Politics and Beliefs
Pages
| Author | Topic: Politics and Beliefs |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 21:00
Profile
Homepage
People have been trying to get individuals (by which, of course, is always meant "individuals other than themselves") to take responsibility for themselves since the beginning of recorded history. It's not going to work any better now than it has at any other time. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 21:21
Profile
quote:I meant for the individual to take responsibility for their own learning, I did not mean to imply anything other than this. From many of your other posts, it is obvious that you do so, and it is also painfully obvious that many of the members of these boards do so as well. If it is possible for some, then it is possible for others, also. The problem is that public schooling in the U.S. is geared in the opposite direction. While not everyone can "take responsibility for their learning", American public schooling, as it is now, does not encourage its students to do so. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 21:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:The trouble is that society consists of an awful lot of individuals, most of whom don't take responsibility for their own learning, and there is no effective way to encourage them to do so. I haven't always been this pessimistic; experience has made me this way. The simple fact is that there is very little that anyone can do to change the world for good or ill. Suppose that human life continues on earth for another billion years. Suppose that during this time, the average human lifespan is 100 years and the average global human population remains roughly stable at 10 billion. These numbers are of course slightly higher than current figures, but both seem reasonable and in fact conservative given the possibility of future advances in technology. Now, given those figures, the total number of humans who will exist between now and the extinction of humanity is one billion multiplied by ten billion divided by one hundred. That's one hundred quadrillion people, or 100,000,000,000,000,000. Is there anything you can do which would affect the lives of anything more than an utterly insignificant fraction of that number? [ Wednesday, October 12, 2005 21:39: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 21:44
Profile
*i says science is not faith under any traditional definition. Science is the process of understanding from direct observation, reasonable inference, trial and error. Faith is the process of belief in something in spite of any interfering observation, inference, or experiment. Science and faith are definitionally the opposite of one another. Logic has no place in faith, or it isn't faith. Maybe there are scientific factors to a belief system, but its premise is not subject to questioning or disproof. Faith is the belief in something in spite of any material evidence. Science is accepting properly understood evidence without reservation. Science cannot be faith, period. Faith cannot be science, period. A belief system can incorporate science, or current scientific understanding can be taken as an article of faith - the Catholic stance on the hypothetical tribesman is logical assuming its axioms are true, and one could perhaps stick dogmatically to a pre-quantum understanding of the universe despite all experimental evidence otherwise - but faith cannot be science and vice-versa. Specifically on ID: Intelligent design is a ridiculous parlor game, and is beneath the contempt of thinking people. At heart, it has no genuine intention except to deceive, and introducing it into our schools is the most damnedable fraud I can think of in the entire history of pedagogy in this country. Think about any other faith-based precept like this introduced into the curriculum! Anthropology? Racialist plurality! Given the diverse range of achievements and characteristics in the human race, it is disingenious to claim there can't be a master race! And we're not necessarily saying the Aryans. It could be any race! Social studies? Class-aware education! Given the historical level of class mobility, an understanding of the potential for an inborn caste system, the violation of which can be understood as an affront against humanity, is critical for young students! I could go on, but I'll spare you. You want to teach creationism - fine. Do it on your own time, and if you want the government to do it for you, don't try and dress it up like science to fool people. It's a belief; notwithstanding its validity, it has no place in a fact-based curriculum until it has been put through the rigor of scientific investigation and emerged successful. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 21:56
Profile
quote:Correction, currently there is no effective way to encourage them to do so. Also, you must keep in mind that public schools in America have not significantly changed in educational philosophy in nearly a century. The arguments of John Dewey and Neil Postman (of which the latter I haven't read) have yet to be integrated to any real effect. quote:I am well aware of this fact, and it is most undoubtably a fact. I used to think this way, and by some means I am not currently aware of, I turned into what you might call and optimistic pessimist. While there is no hope of affecting all of humanity, there is hope of affecting some of it. In actuality, this is the only real sort of power a mere human can hope to have; the power and reality of choice. And so the question becomes, not "Why do anything?", rather "Why choose to do nothing?". Disregarding semantics, answering the second question differs greatly from answering the first. The first question regards doing nothing as mere stagnating inactivity, while the second regards it as a conscious choice. The second question gives meaning to choice. Before I comment any further, is this how you look at the situation? Also, if you haven't read it already, you might find "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil very interesting. Although he does start to space out by the end. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 22:01
