What you argued here reflects on the indoctrination that many high school students are being exposed to when it comes to history.
Misconception 01: Roman Civilization collapsed.
The reality is that Roman civilization went through a "restructuring". The last part of Roman History, the "Late Antiquity", is a period of time when what we know of Roman Civilization, portrayed in our movies, transitioned into what we associate with Medieval Europe. Europe "looked Medieval" long before the end of the last Western Roman Emperor's rule.
Roman civilization transformed into Medieval civilization, which transformed into Renaissance civilization then modern western civilization. The Roman political infrastructure and organization collapsed, but western civilization continued on. The main reason for this will be addressed with the next misconception.
Misconception 02: Church was "anti-intellectual"
This is a false statement. The church was heavy on preserving the ancient knowledge... And on building it. Many of the Germanic tribes that entered the Western Roman Empire were also Christians. However, they did not know how to administer the cities and towns that they ended up dominating. Additionally, converting to the form of Christianity practiced by the Roman population was a way for the Germanic kings to gain legitimacy with them.
This created a working relation between the Church and the Germanic Kings. The Church administered the towns/cities while providing a source of unity. The Germanic Kings, like the later Roman Emperors, saw the unifying force that Christianity made possible. The Germanic tribes/kingdoms adapted the Roman ways.
The church leveraged this to convince the Germanic Kings to support the church's initiatives to preserve and develop knowledge. It is also the philosophy of the church that contributed to the continued search and expansion of knowledge. It was one way to get closer to God… Understanding his creation better. You touched on this in your response, but did not connected with a complete set of facts.
Collectively, their efforts led to development of what would eventually become "the scientific method". Associated with this effort was a standing up of what would eventually become the West's university systems. The first universities, in the West, started on church campuses.
Misconception 03: Galileo was persecuted for his sun-centrist solar system theory
This is one example that people use to criticize the church, and claim that it was "anti-scientific". As I mentioned above, it was the church that developed what would eventually become the scientific method.
The Pope had given Galileo an audience to explain his sun centered universe theory. This was not an argument about whether the earth or the sun was the center of the solar system or not. This was an argument as to whether the earth, or the sun, was the center of the universe.
As of the time this was occurring, the church was funding a group of Christians who were working to mathematically prove that the earth orbited the sun. Until then, even if the evidence was strong toward the earth orbiting the sun, the entire concept was still a theory. They did not have sufficient evidence. Galileo was told that he could go ahead and publish his work with the disclaimer that it was a theory.
He didn't. He published his work as if it were a fact and he mocked the Pope. At that time, he came across as a "conspiracy theorist" would today. It wasn't just the church that thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Everybody and his brother did. People relied on watching the constellations in the sky, and the moon, during the year, in order to plan their farming and other seasonal activities. It appeared, to them, that the whole universe went around the earth.
So, the outcome was inevitable.
Misconception 04: the church held back scientific/technological progress
This is false. In addition to the church developing the scientific method, they incorporated the concept of continuous technological improvements. Prior to that, a revolution in technology was not always followed by additional revolutions in technology. People used the same technology for centuries, even millennia. The church's efforts, to preserve knowledge, and to develop it, brought us into an era of continuous technological innovation.
In fact, Christian monks would have introduced the Industrial Revolution in Europe centuries earlier had it not been "stopped" by political effort.
It was no accident that the West emerged from the medieval period to achieve greatness compared to the other civilizations. The West still leads today, with United States as its standard bearer.
snafu: Yes, you and I are in agreement somewhat, but you're minimizing the anti-intellectualism of the Church.
I'm not minimizing the anti intellectualism of the Church, but arguing against the the propaganda being spread, by history revisionists, that the Church minimized intellectualism. The church was knee deep in intellectualism. The folks criticizing them for being anti intellectuals judge people of those days through modern lenses and not thought the one that existed during the period when the Church was supposed to be "anti intellectualism".
snafu: The Church has gone through periods of dogmatic oppression, and pro-scientific phases,
The "oppression" has more to do with politics and power engage in by others of the time and little to do with being against knowledge and science. The church had a lot of power, and like any human organization, had period where they abused that power.
snafu: which is my whole point.
I understood what your point was, and my rebuttal to you was focused based on that understanding.
snafu: You guys like to ignore the periods where the Church was a force for bad and a hindrance to progress,
How could we ignore cases when they didn't exist in the first place? See above, the periods where they were a "force for bad" had a lot to do with politics and power, and even corruption, in relation to other organizations in society doing the same, as opposed to waging war against progress or knowledge.
We're not ignoring those periods. The church was in favor of progress, consistently, as progress aided them and their religious mission.
sanfu: but I'm asserting that it was both a force for good and bad, depending on the time period.
