I just watched a couple of old episodes from the series Cosmos on hulu. (http://www.hulu.com/cosmos)Each episode is about a hour or a hour and half long, and this show got me really thinking about what we as humans do. In one episode the host is talks about the ancient Greeks, and he talks about the library of Alexandria, and he keeps on to say that it was one of the greatest things of the ancient words. He talks about some of the things that were discovered there, and some of the things that happened. He goes on to say that some of the topics in these books that were written sound very familiar to some of the things we have today, such as books about robots, and even books about steam power. He then talks about how the library was burned down, and the ideas burned with it. Then I started to think about all of the great things that could have been done already if that library was not burned down, and we had skipped a part of technological history, the first boat to reach the americas, could have been steam powered, there could have been automated machines before the civil war, which may have even prevented the civil war from ever taking place. Where do you think we could have been today, and what history may have been
TL;DR? : there was a big library that was full of modern ideas in ancient greece, it was burned down, what could have happened if it wasn't?
The host is the great Carl Sagan. It sounds like you didn't know who he was or why he was great. It's a shame, but if you keep watching the series you'll at least get some idea.
there was a big library that was full of modern ideas in ancient greece, it was burned down, what could have happened if it wasn't?
A great deal was lost, but I don't think it had any sort of significant impact on technological progress. The dark ages, so aptly named, are what may have set us back substantially. I don't think it's interesting to speculate what could have been if history were different. Human civilization is chaotic and it's extremely difficult to tell how things would have been had certain things not occurred. History only makes sense with hindsight.
Also:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
@Yourself on the note of my not knowing the name of the host, I was simply having a moment of lazyness, and could not remember his name, only starting to get into the series.
@Lahrmid it is true that the advancements if had been released at the time that it could have destroyed humanity as we know it, or we could be on mars, and have a city on the moon. There was a 2 or 4 century time lost before these technologies were rediscovered.
Where is proof the religion halted science. Think about it, what if religion had never existed. Would science still exist?
Indeed, I have wrangled with that ******** graph before.
Do note the Dark Ages were not dark because religion suddenly killed all the science. It was dark because the Romans were dead and their stuff was lost to pillagers. And guess who recovered those old technologies and preserved them and studied them? If not for religion those artifacts would have been lost and the dark ages would have lasted a much longer time. Not to mention the Catholics were HUGE on science, even today they are so big on it that they support evolution. If they didn't exist we would be hundreds of years behind.
Enough of this crap, enough of the religious bashing because you are not secure in your atheism. This is a thread about thinking of what the future could be if some specific event took place.
And guess who recovered those old technologies and preserved them and studied them?
Considering how powerful the church was at the time, I'd be surprised if it was anyone else. The fact that they did this really has absolutely nothing to do with being religious. Besides, atheism (at least the western form of it) didn't really arise as a kind of world view until the enlightenment. It did exist in several forms for longer than Christianity, but not as any sort of real identifiable group of people.
If not for religion those artifacts would have been lost and the dark ages would have lasted a much longer time.
What artifacts specifically? The end of the Dark Ages (or, rather, the Middle Ages) is really marked by the Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenment. One of the key events during the Renaissance was essentially religious rebellion (and the Enlightenment was characterized by rebellion against religion itself in some sense) and the resurrection of classical ideas and philosophy. Peasant revolts, war, and the Western Schism in the Catholic Church. The Age of Discovery was also set off thanks largely to the rise of the Ottoman empire shutting off trade with the east which motivated European countries to search for new trade routes. These things all contributed to the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Era, it wasn't some artifact dug out of the ruins of Rome.
Not to mention the Catholics were HUGE on science, even today they are so big on it that they support evolution
Galileo. Also during the middle ages a significant portion of scientific progress was made by the Islamic world as well as in India and China. That's not to say there wasn't scientific progress in the Christian world just that it was largely dwarfed by scientific progress in other parts of the world at least until the scientific revolution (the time of the big names: Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Copernicus, etc.).
If they didn't exist we would be hundreds of years behind.
You don't know that any more than the people who claim that we'd be hundreds of years ahead if not for religious thought. At the very least, we do know that religious thought is an impediment to scientific progress in the modern era (specifically creationism). The biggest impediment to science is simply anti-intellectualism (see anti-vaccine advocates: a rejection of science without a religious basis). However, the point is there is significant resistance to some scientific ideas if only for religious reasons.
This is a thread about thinking of what the future could be if some specific event took place.
I took it to be a topic about what the history of civilization would be had something different changed. This includes thinking about what the past and present would have been. Like I've said, I don't find that particularly interesting, since anything people come up with will largely be completely unfounded speculation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Also ********. The church never imprisoned him because of religious views. They did it because the everyday people would throw a fuss over such a discovery and the church didn't want such a huge disruption to happen as Astrology as they knew it was declared wrong. They imprisoned him because he disobeyed an order from the Bishop or whoever gave the command.