Profile
quote:I'd like to offer a slighty different view of faith. What you are describing I would call "blind faith"...faith without merit. Faith operating correctly is actually based upon experience. For instance, I believe in God and certain qualities of God because of what I have experienced in pursuit of knowing Who God is. He has given me sufficient personal experiences (evidence) to convince me He is worthy of my faith. I believe and trust because of what has already been given me and shown trustworthy to me in the past. Just as with a human being who wishes to establish trust. You have to prove yourself trustworthy. Is my experience something I can give as proof to someone else? Mostly not, or it will not be believed if I tell it. But that's not the point of the evidence or of the faith. It's just for me. Expecting faith in something or someone who offers no personally compelling or reliable reason to place the faith is foolishness. Even God does not expect that of anyone...blind faith based on hearsay evidence. [ Wednesday, October 12, 2005 22:06: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- [Insert Signature Here] Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 22:43
Profile
If you were to give some specific examples of your experiences, I'm sure someone on the boards would be able to explain them in scientific terms. You may have chosen to explain certain events as personal communications with your God, but that is but one interpretation. That difference is the crux of the argument surrounding ID. It is a personal interpretation and explanation. That may make it real on a personal level, but it does not make it factual. Much of this is based on how you were reared, in that a person from a nomadic tribe in Uzbekistan may have quite different interpretations for similar experiences. Typically, spiritual based interpretations have lost favor in the world, as is seen by the demise of Thor as the cause of thunder. But that nomadic tribesman may very well believe in a thunder deity based on personal experience. So what is the point of all this? Your attempt to justify belief has trivialized that very belief. It is more in line with the concept of faith to place your trust, without evidence, in someone elses power. It is what Indiana Jones did in his grail search when he had to cross that chasm on the invisible bridge. A leap of faith. I know I'm not one to blindly accept, and aside from the interesting story and anthropological clues I have little use for the Bible. If you chose to accept the story, and the belief system, that is fine by me, but don't try to explain it. Either you do a disservice to the belief, or I won't understand anyways. *this rant has been sponsored by galler's katzenzungen* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Wednesday, October 12 2005 23:44
Profile
quote:Here's where I run into a problem with that: plenty of people will swear up and down they have never had that experience. That's firm evidence that, if there is a God, experiencing that God is not a universal human trait. I really have no problem with faith being irrational, so please don't get defensive. Faith is basically irrational, because it's based on subjective experience. There's no God-o-meter someone can hook you up to to test your claims, and even if they're true there's no way to tell if they have any meaning for anyone or anything besides your personal sense of fulfillment. If you were to expose your beliefs to the full rigor of the scientific method, they would not hold up. There's honestly too little compelling objective evidence for the presence of God to establish a theistic belief system on a rational basis. Faith and science are two mutually incompatible lenses through which aspects of human life can be seen. Trying to marry the two is impossible in earnest and most often undertaken as a disingenious mincing of words. In short, your belief is valid and well-established as an article of faith, but as viewed through the eye of the scientific method it is deficient. I'd say that if you're unwilling to consistently apply reason - up to and including discarding your beliefs if they fail under scrutiny - attempting to rationalize personal beliefs is pointless at best and demeaning at worst. [ Wednesday, October 12, 2005 23:48: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 03:37
Profile
Homepage
Kernel, your public school experience was remarkably different from my own. The only difference between the public and private schools around were the religious aspect, quality of sports teams, and racial composition of the schools. The quality of the education was virtually the same - there were some very good public schools and some very poor private schools, and the reverse is true as well. A large part of the reason that students attend private schools is that their parents are unhappy with the social aspects of the public schools, rather than the educational ones. Parents afraid that their children will be attacked by the big scary black children and gangs at the public schools, or that there won't be enough religion there for them. Crazy, irrational fears that, in my opinion, harm the children by 'sheltering' them from what the world will really be like. Another reason that students attend private school is for the athletics. A lot of private schools offer scholarships for 'underpriveleged students', many of whom are excellent athletes. As a result, certain schools have great soccer, football, track, baseball, or basketball programs. Unethical? I certainly think so, but this comes from a former public school athlete. Some schools' only black students are those on the football and basketball teams. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 06:00
Profile
