What do people think of this? I have a few books on this, I will have to go through them and see what they say.

Hehehe, I was trying to think of this, when this was originally posted on the Gorgoroth forums. If you don't have a problem speaking to many different Satanists and atheists on this, I do highly recommend posting your views on here and on there.

http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=496&mforum=gorgorothoffici

I can do that, or you can post them there. No matter to me.

I don't doubt that the dark ages left a major dent in scientific advancement. I would like to know, however, how the vertical axis of that graph is decided. Those graduations are vital for putting the graph in proper context.

Also, it appears by that graph that the scientific advancement in Europe was about the same at the end of the Renaissance as it was at the beginning of the dark ages. I'm a little rusty on my world history, but it seems like that's a little off. And is it really fair to say that the portion of the graph in the dark ages should be perfectly flat as it is?

Plus, who's to say that the increase in scientific advancement would have accelerated as steeply 1000 years earlier as it did after the Renaissance? Suppose advancement continued on the same angle as it did under Rome. In that case we'd be less advanced today.

With all that said, I won't be dogmatic in opposing the conclusion of that graph. I just don't have enough data one way or the other.

Architeuthis wrote:

I don't doubt that the dark ages left a major dent in scientific advancement. I would like to know, however, how the vertical axis of that graph is decided. Those graduations are vital for putting the graph in proper context.

Also, it appears by that graph that the scientific advancement in Europe was about the same at the end of the Renaissance as it was at the beginning of the dark ages. I'm a little rusty on my world history, but it seems like that's a little off. And is it really fair to say that the portion of the graph in the dark ages should be perfectly flat as it is?

Plus, who's to say that the increase in scientific advancement would have accelerated as steeply 1000 years earlier as it did after the Renaissance? Suppose advancement continued on the same angle as it did under Rome. In that case we'd be less advanced today.

With all that said, I won't be dogmatic in opposing the conclusion of that graph. I just don't have enough data one way or the other.

Agreed.

Architeuthis wrote:

I don't doubt that the dark ages left a major dent in scientific advancement. I would like to know, however, how the vertical axis of that graph is decided. Those graduations are vital for putting the graph in proper context.

It looks like it was determined by a statistical regression analysis. Basically, you fit a statistical model to existing data points and you predict how the data will behave in the future.

If I could get a look at the raw data, I could do my own analysis and give an opinion about the graph from a statistical perspective.

The thing is, when predicting future behavior, or in this case, predicting how the data would have behaved if a certain event didn't occur (the dark ages) is not an exact science. The further away from the actual data that you get, the less reliable your prediction is.


Other than the statistics, we also have to look at this from the historians point of view. Things to keep in mind.

At the time that Rome fell, Rome was Christian...if Christianity caused the stagnation in scientific advancement, then why didn't it start stagnating or declining before the fall of Rome?

The barbarians who conquered Rome were not exclusively Christian...many were pagan...so did the pagan influence of the Barbarians have an effect on the decline of scientific advancement?

Scientific advancement did not stop completely during the dark ages. There was advancement from the Islamic nations. Why is that not taken into account in the graph?

Even in Europe, advancement didn't totally flat line during the dark ages. One example would be architecture. Cathedral building during the middle ages shows steady advancements in architectural knowledge and technique.

very interesting BryneVampyr

But the majority of advances in The Age of enlightenment were made by Christians... so it depends on how you look at it.

Also, in general.. it is Christianity that spawned modern language around Europa... as well as societal advances... and the physcial sciences.

The list is from the book Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and invention in the middle ages. By Frances & Joseph Gies.

Reintroduction of the Heavy Plow (6th Cen.)
Improved Harness for harnessing in tandem (one ox behind the other).
The Harrow, The Scythe, pitchfork.
Reintroduction of the padded horse collar.
Introduction of the horse shoe.
The Netherlands building dikes, which would lead to better hydraulic engineering.
Benedictine Monks introduced strains of fruit that could withstand the cold. They also spread the watermill.
The heddle was introduced to weaving, which improved the loom.
The Stirup was introduced, when matched with the contoured saddle, knights were able to deal heavier blows in battle.
They also created the spurs and curb bit for horses.
Which lead to heavy armor.

Ninth century, the Castle was created.
Byzantine empire, reintroduced incendiary weapons.
Furnace were created. Introduction of the bellows.
Long sword was created.
Church bells
Chain mails was introduced or reintroduced and massly produced, as compared to ancient times.
The Lathe was reintroduced.

The Santa Sophia was created.
Basilica were created.
Romanesque style was introduced.

Benedictine Monks were scientist and technology teachers. Agriculture, stock breeding, forestry, metal working, glass making.

Plus other stuff, this is from 600-900 C.E.

Cool

"The middle ages (5th – 15th Centuries AD), often termed The Dark Ages, were actually a time of great discovery and invention. The Middle ages also saw major advances in technologies that already existed, and the adoption of many Eastern technologies in the West."

From this website:

http://listverse.com/2007/09/22/top-10-inventions-of-the-middle-ages/


It is true that knowledge was lost with the fall of the Roman Empire...however, scientific advancement certainly wasn't a flat line throughout the middle ages.

