be reduced in a major way....it will be the only way the rest of the life on the planet will be able to continue. We, our species, has shortsightedly soiled it's own nest and will pay the consequences. Americans will not be excluded somehow...there will be no miracles.

I wonder if they'll remember the lesson about controlling your own species' population so that it doesn't exceed the carrying capacity of the land upon which you live.

[espritch]

I understand that female humans on the move with hunter/gatherer cultures have lower reproduction rates as the activity dampens fertility somehow.


If this is so, it's the first I've heard of it. Any references?

As to the rest, I agree that our current industrial society is unsustainable. Unless we seriously change the way our current civilization works, it will crash and the results will be disastrous. I have little hope that we will be able to avert this outcome. After watching the total debacle of the last Global Warming summit, I've pretty much concluded that the human race as a whole is too greedy and ignorant to make the necessary changes to avoid the disaster we are hurtling towards. Worse, I suspect it may already be too late.

[Roo St. Gallus]

I understand that female humans on the move with hunter/gatherer cultures have lower reproduction rates as the activity dampens fertility somehow.


If this is so, it's the first I've heard of it. Any references?

As to the rest, I agree that our current industrial society is unsustainable. Unless we seriously change the way our current civilization works, it will crash and the results will be disastrous. I have little hope that we will be able to avert this outcome. After watching the total debacle of the last Global Warming summit, I've pretty much concluded that the human race as a whole is too greedy and ignorant to make the necessary changes to avoid the disaster we are hurtling towards. Worse, I suspect it may already be too late.

No off-hand reference, sorry. I suspect it was in Leonard Shlain's work, Sex, Time & Power (http://www.sextimepower.com/). Here's what I think is the abstract to a relevant scholarly work (http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1984/04000/The_Relationship_of_Exercise_to_Anovulatory_Cycles .3.aspx) and here is a popular online source (http://www.parentingweekly.com/preconception/preconception_information/exercise_induced_fertility_2.htm).

As to your assessment, I agree. I think it is too late to avoid some really catastrophic results. I have no idea where Jared Diamond gets his optimism after researching and writing Collapse.

[Amity]

People would have found other reasons to engage in anger, hatred and hypocrisy.

Agreed 100%

You would like to believe that the world would be a very different place, as most wars are started over religion..
But, yes we would find something else to fight over.
Something probably just as insignificant.

[Prosthetic Head]

Yeah, it all comes down to how we as humans, blame something, on something that we are responsible for in the first place. Religion is a product of us, therefore we are terrible rather than religion, which bears no responsibility.

[Noah Wolf]

Forgive me if this has already been said, I hit post reply before i read everything. :bang: But the Church played a major role in history as far as organizing and manipulating the masses. It kept people working despite an impoverished life, because it gave them something to look forward to after they died, so it was attractive to the working class that build most of society we know today. So with no church, our society wouldn't have advanced near as fast. You never know on the other hand because religion has often been a barrier to scientific advancement. But like what was said above, humanity seems to find a way to repeat its old mistakes, maybe not in the same way, but it happens none the less.