And I would reply to the rest, but I'm too tired to get to them now. Not to mention this thread was not about that in the first place, as again it is about the original post and not the ******** graph.
The church never imprisoned him because of religious views.
Who said anything about imprisonment. But that's not the point. The point is that, whatever the reason, the church was a force of resistance to scientific truth, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that it wasn't.
It's also a matter of fact that the reasons for the church sticking with a geocentric model were largely theological, citing scripture as support. It's not as if the church went "oh, you're right, but to protect the faith of the common people, we won't tell anyone and you're not allowed to, either." The church held the position that Copernican views weren't true. The church was (or is) not a paragon of scientific thought. Did they help drive scientific progress? Yes. But, like I've mentioned before, the amount of power and influence held by the church really meant that the only entity capable of driving scientific progress was the church.
Because something HAD to create the big bang.
Why? If you declare that everything must have come from somewhere, you run into a problem of infinite regress where each step of "where did this come from" leads to yet another and yet another. Possible? Yes. Good argument for a theistic explanation? No.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
The church never imprisoned him because of religious views.
Who said anything about imprisonment. But that's not the point. The point is that, whatever the reason, the church was a force of resistance to scientific truth, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that it wasn't.
It's also a matter of fact that the reasons for the church sticking with a geocentric model were largely theological, citing scripture as support. It's not as if the church went "oh, you're right, but to protect the faith of the common people, we won't tell anyone and you're not allowed to, either." The church held the position that Copernican views weren't true. The church was (or is) not a paragon of scientific thought. Did they help drive scientific progress? Yes. But, like I've mentioned before, the amount of power and influence held by the church really meant that the only entity capable of driving scientific progress was the church.
Imprisonment is basically what you claim was the opposition to scientific progress. He released his findings on a new model in violation to a command and was imprisoned, leading lots of atheists in the modern age to believe the church was opposed to science. You would be surprised how many people think he was imprisoned because he released a model that the church opposed.
And did you read my post? They didn't ban him from releasing the notes to protect any faith at all. They knew it was good science. They were behind it. They were concerned with the public who would get in a tizzy over such a revelation. The Catholic church(Let us remain specific here, less you wish to dispute eastern religious thought) was not in opposition to scientific advancement.
I don't fully understand what point you are trying to drive with that last sentence there though. Are you suggesting that the only reason the Church was known for it's scientific progress was because of its power(Which would suggest that instead of focusing on advancing their power and keeping everybody in the dark like you imply they chose to seek out the scientific truth)?
Imprisonment is basically what you claim was the opposition to scientific progress.
Basically what I claim is that the church stood in opposition to his idea because they tried to censor his ideas. I don't care what their reasons were for this and I don't care what methods they used to do it, the point is they did it. If I thought it was imprisonment, I would have been using the word imprisonment. There's no point for me to argue here because you're not even accurately representing my position. I never once mentioned anything about imprisonment.
You can keep arguing from the imprisonment angle if you'd like, but it has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
They knew it was good science. They were behind it
TL;DR? : there was a big library that was full of modern ideas in ancient greece, it was burned down, what could have happened if it wasn't?
The host is the great Carl Sagan. It sounds like you didn't know who he was or why he was great. It's a shame, but if you keep watching the series you'll at least get some idea.
A great deal was lost, but I don't think it had any sort of significant impact on technological progress. The dark ages, so aptly named, are what may have set us back substantially. I don't think it's interesting to speculate what could have been if history were different. Human civilization is chaotic and it's extremely difficult to tell how things would have been had certain things not occurred. History only makes sense with hindsight.
Also:
@Lahrmid it is true that the advancements if had been released at the time that it could have destroyed humanity as we know it, or we could be on mars, and have a city on the moon. There was a 2 or 4 century time lost before these technologies were rediscovered.
For an epic adventure, click here!
Why, thank you.
This sig is big...
What to do, what to do...
Hi
Where is proof the religion halted science. Think about it, what if religion had never existed. Would science still exist?
Raise my dragons please!!
Do note the Dark Ages were not dark because religion suddenly killed all the science. It was dark because the Romans were dead and their stuff was lost to pillagers. And guess who recovered those old technologies and preserved them and studied them? If not for religion those artifacts would have been lost and the dark ages would have lasted a much longer time. Not to mention the Catholics were HUGE on science, even today they are so big on it that they support evolution. If they didn't exist we would be hundreds of years behind.
