We're often presented with the stereotype of the bad old ignorant Christians who nearly destroyed all scientific thinking, as opposed to the good old pagans who helped developed science. How does this stand to the facts? Lets see......

"Today we know that neither an unscientific view of the world nor the exaltation of ascesticism were the creatures of Christianity but were leading features of the world Christianity entered. The irrationational side of much of Greek life and thought has been brought out in many recent studies. It is clear that the vast majority of the population of the Roman Empire at any time felt the need for religion and that even among the educated the number of pure sceptics was probably always limited. Greek science virtually ceased to advance after 200 B.C. and what science there was might more properly be called occultism, connected to magic and sorcery, appealing to revelations and dealings with the supernatural. The pagan intellectuals from the Emperor Julian down, who opposed Christianity in the fourth century were no more critical or "scientific" than any Christian, and were quite as dogmatic in their adherence to Homer and other authorities as Christians were in their appeal to the Bible."
--The Conversion of Western Europe, 350-740 edited by J.N. Hillgarth pg.4-5

Seems the stereotypes of the Middle Ages apply more to the pagans than to Christians. Contrast this with the Christian approach:

“The Catholic Church long stood condemned as the enemy of enlightenment, with the alleged suppressions of Copernicus and Galileo as Exhibit A. More recent historians, however, have pointed to evidence of Church attitudes and policies of a quite different coloration. Lynn White asserted that Christian theology actually gave the Middle Ages a fiat for technology: “man shares in great measure God’s transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to paganism and Asia’s religions…not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.”
--Frances and Joseph Gies Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages pg. 4-5

Let history judge people!

Also check out this related thread of mine:

"Excerpt from Rodney Stark's "For the Glory of God"

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3401&highlight=rodney


(And try not to be too disturbed by Wintermute's hysterical behavior...)


Petr

Hehe... here too eh?

The author took Greece, and only Greece as an example, because it was taken over by Rome around that time. Rome on the other hand continued to advance.

- "Rome on the other hand continued to advance."

You mean that Romans were scientifically advanced? Just exactly how?

(In reality, science and technology thoroughly stagnated in the Roman Empire)


Petr

According to this article I have in my lap, the ancients in Rome and Greece did not develop machinery even though they were aware of various methods and Greek engineers did invent things. A water mill was known of, but they never used it to grind grain. Muslims could have borrowed the windmill idea from Persia and made good use of it, but didn't. In 1206, the leading Arab engineer said that driving mills with wind is nonsense, even though windmills were already in use in Syria. For some reason, some of these ancient civilizations just did not apply known ideas to society as a whole for reducing labor. It was in the Middle Ages when machinery really took off.

The slave argument is questioned because the Romans finally began using a donkey-powered mill for grinding grain in the second century B.C, when hordes of slaves were arriving from the East. These slaves were still plentiful when Rome finally used horse-driven machines to knead dough.

One explanation given for the lack of technological development in ancient Rome and Greece is cultural. First off, there was a strong prejudice against artisans. According to Plutarch, Archimedes "never wanted to leave behind a book on the subject but viewed the work of the engineer and every single art connected with everyday need as ignoble and fit only for an artisan. He devoted his ambition only to those studies in which beauty and subtletly are present uncomtaminated by necessity." Basically, he thought up inventions for intellectual challenge and refused to put it into practical use because that is "ignoble."

Another cultural factor is a prejudice against tampering with nature.

(In reality, science and technology thoroughly stagnated in the Roman Empire)


Indeed.


"But taken as a whole, the Roman world throughout its history, whether republic or empire, was a near intellectual void when it came to the arts and sciences -- "peopled by a race of pygmies" in Gibbon's contemptuous words. Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did nto come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose."
--Charles Murray Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 pg. 31

Indeed.


"But taken as a whole, the Roman world throughout its history, whether republic or empire, was a near intellectual void when it came to the arts and sciences -- "peopled by a race of pygmies" in Gibbon's contemptuous words. Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did nto come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose."
--Charles Murray Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 pg. 31

Rome was in many ways technocratic society. Its achievements were not so much in new scientific discoveries or in new ideas, but rather in the application of existing ideas of government and existing scientific knowledge (adapted from the Greeks) in order to organize a large-scale, imperial society. Rome's relation to ancient Greece (application versus origin) is much the same as America's relationship to Continental Europe, with the exception that scientific and technologicial breakthroughs continued throughout American history (but as in Rome, philosophy and the arts either stagnated or decayed).

The fact that most Greek achievements ran prior to 100 BC had as much to do with their subjugation to Rome and the constraints of Roman social institutions (perhaps best symbolized by the death of Archimedes as the hands of Roman soldiers - a farce at one level, but at another a symbol of the destruction of Greek creativity by the Roman military and bureaucracy) as anything intrinsic to paganism. "Paganism" certainly didn't stand in the way of Greek achievement for the first half-millenium of their history, so the idea that "paganism" lead to their decline is far-fetched.