I'll second Drakey's post. The public school I attended did a great job in preparing students at the level they were motivated. Anything from blue collar job prep to Honors and AP courses, with the teaching staff to make it happen. Heck, I took 2 years of Latin in high school. The biggest factor was the demands made by the community and especially the parents. They were willing to pony up the tax assessment as long as the school produced quality educations. This was not a typical bedroom community, about 75% of my classmates had the financial means to attend private school with virtually no stress to the bank account. It may have been that type of competition that raised the level of my education to equal that of most private schools. The teachers are the focal point of any discussion on quality in education, but more important is the type of parents in the community, and what they demand of their children and their school in terms of educational opportunity. *this message sponsored by an anonymous teacher* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 06:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:No. Most emphatically, NO. Admission to a "good" university right out of high school is vastly over-rated. One can get a good education almost anywhere, brand-name school or not. quote:I agree. I was merely pointing out that not all schools force conformity. I felt that post was over-dramatic. Drakey: It's important to say that not all private schools are like that. I've heard that in some areas (New York, Los Angeles), the private school are virtually identical to the public schools except with fewer black people, but in the San Francisco area, the private schools are (with a few exceptions) immensely better than the public schools. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 06:42
Profile
Homepage
Also, in both states where I attended public school, tax money from all over the county was distributed to various schools all over the county. In New Jersey, poorer districts did not necessarily have worse schools - they got a lot of money from richer districts' tax dollars. In Maryland, the whole county was one large district, and the money was assigned where it was needed. The quality of the public school education was very good - many public schools had higher average SAT scores and more AP classes (more of every class, really) offered than private schools. My high school had its own TV station and a forensic science class. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 10:17
Profile
quote:Actually, I am in school in Maryland, and if you look anything like the picture you gave in one of the photo threads, then we may have gone to the same Middle School (Takoma Park Middle School), at least for a year. If it was you, then I don't believe we knew each other very well. quote:You seem to be missing my point. My point is that public schooling is flawed at an ideological level, that cannot be fixed with tax dollars or extracurricular activities. Also, my highschool has a TV station, and it may have had some sort of forensic club or something; I remember hearing something about it, but I can't remember what it was. Kelandon: Sorry if I was a bit over-zealous. I get a little erratic around 2:30 in the morning. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 10:17
Profile
Belisarius & Salmon: I think you're reiterating my own point largely. The basis for faith is by definition unscientific. Here is why—best I can explain it. The spiritual realm parallels the natural realm (or rather, vice-versa). There are natural faculties/senses which are counterparts of spiritual faculties/senses. The two operate on wholly different levels. There are spiritual faculties of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling, etc. We grow up focused on the physical faculties. When one is spiritually awakened and sensitized, whole new ways of experiencing, sensing, and knowing things come into play. It can't be shown, proven, or validated to or through the lower realm of the physical senses, precisely because it is operating on a completely different plane that doesn't cater to or relate to the physical senses. When the spiritual realm is experienced, there is a knowing, and vision, and natural faith that arises within the spiritual faculties. You can "know" that God IS. You can sense the nature of love in God. You begin to see many things in new ways. There is also a spiritual mind which thinks differently than our natural mind is inclined to think. It breaks the natural rules frequently. It is impossible for the natural mind alone to know or "see" God. It takes spirit to know spirit, flesh to know flesh. I am not implying that many who profess faith or belief are doing so out of the spiritual mind. It is more likely that even with a bit of spiritual awakening, we remain mostly in the realm of natural senses, and so all kinds of muddled mixtures of enlightenment and confusion result. The natural mind takes over again and analyzes the spiritual with its own abilities and gets it largely wrong. It requires diligent pursuit and growth to hope to learn to separate the mixture and spiritually see things as they are. It is a lifelong pursuit and well beyond any lifetime. Of course all this sounds quite loony until one actually has a spiritual experience which confirms to that person of the existence of that realm. That is why I say faith should not ever be based on nothing, not on a hope or a wish or natural imagination of God, but subsequent to the personal, spiritual delivery of that which is compelling to know there is a God, and a spiritual aspect to oneself. I will offer one outwardly demonstrative experience I had in my childhood which helped to confirm my faith, but it came long after I already possessed it. As a child, I had one leg about 1/2” shorter than the other, and it had caused me some back problems. This is common, in one of four births, as I recall....different leg lengths, usually it’s no big deal, but it will put some kind of stress on