Is this fair or not?

[dmallind]

Was posted on FB by someone with whom I am vaguely acquainted. No idea of original source if any. At first glance it looks roughly to scale and roughly accurate to me, but willing to be corrected. My opinon on any faith does not depend on what its followers did centuries ago in either direction, so while I could certainly show a nice chart somewhat the reverse of this showing, say, inspiration and even payment for great works of art, neither really are useful except as discussion items

[Angry Dragon]

1. I believe it is fair

[cleanhippie]

2. Fair AND accurate

I think a very strong argument can be made for that.

[rrneck]

3. Whose to say?

The rise in scientific and technological expertise has resulted in an concomitant rise in resource use and environmental damage. The caption could read something like, "Just think, we could have decimated the human race and the entire planet because of over-consumption by now."

[NoNothing]

4. Roughly to scale

There is no scale at all on the y axis! What is it measuring? Number of achievements? Scale of achievements? Rate of achievements? Is it linear? Logarithmic?

Furthermore, this is a rather racist chart, unless you happen to believe that the Christian West was (is?) the sole source of scientific achievement.

Finally, it is rather specious to blame "Christianity" for the dark ages, which had much more to do with the collapse of Rome and resultant state of anarchy than anything else. In fact what scientific progress did take place during that time was largely under the auspices of the church.

[dmallind]

8. I was using relative and subjective references

The size and duration of the drop implies we had roughly the same scientific knowledge and technology at the start of teh dark ages as we had mid way through the renaissance, and that exponential growth started in the Enlightenment. Don't need a numeric scale for that (there is of course no accpeted scale for scientific advancement).

I think the western focus is partly problematic yes, but partly also to do with time scale. The big scientific advances in the East are often previous to this chart's starting point.

[sailor65]

20. +1

Well said, I don't think I could have improved on it.

[Jim__]

5. According to wikipedia, the term "Dark Ages" is dated, and if applied ...

does not apply across the range that the graph has it applied (source):

"Dark Ages" is a term referring to the perceived period of both cultural and economic deterioration as well as disruption that took place in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.<1><2> The word is derived from Latin saeculum obscurum (dark age), a phrase first recorded in 1602.<3> The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light". Originally, the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the light of Rome, and the Renaissance or rebirth from the 14th century onwards.<4> This definition is still found in popular usage,<1><2><5> but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages since the 19th century has led to the label being restricted in application. Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.<6><7>

The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.<4><8> Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.<9>

[FBaggins]

11. That's because "christian dark ages" presupposes what the author intends to prove.

And is thus a circular argument. It's claiming that science ceased to progress (indeed took many steps backwards) from the time christianity was ascendent until the time of the reformation (which itelf is interesting because it appears to imply that the author thinks the renaissance was a non-christian period.

[dmallind]

15. I don;t see that implication at all

You'd have to be a total idiot not to know teh Renaissance was dominated by Christian authority for a start, and the Christian dark ages is surely an accurate label. You can quibble over when it bnegan or ended, but nobody can argue the almost total hegemony of Christiniaty in much of Europe in that period.

[FBaggins]

18. The creator's intention

is not just to refute the notion that christianity gave us out modern advanced culture (a much easier position to support), but that it actually HURT (even drove everything backwards). The graph is nothing more than a visual depiction of the creator's opinion. It adds nothing to the discussion... just makes the same claim in a graphical way (while expecting the reader to accept it as supporting evidence).

It's like a freshman physics student being asked how far a canonball will travel and saying "25 feet"... then drawing a graph that depicts same. He hasn't proven (or even supported) his position with the graph (though the x and y axis will look just fine), he has merely restated his position.

Of course... there were many nonchristian and even athiests all over the world at the time - most who had never heard of christianity. If a particular faith was destructive to scientific advances, you would expect to see all of those other areas of the world advancing much faster (scientifically) than the "western" cultures when that hasn't been the case.

So in short... it's "fair" (that is... it's reasonable for him to state his opinion... and he can do it graphically if he chooses)... but there's no additional evidence that it's in any way "accurate".

The funniest/most ironic part, of course, is that it is in no way scientific. :rofl:

[Deep13]

32. Dark age for western Europe, ~500-700 c.e.

Early Middle Ages ~700 to 900 c.e.

"high" middle ages ~900 to 1200 c.e.

late middle ages ~1200 to 1400 or 1500 c.e.

Italian Renaissance begins around 1400 or 1450

Modern period begins ~1600.