- ""Paganism" certainly didn't stand in the way of Greek achievement for the first half-millenium of their history, so the idea that "paganism" lead to their decline is far-fetched."


Ah, but neo-pagan propagandists claim that it was precisely paganism that enabled them to these achievements, and that Christianity's ascension meant the demise of science.

In other words, they started this argument and we are just shooting back.


Petr

According to this article I have in my lap, the ancients in Rome and Greece did not develop machinery even though they were aware of various methods and Greek engineers did invent things. A water mill was known of, but they never used it to grind grain. Muslims could have borrowed the windmill idea from Persia and made good use of it, but didn't. In 1206, the leading Arab engineer said that driving mills with wind is nonsense, even though windmills were already in use in Syria. For some reason, some of these ancient civilizations just did not apply known ideas to society as a whole for reducing labor. It was in the Middle Ages when machinery really took off.

The slave argument is questioned because the Romans finally began using a donkey-powered mill for grinding grain in the second century B.C, when hordes of slaves were arriving from the East. These slaves were still plentiful when Rome finally used horse-driven machines to knead dough.

One explanation given for the lack of technological development in ancient Rome and Greece is cultural. First off, there was a strong prejudice against artisans. According to Plutarch, Archimedes "never wanted to leave behind a book on the subject but viewed the work of the engineer and every single art connected with everyday need as ignoble and fit only for an artisan. He devoted his ambition only to those studies in which beauty and subtletly are present uncomtaminated by necessity." Basically, he thought up inventions for intellectual challenge and refused to put it into practical use because that is "ignoble."

Another cultural factor is a prejudice against tampering with nature.
Cultural factors probably contributed but I still think the abundance of slave labor had a lot to do with why ancient Rome never underwent an industrial revolution.

Ah, but neo-pagan propagandists claim that it was precisely paganism that enabled them to these achievements, and that Christianity's ascension meant the demise of science.

In other words, they started this argument and we are just shooting back.


Indeed.....the stereotype of the "enlighten" pagans vs. the "ignorant" Christians is the main target here.

But as one quote I posted stated, Christianity gave more emphasis for scientific advancement than paganism did.

Well heres a commentary on one influential Greek thinker and his role in scientific development.


http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/EA/ARISTOTLEann.html

Aristotle (384-322 BCE; view sculpture bust at the Galileo Project, Rice University) is not generally considered a chemist, and for good reason. His approach to understanding the natural world was not a scientific one. In fact, the authority attached to Aristotle nearly two millennia after his death was one of the main obstacles in the path of the scientific outlook as it emerged in the 17th century. The experimental method of putting hypothetical explanations to an empirical test was unknown to Aristotle and his contemporaries. Although he was not a bad observer in some instances, Aristotle's mode of explanation was rationalistic rather than empirical.

If Aristotle was not a scientist, he was especially not a chemist: "Aristotle's chemistry, like Socrates' book, does not exist. ... the absence of material of a specifically chemical character in ancient Greek natural philosophy has largely escaped the attention it deserves." [Horne 1966]. Aristotle wrote on subjects which are now part of the disciplines of biology and physics, but not on chemical subjects, and in this respect, he was no different from other figures in ancient Greek philosophy.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE; view sculpture bust at the Galileo Project, Rice University) is not generally considered a chemist, and for good reason. His approach to understanding the natural world was not a scientific one. In fact, the authority attached to Aristotle nearly two millennia after his death was one of the main obstacles in the path of the scientific outlook as it emerged in the 17th century. The experimental method of putting hypothetical explanations to an empirical test was unknown to Aristotle and his contemporaries. Although he was not a bad observer in some instances, Aristotle's mode of explanation was rationalistic rather than empirical.

Perun, it was the Church (to a large part thanks to Aquinas) that turned Aristotle's teachings into dogmas, not pagans.

Aristotle's science was reasonable for its time, i.e. Aristotelian mechanics is basic common sense, however misguided. The problem was not with Aristotle (or with any other thinker who presented a reasonable, first-approximation working hypothesis at the time) but with the attitude (pervasive in religious fundamentalism of any kind) that turns proposals, hypotheses, and theories into inviolable dogmas.

Perun, it was the Church (to a large part thanks to Aquinas) that turned Aristotle's teachings into dogmas, not pagans.


Im well aware of Aquinas' role in giving emphasis on Aristotle over Plato. Thats one area where he is often criticised even by Traditionalist Catholics, and this is a major area where the Orthodox Church takes aim at the Catholic church.

Im well aware of Aquinas' role in giving emphasis on Aristotle over Plato. Thats one area where he is often criticised even by Traditionalist Catholics, and this is a major area where the Orthodox Church takes aim at the Catholic church.