Enough of this crap, enough of the religious bashing because you are not secure in your atheism. This is a thread about thinking of what the future could be if some specific event took place.
Considering how powerful the church was at the time, I'd be surprised if it was anyone else. The fact that they did this really has absolutely nothing to do with being religious. Besides, atheism (at least the western form of it) didn't really arise as a kind of world view until the enlightenment. It did exist in several forms for longer than Christianity, but not as any sort of real identifiable group of people.
What artifacts specifically? The end of the Dark Ages (or, rather, the Middle Ages) is really marked by the Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenment. One of the key events during the Renaissance was essentially religious rebellion (and the Enlightenment was characterized by rebellion against religion itself in some sense) and the resurrection of classical ideas and philosophy. Peasant revolts, war, and the Western Schism in the Catholic Church. The Age of Discovery was also set off thanks largely to the rise of the Ottoman empire shutting off trade with the east which motivated European countries to search for new trade routes. These things all contributed to the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Era, it wasn't some artifact dug out of the ruins of Rome.
Galileo. Also during the middle ages a significant portion of scientific progress was made by the Islamic world as well as in India and China. That's not to say there wasn't scientific progress in the Christian world just that it was largely dwarfed by scientific progress in other parts of the world at least until the scientific revolution (the time of the big names: Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Copernicus, etc.).
You don't know that any more than the people who claim that we'd be hundreds of years ahead if not for religious thought. At the very least, we do know that religious thought is an impediment to scientific progress in the modern era (specifically creationism). The biggest impediment to science is simply anti-intellectualism (see anti-vaccine advocates: a rejection of science without a religious basis). However, the point is there is significant resistance to some scientific ideas if only for religious reasons.
I took it to be a topic about what the history of civilization would be had something different changed. This includes thinking about what the past and present would have been. Like I've said, I don't find that particularly interesting, since anything people come up with will largely be completely unfounded speculation.
Carl Sagan gets me all philosophical... and depressed.
Depresophical.
Also ********. The church never imprisoned him because of religious views. They did it because the everyday people would throw a fuss over such a discovery and the church didn't want such a huge disruption to happen as Astrology as they knew it was declared wrong. They imprisoned him because he disobeyed an order from the Bishop or whoever gave the command.
And I would reply to the rest, but I'm too tired to get to them now. Not to mention this thread was not about that in the first place, as again it is about the original post and not the ******** graph.
Why? Because something HAD to create the big bang. That material the size of an ant had to come from somewhere.
Raise my dragons please!!
Who said anything about imprisonment. But that's not the point. The point is that, whatever the reason, the church was a force of resistance to scientific truth, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that it wasn't.
It's also a matter of fact that the reasons for the church sticking with a geocentric model were largely theological, citing scripture as support. It's not as if the church went "oh, you're right, but to protect the faith of the common people, we won't tell anyone and you're not allowed to, either." The church held the position that Copernican views weren't true. The church was (or is) not a paragon of scientific thought. Did they help drive scientific progress? Yes. But, like I've mentioned before, the amount of power and influence held by the church really meant that the only entity capable of driving scientific progress was the church.
Why? If you declare that everything must have come from somewhere, you run into a problem of infinite regress where each step of "where did this come from" leads to yet another and yet another. Possible? Yes. Good argument for a theistic explanation? No.
We could be destroying Earth even faster and crowding the planet up more.....And maybe be on another planet.
Imprisonment is basically what you claim was the opposition to scientific progress. He released his findings on a new model in violation to a command and was imprisoned, leading lots of atheists in the modern age to believe the church was opposed to science. You would be surprised how many people think he was imprisoned because he released a model that the church opposed.
And did you read my post? They didn't ban him from releasing the notes to protect any faith at all. They knew it was good science. They were behind it. They were concerned with the public who would get in a tizzy over such a revelation. The Catholic church(Let us remain specific here, less you wish to dispute eastern religious thought) was not in opposition to scientific advancement.
I don't fully understand what point you are trying to drive with that last sentence there though. Are you suggesting that the only reason the Church was known for it's scientific progress was because of its power(Which would suggest that instead of focusing on advancing their power and keeping everybody in the dark like you imply they chose to seek out the scientific truth)?
Basically what I claim is that the church stood in opposition to his idea because they tried to censor his ideas. I don't care what their reasons were for this and I don't care what methods they used to do it, the point is they did it. If I thought it was imprisonment, I would have been using the word imprisonment. There's no point for me to argue here because you're not even accurately representing my position. I never once mentioned anything about imprisonment.
You can keep arguing from the imprisonment angle if you'd like, but it has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
http://web.archive.org/web/200709300130 ... #conreport
No, I'm suggesting that it could not have been anything else but the church because of their power.