[Jim__]

33. That confirms that the graph is not accurate.

It has the Dark Ages running from 400 CE to 1400 CE. What happens to the projected growth in scientific advances if we just correct for the label of the Dark Ages, but assume that the growth of scientific advances is accurately based on some actual measurement? It seems like the projected growth curve collapses.

[humblebum]

6. "No idea of original source if any." .... ???

LMAO! Classic atheistic reasoning.

[dmallind]

9. Uhh? I have no idea who came up with the chart. Do you?

What reasoning does that take except honesty and what has that to do with atheism? Even I don't claim a connection there.

[humblebum]

21. Fair enough.

"No idea of original source if any." That is just an often heard response when discussion of any beginning of existence is being debated (as in maybe IT had no beginning).

[dmallind]

22. Ah gotcha. I of course simply meant that I did not know if my link was original or not

Turned out it wasn't

[humblebum]

25. But that was not what was said.

You stated simply,"No idea of original source if any".

[dmallind]

27. And some people can use inference better than others.

I will eagerly await your next usage of incomplete or technically sloppy grammar.

[humblebum]

30. The sloppy grammar is yours not mine - you made the statement. nt

[cleanhippie]

36. It seems you are very desperate to find anything to contradict what you dont believe

even though its quite plain to the casual observer what was meant here. Why do you need to act like a jerk?

[humblebum]

37. If I am trying to find anything to contradict what I dont believe, then

wouldn't that be the same as stating what I believe?

[cleanhippie]

38. Like I said, whay do you have to act like such a jerk?

And for the record, I am not personally attacking you by calling you a jerk, I am asking why you are ACTING like a jerk.

[FBaggins]

7. Fair? why not?... accurate? No.

You note that it's "to scale" - but all you can really see is that x-axis isn't manipulated at all. The y-axis has no units at all and is thus entirely based on the author's assumptions (i.e. "made up")...

[dmallind]

10. See post 8 NT

[FBaggins]

14. Ok.. take another look at the graph.

What it indicates is that the scientific level just prior to the Renaissance was equal to that of 2,000 years earlier. That we didn't just slow the pace of our advances... but actually stepped back many centuries. Can any honest person claim that that's true?

[dmallind]

16. Yes. It is true

Much of Roman technology was lost and not rediscovered for many centuries. Same with Egyptian, Minoan, Babylonian technology etc.

[FBaggins]

19. Hardly.

And "much" doesn't fit the graph. It has to be ALL of what was gained after 500 BCE.

Which is just ridiculous.


We've "lost" technologies from mere decades ago... it doesn't mean that "science" as a whole hasn't advanced.

[dmallind]

24. So Europe in say 1000 CE had, for example, indoor plumbing?

It did in Roman times. What about literacy rates that plumetted? Sanitation? The bubonic plague epidemic (that could easily have been avoided with sanitary practices and technology from even Minoan times) is a fantasy? Why was Galen still a medical authority (for the few who could read) in the 14th century? Why did even the very well educated St Augustine think demons caused disease instead?

[FBaggins]

26. Yes... they had indoor plumbing in Europe in 1000CE

What about literacy rates that plumetted?

They didn't. Literacy rates worldwide stopped growing for several hundred years (including a drop that occurred PRIOR to the gap on that graph) and tripled between 1100 and 1400. Not that this is a measure of scientific advance. Going from 1% literacy to 2% literacy is a nice move... but not a scientific advance.

The bubonic plague epidemic (that could easily have been avoided with sanitary practices and technology from even Minoan times) is a fantasy?

The bubonic plague had nothing to do with step back in scientific achievement. It had to do with population density. But it's interesting that you would bring it up on this thread, since the plagues likely had FAR more to do with extending the dark ages than religion did.

Why was Galen still a medical authority (for the few who could read) in the 14th century? Why did even the very well educated St Augustine think demons caused disease instead?

Augustine didn't think they caused disease "instead"... but "as well"... and pointing out that a given individual didn't know something (like the shape of the Earth) is not an indictment of total scientific knowledge of a period. And Galen was around 1,000 CE... and well advanced beyond the average 500 BCE technology. The average person in 500 BCE was FAR more likely to associate "demons" (etc) with illness than those during Galen's period.

Here's another chart to look at.

[dmallind]

28. Where that wasn't a hangover from earlier ages? NT

[FBaggins]

29. Did you look at the graph?

It doesn't say "things stopped progressing and all they had was hang-over from the past" (which itself would be incorrect), it says that they took a massive step backwards... losing many many centuries of advancement.