Plato was far less empirical and scientific than Aristotle. If anything, from the standpoint of the advancement of empirical science, making Aristotle's mechanics was an improvement over Plato's cosmogeny. The problem was not that Aristotle was originally embraced in place of Plato, but that his adherents turned his writings into canonical dogmas as their predecessors did with Plato.

The problem was not that Aristotle was originally embraced in place of Plato, but that his adherents turned his writings into canonical dogmas as their predecessors did with Plato.

And Aristotle may have contributed to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Aristotelian_science

Although Aristotle himself was far from dogmatic in his approach to philosophical inquiry, two aspects of his philosophy might have assisted its transformation into dogma. His works were wide ranging and systematic so that they could give the impression that no significant matter had been left unsettled. He was also much less inclined to employ the skeptical methods of his predecessors, Socrates and Plato.

But as one quote I posted stated, Christianity gave more emphasis for scientific advancement than paganism did.

The pagan intellectuals from the Emperor Julian down, who opposed Christianity in the fourth century were no more critical or "scientific" than any Christian, and were quite as dogmatic in their adherence to Homer and other authorities as Christians were in their appeal to the Bible."

Stop posting quotes that contradict your ideas.

BTW, none of your quotes regarding this issue stated that Christianity gave more emphasis for scientific advancement. Observe:

"Today we know that neither an unscientific view of the world nor the exaltation of ascesticism were the creatures of Christianity but were leading features of the world Christianity entered. The irrationational side of much of Greek life and thought has been brought out in many recent studies. It is clear that the vast majority of the population of the Roman Empire at any time felt the need for religion and that even among the educated the number of pure sceptics was probably always limited. Greek science virtually ceased to advance after 200 B.C. and what science there was might more properly be called occultism, connected to magic and sorcery, appealing to revelations and dealings with the supernatural. The pagan intellectuals from the Emperor Julian down, who opposed Christianity in the fourth century were no more critical or "scientific" than any Christian, and were quite as dogmatic in their adherence to Homer and other authorities as Christians were in their appeal to the Bible."
--The Conversion of Western Europe, 350-740 edited by J.N. Hillgarth pg.4-5

Seems the stereotypes of the Middle Ages apply more to the pagans than to Christians. Contrast this with the Christian approach:

“The Catholic Church long stood condemned as the enemy of enlightenment, with the alleged suppressions of Copernicus and Galileo as Exhibit A. More recent historians, however, have pointed to evidence of Church attitudes and policies of a quite different coloration. Lynn White asserted that Christian theology actually gave the Middle Ages a fiat for technology: “man shares in great measure God’s transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to paganism and Asia’s religions…not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.”
--Frances and Joseph Gies Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages pg. 4-5

"But taken as a whole, the Roman world throughout its history, whether republic or empire, was a near intellectual void when it came to the arts and sciences -- "peopled by a race of pygmies" in Gibbon's contemptuous words. Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did nto come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose."
--Charles Murray Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 pg. 31

The quote that comes closest to your point says:

Lynn White asserted that Christian theology actually gave the Middle Ages a fiat for technology: “man shares in great measure God’s transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to paganism and Asia’s religions…not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends

Notice the word "technology." Technology is the application of science. Not scientific development. This is different from what you claimed:

Christianity gave more emphasis for scientific advancement than paganism

Check out that excerpt from Rodney Stark that I posted. It explains how medieval scholasticism provided a theoretical basis for the modern science as well:


"Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else. As he explained:

I don’t think, however, that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism in to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpugnable belief that that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power for research: - that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?

When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left for themselves, there seems but one source of its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in the rationality. Remember that I am not talking about of the explicit faith of a few individuals. What I mean is the impress on the European mind arising from the unquestioned faith of centuries. By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not a mere creed of words.(80)

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3401&highlight=rodney


Petr

Stop posting quotes that contradict your ideas.

They dont contradict each other.


Notice the word "technology." Technology is the application of science. Not scientific development.

Lets see in order to apply science you must have scientific advancement. Talk about contradicting yourself :rolleyes:

I am scientific and heathen (prefer to pagan...bah...latin).
I think the ancient peoples were as scientific as their technology enabled them to be. Plain and simple.

- "I think the ancient peoples were as scientific as their technology enabled them to be. Plain and simple."


They did not have that fundamental ambition , that can-do mentality that Christian peoples had - essential to pagan worldview was circular worldview, the eternal return, and that made people like Aristotle think that all great inventions had already been made, and the only way left was the one that led down. Pagans had a very pessimistic idea about the future in general.


Petr

As did most medieval christians, thanks to the church. They believed the end would soon come and that this life was only preperation for the afterlife in Heaven. So they didn't think scientifically, there are some exceptions of course.

When I was talking of Heathens and ancient peoples I was thinking of those around the world that errected vast monuments (of which we don't know how they did it with their technology at the time), most of which had a both spiritual and scientific significance, such as the monolith moon-observatory in France, Stonehendge in England or The Pyramids in Egypt, etc.