True, that is what the book I posted stated as well.

Why didn't this graph take into account the scientific advancements made by the Mayans, Aztecs, or Incas?

The graph was intended to show that Christianity regresses not improves society.

It is obvious a claim that most uniformed will buy into, but if one is informed on history, they will see it as bunk.

But you and someone else here pointed the same problem out, why not include others? I think that in itself is the prejudice.

lord voldemort wrote:

What do people think of this? I have a few books on this, I will have to go through them and see what they say.

I do not think the Dark Ages or Medieval Period of time was not as bleak as is it often portrayed. The black death or the plague often plays apart in this portrayal as the church did little to help the commoners. The thought of the day held by the church was that those suffering were not obeying God hence they were to suffer his wrath. In hind sight this now seems a little backwards and barbaric of a church that is suppose to be one of love and support. But again this was the thought of the day.

The Dark Ages actually were a time of great spiritual thinking and contemplation. Prayer, Mediation, and Fasting were the activities of the day! Thinking about Praying to and Praising God left time for anything else except the neccessities of life such as food, and food preparation, clothing and maintenance of ones dwelling. ( I would love to see Society get back to this Spiritual Discipline - My Pipe Dream LOL )

The Church was the most powerfull force in the world at the time and yes it probably had too much power and corruption did occur. The Church also controlled teaching at every level from Elementary to Unversity. The Age of Enlightenment is misunderstood. Since church controlled Art, Math, Music, and Science unless something pointed toward or was about God or the Trinity the church rule deemed it as an unnecessary teaching and in some instances as out right sin!

All that the term Age of Enlightenment really means is that Secular Thought was now being societally accepted as people moved away from the crown and the church to a move of more self governed and self point appointed rulers.

P.S. Graphs and Charts as well as other forms of Statistical Data can be manipulated to show what ever the creator of should device wishes to show! This is always important when reading Data.

Good points, dude.

from what i remember, in all honesty modern christianity was not responsible for the dark ages, what happened was the catholic church held outrageous beleifs like the earth was the center of the universe etc, and to prove them wrong on anything they beleived was a "sin" science was considered evil because it could possibly disprove their stupidity

like i have said many times, i have no issues with real christianity, but the catholic church is corrupt and stupid and has been for centuries[b]

wizardovmetal wrote:

from what i remember, in all honesty modern christianity was not responsible for the dark ages, what happened was the catholic church held outrageous beleifs like the earth was the center of the universe etc, and to prove them wrong on anything they beleived was a "sin" science was considered evil because it could possibly disprove their stupidity

like i have said many times, i have no issues with real christianity, but the catholic church is corrupt and stupid and has been for centuries[b]

Your bigotry is bordering on comical. The same for your misunderstanding of the Church.

First of all, it wasn't the Catholic Church who held this belief...it was everybody who believed this. Your statement is akin to saying "the Catholic church believes the earth is round". Of course it does. Everybody does. But it was not responsible for the belief. Same principle applied to the geocentrist belief of the time.

You may point out Galileo if you like, but he was not the first one to discover that earth was not the center of the universe. That would be Copernicus. What's more, Copernicus made his discovery known to the pope, and the Pope was astounded (in a good way) by his discovery. Unfortunately Copernicus did not make his discovery known to the wider public.

And then we have Galileo, who made the same discovery, but whose tone was accusatory and filled with aggression in his letter addressed to the Church.

Conclusion?

It was a matter of tone, and not facts, that made Galileo an enemy of the Church.

If I made a scientific discovery, but used language to suggest that it invalidated the Churches teachings, I wouldn't be suprised if the Church wasn't as receptive to my findings either.

Also your statement about Christianity and you not having a problem with it is a moot point considering many of your previous statements as well as the statements of the various sources you have provided.

End the Catholic bashing or I'll end it for you.

JeffdlS wrote:

End the Catholic bashing or I'll end it for you.

BTW, if the Catholic Church is so anti-science, explain St. Albertus Magnus.

BryneVampyr wrote:

At the time that Rome fell, Rome was Christian...if Christianity caused the stagnation in scientific advancement, then why didn't it start stagnating or declining before the fall of Rome?

The barbarians who conquered Rome were not exclusively Christian...many were pagan...so did the pagan influence of the Barbarians have an effect on the decline of scientific advancement?

My thoughts exactly. The flatlining also strikes me as a little biased.

the original graph never had the label on the christian dark ages and wasnt related to it, it was added by someone meaning the thing that says "gaping hole" or whatever the graph also had alot more information and statistics on it as well and mentioned something about sagan i dont remember

I have seen this graph before, I think DOL showed it to me. So, if anything, it is out there, giving the wrong impression, and the gullible will believe it as fact. Because it looks "impressive" and informative, and since not much is taught in school on the Middle Ages, most will accept the graph as fact.

I just find the term 'Christian dark ages' unusual -it's always been just the 'Dark Ages' in every reading I've done. The inference is that Christianity caused the dark ages -which is contentious at best and plain wrong at worst.

It is, it is done to disparage Christianity in the worst possible light.