[Odin2005]

35. Medieval cities had bath houses, not washing was an early protestant thing.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Roman civilization and European civilization are two separate entities.

Most of what we know as modern Europe was Barbarian Europe during Roman times. Yes, they had indoor plumbing in the outposts of the Roman Empire, but non Roman Europe really didn't. Didn't have much in the way of literacy either.

[struggle4progress]

48. What wonderful ancient Egyptian or Babylonian technology do you think

was suppressed in medieval Europe?

The great Egyptian and Babylonian civilizations had collapsed long before the classical Greek period: they were quite impressive in comparison with their contemporaries, but the technology of the medieval Europeans was generally far superior to theirs. The great medieval cathedrals in Europe are masterpieces of architectural daring compared to the ancient Babylonian, Egyptian or Greek monuments

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Here's the source of the graph and the written explanation from 2007.

http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

[dmallind]

13. Many thanks - now I know! NT

[Jim__]

17. That hardly reads like a scholarly document.

You can start with: Nothing about this arrogant Christian claim could stand further from the truth. Nothing could stand further from the truth? Really?

The document reads more like a rant than it does like research.

[dmallind]

23. Is it supposed to be? Did anybody say it was? NT

[Jim__]

31. Is it supposed to be roughly accurate?

What is the basis for the scientific advances shown in the graph between 200 and 400 CE when the Roman Empire was in severe decline? And, given that the Roman Empire was in decline between 200 and 400 CE, if we change the graph to honestly reflect the scientific advances of that period, what happens to the projected exponential increase shown after 400 CE?

[Odin2005]

34. I'm not fan of religion, but that chart is ignorant and stupid

The Roman Empire was actually quite stagnant technologically, on the other hand there were a lot of advances during the middle ages, such as 3-field crop rotation, very powerful plows that could cut through the deep Northern European soils, and clocks, among others.

[dimbear]

39. The chart is fair, but the interpretation is flawed.

We all of us, every one of us, owe a great debt to the Christians for destroying the technological base of the Roman Empire. Without tumbling us into the Dark Ages, that alternate time line would have 'globally warmed' all life from the planet around CE 1300.

If you're still breathing, thank a Christian.

[onager]

40. Fairly fair. Here's a good book on the subject...

The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman

As a reviewer notes: Freeman cites the example of astronomy, where the last recorded observation by the Greeks was by Proclus in AD 475, after which there are no recorded observations for over a thousand years, until Copernicus in 1543.

A similar gap exists in many sciences.

Over at Amazon, Freeman himself answers his reviewers. I almost bought his follow-up to this book ("381 A.D."), but he annoyed me by using the Foreword to needlessly snark at Richard Dawkins et. al.

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Western-Mind-Faith-Reason/dp/140004085X

[ChadwickHenryWard]

41. Fair? Don't know. Useless? Yes - very yes.

It has no units, so fuck it. It's totally arbitrary guesswork intended to slight Christianity. Sure, there was a huge loss of learning and technology after the fall of Rome. Was it the fault of Christianity? I don't know. Perhaps there was an attempt by the Christians to remove all of what remained by the decadent and sinful Roman culture after the sack in 410. I don't know of any such endeavor, though. And sure there was a period of relative stagnation - not a flat line, but again, no units, so fuck it - but was that the fault of Christians? Again, I don't know. The "give no thought to the morrow" bullshit could be responsible for this, but I don't know if the verse was ever as influential as, say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I don't know that it's fair to call them the "Christian Dark Ages" in any respect other than the fact that China and the Arab world were both flourishing at this time.

[Igel]

42. No.

It engages severely in a lot of post-hoc thinking, and assumes that "Europe" was essentially the same 400 BCE and in 1000 CE.

The Xian "bit" has been discussed, but bears repeating. The "Xian" dark ages started after the spread of Xianity and ended even as Xianity continued to spread. Of course, the Dark Ages are a shorter time frame, and the Renaissance to a large extent continued the upward trend that started earlier.

However, more importantly it leaves aside some really Important Developments. That the Germanic tribes basically crashed the gates and provided a lot of problems for maintenance of public order. That with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the ruling classes the funding for education and the ability to transmit information over large distances was sharply reduced. Europe was a mess, and it wasn't because of Xians. Most of the invading tribes simply weren't Xian, and much of the population that was busy rebelling also lacked that moniker.