Your assertions don't appear to put things in context, but argues something that's based on revisionist history. Their actions were politically driven when when it came to the "bad periods". They are humans, and as with any human organization... Especially as kingdoms, nations, etc., are going to have good and bad periods depending on who is in office at all levels depending on what else is going on with society.
snafu: It wasn't just Galileo that was suppressed by the Church, most of the great scientists at that time (including a ton of famous mathematicians and philosophers) had to contend with the ecumenical politics of the day.
Galileo was not suppressed because he argued that the sun was the center of the universe. He was suppressed both for the fact that he mocked the pope and made enemies among members of the Church, and for arguing something as a fact when sufficient evidence wasn't available to declare it a fact. He had to recant the other, it's like forcing a researcher to retract an un-provable claim.
This same pattern repeats itself with the famous mathematicians and philosophers that you talk about. Again, it's not the Church that enforced the policies of the day, but the common people, civil government, and merchant groups who were consistent with each other with regards to what was the case and what wasn't.
Lots of politics involved with the above individuals that you reference. Additionally, since the Church was involved with society, the famous people you referenced socially interacted with church leaders.
Indoctrinators, larping as educators, blame the Church and point their fingers to religious motivation while ignoring the fact that the variables impacting the Church's decision back then were very similar to the ones affecting royalty, politics, and other areas where people had power.
snafu: I'm giving credit where it's due,
But you're assigning negative labels where they are unjustified.
snafu: but also not pulling any punches with regards to the bad like most Christians like to do.
There is a difference between fighting the bad when what is identified as bad is indeed bad, and fighting the bad that exist as an illusion in the mind fighting the "bad".
snafu: The Church has always been a social institution, which is why it followed the trends of the day.
Hence, the problem being a societal one, and not one specific to the Church. This is different from the argument that the Church did things for purely religious reasons vice doing things as part of a society.
snafu: Christians like to believe that it's a divine institution though, which is why they defend every one of its actions as if it was infallible.
What you're seeing, on this website, are people who are fed up with the indoctrination perpetrated by the schools, and with propaganda perpetrated by the media and other leftist elitists.
Your argument was consistent with that of those on the left who demonize the church and attack it due to its religious nature... While ignoring, as you put it, social institution following social trends being followed by everybody else.
I don't see the Church as "divine", and neither do the majority here. What we're doing is putting things in perspective and context to counter the anti-religious propaganda of the left.
What you argued here reflects on the indoctrination that many high school students are being exposed to when it comes to history.
Misconception 01: Roman Civilization collapsed.
The reality is that Roman civilization went through a "restructuring". The last part of Roman History, the "Late Antiquity", is a period of time when what we know of Roman Civilization, portrayed in our movies, transitioned into what we associate with Medieval Europe. Europe "looked Medieval" long before the end of the last Western Roman Emperor's rule.
Roman civilization transformed into Medieval civilization, which transformed into Renaissance civilization then modern western civilization. The Roman political infrastructure and organization collapsed, but western civilization continued on. The main reason for this will be addressed with the next misconception.
Misconception 02: Church was "anti-intellectual"
This is a false statement. The church was heavy on preserving the ancient knowledge... And on building it. Many of the Germanic tribes that entered the Western Roman Empire were also Christians. However, they did not know how to administer the cities and towns that they ended up dominating. Additionally, converting to the form of Christianity practiced by the Roman population was a way for the Germanic kings to gain legitimacy with them.
This created a working relation between the Church and the Germanic Kings. The Church administered the towns/cities while providing a source of unity. The Germanic Kings, like the later Roman Emperors, saw the unifying force that Christianity made possible. The Germanic tribes/kingdoms adapted the Roman ways.
The church leveraged this to convince the Germanic Kings to support the church's initiatives to preserve and develop knowledge. It is also the philosophy of the church that contributed to the continued search and expansion of knowledge. It was one way to get closer to God… Understanding his creation better. You touched on this in your response, but did not connected with a complete set of facts.
Collectively, their efforts led to development of what would eventually become "the scientific method". Associated with this effort was a standing up of what would eventually become the West's university systems. The first universities, in the West, started on church campuses.
Misconception 03: Galileo was persecuted for his sun-centrist solar system theory
This is one example that people use to criticize the church, and claim that it was "anti-scientific". As I mentioned above, it was the church that developed what would eventually become the scientific method.
The Pope had given Galileo an audience to explain his sun centered universe theory. This was not an argument about whether the earth or the sun was the center of the solar system or not. This was an argument as to whether the earth, or the sun, was the center of the universe.
As of the time this was occurring, the church was funding a group of Christians who were working to mathematically prove that the earth orbited the sun. Until then, even if the evidence was strong toward the earth orbiting the sun, the entire concept was still a theory. They did not have sufficient evidence. Galileo was told that he could go ahead and publish his work with the disclaimer that it was a theory.