the bone structure. A teacher with a healing ministry, in this case, Christian, was in Seattle, and I went with my Dad to hear him. At the end of the talk, the man asked if anyone needed healing, and my Dad encouraged me to go up on stage and he told the man about my short leg. I was scared to death, not knowing what to expect. I sat down in a chair, and the man held my two legs out, and we could plainly see that the bottoms of my shoes didn’t line up at all...a half inch difference was there (it might have been more than that, but I don’t recall now). So, the man prayed for my leg to be restored. I was afraid because I’d never seen anything “miraculous”, and I was quite certain that my faith wasn’t sufficient, and that nothing was going to happen to me. I thought I would look like the foolish and unfaithful child on stage who wasn’t able to get a healing. The man prayed and I sat still. He was gently holding my feet by the shoes, legs extended straight out from the chair. Suddenly, my right leg felt incredibly warm and tingly in a wonderful way and I watched as my right leg grew out till it matched the other. I couldn’t believe it. When I went back to my chiropracter in a few days, he confirmed it, as he had been the one to first discover the problem. He wasn’t a believer of anything at that time, but later became one. This kind of healing is actually said to be quite common in healing ministries, fixing legs. Now, that’s my simple, straightforward account. You can say I’m lying, deluded, that there was a conspiracy, that the psychic power of this man healed me (which in a sense isn’t entirely untrue as I see how the spiritual realm works, but I don’t think those contending against faith here would place any more credence in the existence of psychic abilities which also don’t appear to follow any natural law.) My chiropracter who was entirely agnostic confirmed it had actually occurred. I consider this was a gracious act of love freely given to me, even despite my own lack of “faith” in the moment. I didn’t earn it. But I didn’t need that personal physical proof to believe in God. I already knew in my spiritual mind. This is how one can say they “know” God. Just as we know a person through personal experiencing of that person, we know God through some degree of spiritual experiencing of Him and His character. There is an endless depth to be known in God. We know a very little, whatever is given to us to know for now, but it increases as we, in faith, pursue that connection and experience. Just like married couples can keep learning new things about each other for their entire lives together. So, no, it’s not proof to anyone else but me, though it certainly affected others who witnessed it as well as my chiropracter. Is it science? Who cares? It’s not for the world to dissect. Science is of the natural senses and deals with the natural realm and its rules. There is spiritual proof and it operates on a higher level, and it is a uniquely personal experience. When you have one, you will know it, and no one and no thing can take it from you. Only then is it understood, but it can’t be imparted. It is designed to operate this way. It is a gatekeeper. Spiritual knowing is not given to the masses through outer proofs. It is given to the individual through personal inner experience. [ Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:36: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- [Insert Signature Here] Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 11:34
Profile
I am skeptical. An x-ray before and after the experience would be beneficial in giving some evidence to the rest of us. You are of course free to believe in whatever you want; unfortunately, you cannot expect people to believe you. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 11:52
Profile
There is no reason not to be skeptical. Skepticism is very healthy. You don't know me. I could be a pathological liar. I didn't mention the experience as a means of convincing or proof. It was in response to a request for an example of something personally more tangible than blind faith. But as I thought I made amply clear in the same post...it's not for you or anyone else. It was for me. I expect no belief at all based on what I said. -------------------- [Insert Signature Here] Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 12:44
Profile
I've been following the Dover PA evolution trial since it started last month, and frankly I think it is shameful. Intelligent design was initially an interesting philosophy akin to theistic evolution- that God operates through nature. However, creationists, smarting over the 1987 supreme court case that said they couldn't teach their religion as science, highjacked the term and made "intelligent design" into "creationism lite." ID is a scientifically vacuous as its predecessor, although with more Ph.Ds on its side. It's no surprise that the Dover trial centers around a textbook entitled "Of Pandas and People" that, prior to the 1987 court case, used the words "creationism" and "created" abundantly, but after the court's ruling, replaced all of the occurrences of these two words with "intelligent design" or "intelligently designed." The Dover school board first tried to have Of Pandas and People as the main textbook, but quickly changed their minds to requiring teachers to let their students know that the book was their and that it answered many of the faults of evolutionary theory. It's also no surprise that one of the proponents of removing evolution from biology textbooks (a fellow named Mummert) has described the response to this stance as quote:Who do you think is supporting this decision ;) ? It's also no surprise that the school board has consistently labelled anyone who disagrees with their view of evolution as "brainwashed by college-classes." Finally, it's no real surprise that a full 35% of the people who testified at the Kansas school board hearings on intelligent design are Young-Earth creationists, and 60% of the remainder were what are one might classify as Old-Earth Creationists. Only about 5% (1-2 people) actually admitted that evolution occurs. -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 14:02