Then there were things impeding rebuilding the system that existed before. Byzantium was trying--however pathetic it was--with outposts in Spain and Italy, holding together SE Europe and North Africa while spreading influence to Russia. But they were involved in a war that kept them from maintaining their outposts, and then the Islamic expansion cut them off at the knees. The repositories of knowledge in N. Africa, as well as the food supplies, vanished as far as Europe was concerned, as did the Middle East. Then SE Europe and Spain was cut off, as well. But it was also a bad thing as a lot of the "space" in Europe wasn't European and as the kings/princes had to fight the Huns, the Mongols and the Muslims just as soon as the Germanic tribes started to settle down.

Oddly, the West really started taking off about the time that Byzantium fell and the main glut of scholars fled west and north with their learning and mss. and Russia absorbed the repeated blows from the West and SE. And just about the same time the Muslim world went into decline. Less of a threat, less able to maintain a monopoly of power in the West, staging raids as far north as England and Denmark and far up the Volga.

With relative peace and tranquility, as well as empire (with overseas booty pouring in) and a large geographic space in which information could be transferred and shared (thanks to the Catholic Church), it was possible to more easily build on what went before. Something the Muslims had learned as they built their empire and scavenged mss. and plunder from all sorts of sources.

[struggle4progress]

43. One should first note that classical Egyptian civilisation was

extremely conservative and unoriginal for millennia. There are, for example, a handful of clever mathematical ideas, but generally an established notion is handed down generation to generation without much examination -- so erroneous geometrical formulae persist for long periods

The intellectual advance made by some ancient Greeks was astonishing -- but their classical period lasted only a few hundred years. Theirs was, however, not the modern experimental method but a sort of ideological reasoning; in the right hands, it produced real results, but it also produced a substantial amount of scientific nonsense. The Greek period not destroyed by Christianity but by the Roman conquest: the Romans, for example, famously killed Archimedes, perhaps the greatest mathematical intellect known for millennia. The result is probably mixed, since the end of the classical Greek period was accompanied by the subsequent spread of Greek knowledge through the Roman empire

Roman scientific innovation is probably quite limited: the empire subjugated other people and stole their work and ideas, and the mix of people throughout the empire probably created a substantial cosmopolitan environment. But the Roman culture was not much interested in science. Roman arithmetic did not much support elaborate calculation: the numerals were useful for household reckoning and the uncia were practical enough for construction and market transactions, but the Romans never provided a unified numerical scheme. Egyptian fractions, Babylonian fractions, Greek fractions, and others were used by different people for different things. Moreover, the empire was a culture devoted to exploitation of the vast lower class by the small upper class, with the aid of the military. One could be hard-pressed to find any substantial pure-scientific advance by the Romans, though some impressive engineering remains, largely based on the Roman arch and requiring substantial slave labor in construction

The so-called "Dark Ages" and "Middle Ages" in Europe were accompanied by significant technological advances over a long period. In the late medieval period, Europe had pivoted windmills that turned to face the wind, for example

Information on medieval technological advances is available at a number of websites, such as:

Technology in the Middle Ages
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/history/middle.htm

The Medieval Technology Pages
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/Subjects.html

[skepticscott]

44. Probably not

Unless you can show that Christianity was substantially responsible for the downfall of Roman civilization, that Christianity was to blame for being about the only bastion of civilization left in many parts of Europe for centuries, or that things would have been better if there had been no Christian church during that period.

[dimbear]

45. It goes beyond the power of a message board.......

The reason it's so difficult to do that with absolute certainty is that at the same time the Roman Emperors became notorious bookburners, written history naturally has a gap.

Nevertheless, the careers of Constantine, and Theodosius, et seq. are sufficiently recorded to get the drift. Not just that the selected and altered parts of the Bible that pleased the empire were to be spread far and wide, but that other books were to go to the fire. All the competing sacred literatures and a large part of the literature of paganism. Before the Christians, the watchword was tolerance. You paid a pittance to the old gods and did your thing. After the Christians, you toed the line. Or curtains.

Some of the ancient writers were rescued by the Arabs, and re-entered the European consciousness after the Crusades.
It's too big a topic for an IMB . It's more or less the story of European history............

[Crunchy Frog]

46. No, I don't think it's particularly accurate.

The "Dark Ages" is basically just the period between the collapse of one civilization and the rise of another one. It was characterized by large scale barbarian invasions and general instability with little in the way of large scale centralized government. Once things became more settled and stable, European civilization began advancing.

I'm no great fan of Christianity, or religion in general, but I don't see that as a good justification for historical inaccuracy.