He didn't. He published his work as if it were a fact and he mocked the Pope. At that time, he came across as a "conspiracy theorist" would today. It wasn't just the church that thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Everybody and his brother did. People relied on watching the constellations in the sky, and the moon, during the year, in order to plan their farming and other seasonal activities. It appeared, to them, that the whole universe went around the earth.
So, the outcome was inevitable.
Misconception 04: the church held back scientific/technological progress
This is false. In addition to the church developing the scientific method, they incorporated the concept of continuous technological improvements. Prior to that, a revolution in technology was not always followed by additional revolutions in technology. People used the same technology for centuries, even millennia. The church's efforts, to preserve knowledge, and to develop it, brought us into an era of continuous technological innovation.
In fact, Christian monks would have introduced the Industrial Revolution in Europe centuries earlier had it not been "stopped" by political effort.
It was no accident that the West emerged from the medieval period to achieve greatness compared to the other civilizations. The West still leads today, with United States as its standard bearer.
Saved. You're incredible!
snafu: Yes, you and I are in agreement somewhat, but you're minimizing the anti-intellectualism of the Church.
I'm not minimizing the anti intellectualism of the Church, but arguing against the the propaganda being spread, by history revisionists, that the Church minimized intellectualism. The church was knee deep in intellectualism. The folks criticizing them for being anti intellectuals judge people of those days through modern lenses and not thought the one that existed during the period when the Church was supposed to be "anti intellectualism".
snafu: The Church has gone through periods of dogmatic oppression, and pro-scientific phases,
The "oppression" has more to do with politics and power engage in by others of the time and little to do with being against knowledge and science. The church had a lot of power, and like any human organization, had period where they abused that power.
snafu: which is my whole point.
I understood what your point was, and my rebuttal to you was focused based on that understanding.
snafu: You guys like to ignore the periods where the Church was a force for bad and a hindrance to progress,
How could we ignore cases when they didn't exist in the first place? See above, the periods where they were a "force for bad" had a lot to do with politics and power, and even corruption, in relation to other organizations in society doing the same, as opposed to waging war against progress or knowledge.
We're not ignoring those periods. The church was in favor of progress, consistently, as progress aided them and their religious mission.
sanfu: but I'm asserting that it was both a force for good and bad, depending on the time period.
Your assertions don't appear to put things in context, but argues something that's based on revisionist history. Their actions were politically driven when when it came to the "bad periods". They are humans, and as with any human organization... Especially as kingdoms, nations, etc., are going to have good and bad periods depending on who is in office at all levels depending on what else is going on with society.
snafu: It wasn't just Galileo that was suppressed by the Church, most of the great scientists at that time (including a ton of famous mathematicians and philosophers) had to contend with the ecumenical politics of the day.
Galileo was not suppressed because he argued that the sun was the center of the universe. He was suppressed both for the fact that he mocked the pope and made enemies among members of the Church, and for arguing something as a fact when sufficient evidence wasn't available to declare it a fact. He had to recant the other, it's like forcing a researcher to retract an un-provable claim.
This same pattern repeats itself with the famous mathematicians and philosophers that you talk about. Again, it's not the Church that enforced the policies of the day, but the common people, civil government, and merchant groups who were consistent with each other with regards to what was the case and what wasn't.
Lots of politics involved with the above individuals that you reference. Additionally, since the Church was involved with society, the famous people you referenced socially interacted with church leaders.
Indoctrinators, larping as educators, blame the Church and point their fingers to religious motivation while ignoring the fact that the variables impacting the Church's decision back then were very similar to the ones affecting royalty, politics, and other areas where people had power.
snafu: I'm giving credit where it's due,
But you're assigning negative labels where they are unjustified.
snafu: but also not pulling any punches with regards to the bad like most Christians like to do.
There is a difference between fighting the bad when what is identified as bad is indeed bad, and fighting the bad that exist as an illusion in the mind fighting the "bad".
snafu: The Church has always been a social institution, which is why it followed the trends of the day.
Hence, the problem being a societal one, and not one specific to the Church. This is different from the argument that the Church did things for purely religious reasons vice doing things as part of a society.
snafu: Christians like to believe that it's a divine institution though, which is why they defend every one of its actions as if it was infallible.
What you're seeing, on this website, are people who are fed up with the indoctrination perpetrated by the schools, and with propaganda perpetrated by the media and other leftist elitists.
Your argument was consistent with that of those on the left who demonize the church and attack it due to its religious nature... While ignoring, as you put it, social institution following social trends being followed by everybody else.
I don't see the Church as "divine", and neither do the majority here. What we're doing is putting things in perspective and context to counter the anti-religious propaganda of the left.