Profile
It warms the cockles of my heart to hear such wonderous news. If only that 98% would start making themselves eligible for the Darwin Award, we might see some quick selective evolution AND intelligence may well reign "again." *this message deserves no sponsor* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 14:18
Profile
quote:Somewhat. The church provided a fertile ground for thoughts and ideas at first. Most of the prominent thinkers were churchmen. The classical era secrets were actually as often as not held more by the Moslems. But you seem to have restated my point. The church was(is?) a nonconservative(I don't mean political conservative) force on humanity. It resisted change, no matter if the change was into the abyss, or out of it.. but the Abyss could have been a lot deeper without it. For a physical example, take friction, there are lots of places that friction is quite useful(try driving your car without it) but there are immense amounts of situations that the removal of friction would be incredibly helpful. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 14:53
Profile
Homepage
Since the Creation/ID thing is still going, I thought I might mention that the Sydney Morning Herald (one of Australia's biggest newspapers) recently hosted a debate between Answers in Genesis and the Australian Skeptics on the issue. If anyone's interested, you can read it for yourself. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 15:07
Profile
Sorry Ash, I couldn't even get through the first section before my laughter disrupted the office. It's wishful thinking at best, rampant disregard of evidence at worst, and altogether is a danger to scientific advancement. Now that I've been exposed to some proponents of ID, I've got to wonder about the future of the world. *this message sponsored by looney tunes* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 17:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Most prominent thinkers were theologians, or at least philosophers. Science consisted of Aristotle. quote:"Nonconservative" makes sense with the example below, but I'd call the Church a conservative force because it led to "conservation" of science: no change. quote:The point you're trying to make has nothing to do with conservation or loss of energy and everything to do with the fact that friction opposes motion. The Church opposed scientific motion. Unfortunately, it opposed scientific motion from very close to the bottom of the ramp, giving science an uphill battle all the way. —Alorael, who doesn't think preservation of almost entirely theological knowledge in any way mitigates the damage done by suppressing Galileo and Copernicus. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 19:28
Profile
quote:Who were churchmen. (or women.. in the case of some of the 'mystics') And sorry about using the term 'conservative' in its scientific sense, it really was just too much to resist, even though it had very little to do with what I was trying to say. Should have known I couldn't get away with such shenanagins. In fact, a better physical example would be air resistance as it increases with the speed of change. I would argue that the church preserved more then just theology, the church was the real link between the old order and the new, and provided an authority that was desperately needed at the time. I find it funny that I can try to think objectively, not just ranting 'omg ebil liberal freaks' (typos intentional), admitting that there are many problems with conservative views, but even you 'open minded liberals' can't seem to admit that institutions like the church had/have any benefits for society. Any society has a power structure, and power requires manipulatation of the masses. Religion/superstition is one of the easiest methods to manipulate the uneducated. That it doesn't really work anymore doesn't mean it shouldn't have been used while it did work. The suppression of science was an attempt to retain that power, which can only be expected. If you were to try to impose the freedoms of todays societies on societies from the past, using only the resources in that time, you would have a situation bearing some similarities to Iraq of today. A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court explores this in some ways, but contributes the schemes failure to the infamous Church. I would suggest it is slightly more complicated then 'the evil church did its best to destroy all progress'. [ Thursday, October 13, 2005 20:02: Message edited by: AxB ] Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 13 2005 21:35
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think the point he was making is that theologians and philosophers don't really do much to advance the progress of science, and the church didn't really have too many scientists of its own. (And still doesn't, with a few exceptions such as the Vatican's observatory.) quote:If I read you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the church was good because it helped stabilise society. One has to wonder, though, whether the society the church arguably stabilised was worth stabilising, and indeed whether any society that needs a single politically powerful church in order to be stable is worth stabilising. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Friday, October 14 2005 00:12
Profile
Homepage
Religion doesn't advance science? It has. In the European middle ages the Christian church was the only source for those wishing to learn sciences. Maybe the church didn't come up with any new theories or expand scientific knowledge to any great degree. But it certainly maintained and taught what was already known. The Benedictine Monasteries were great centers of learning. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |