The Atheism Poll

[big_dave]

Gah, I just did what I said I wouldn't.

But anyway, I never claimed that science developed as an off-shoot of Christianity. I'm sure if I typed out anything vague enough to suggest that I did, but I can't find it in anything that you've quoted.

I will go on thinking that as scientific, agnosticism and secular thought developed it was embedded in Christian institutionalism, and prior to that, Scholasticism - and as such it is almost always all in a dialogue with the Abrahamic discourses and narrative. Because you haven't shown me anything to the contrary.

You are just wrong about the Enlightenment being a dramatic, concerted break with the Middle Ages, when the reformation and played such dramatic role in its emergence. Along with religious politics and institutionalism. Protestant ideology and literature from the Reformation played an almost absurdly big part in Industrialisation and trade. This is just basic stuff. They weren't all atheist heroes.

[big_dave]

Gah, I just did what I said I wouldn't.

[steve]

Science does not proceed on the basis of the universe taking assertive action to prove a point. It proceeds on the basis of the experimenter conducting a test to extract information from the universe. If you can't design such a test then you are dealing with a question that is outside the realm of science, let alone casual observation.

i.e. God ain't your trick monkey, boy.

Falsifiable premise: Coelacanths are extinct
Look, here's a coelacanth we just caught in our net.
Oops, looks like we were wrong.

Falsifiable premise: No god
Look, here's god all stopping the earth and making it rain corncob pipes.
Oops, looks like we were wrong.

[Colonel Panic]

But anyway, I never claimed that science developed as an off-shoot of Christianity. I'm sure if I typed out anything vague enough to suggest that I did, but I can't find it in anything that you've quoted.

I was responding specifically to this statement:

I'm aware that Hinduism or Shinto were equally capable of leading to the scholarly inquiry that led to ideas like agnosticism, skepticism, doubt, etc. but they did not.

It happened that the religion of the culture that developed science, empiricism and postivism was Christianity.

That is absolutely wrong, and you've been arguing in defense of that erroneous statement for over 2 pages now.

I will go on thinking that as scientific, agnosticism and secular thought developed it was embedded in Christian institutionalism, and prior to that, Scholasticism - and as such it is almost always all in a dialogue with the Abrahamic discourses and narrative. Because you haven't shown me anything to the contrary.

You'll continue to be wrong then.

You are just wrong about the Enlightenment being a dramatic, concerted break with the Middle Ages, when the reformation and played such dramatic role in its emergence.

I never said any of that.

Science, positivism, secularism, atheism, etc. all existed prior to Christianity. Your eurocentric worldview might prefer to ignore that, but it doesn't mean you're not wrong about it.

[big_dave]

Science, positivism, atheism, etc. all existed prior to Christianity. Your eurocentric worldview might prefer to ignore that, but it doesn't mean you're not wrong about it.

There is a basic difference between what I am saying and what you think I am saying, or what you would like me to say. I'm not being an arsehole, but I do not recognise my words when you say I claim that Christianity should be thanked for Enlightenment, or when Gramsci claims that I believe that things are more true if more people believe them.

If you can honestly claim that empiricism and positivism, as well conceptualized atheism, existed prior to early Early Christianity then you are about as thunderingly wrong as someone could be. Saying this does not presuppose that Christianity is the root cause of any of those or that they could not have been developed independently. Neither is it a praise of Christianity.

Modern science and philosophy isn't an single, definite invention like fire or the wheel, its a model that adapts to whatever situation it is developed in. And modern science and philosophy developed in dialogue with Abrahamic discourses.

It's boring and exasperating to argue with someone who depends on mischaracterising your argument. The gulf between what you want me to have said, and what I actually said couldn't be bigger.

[Colonel Panic]

If you can honestly claim that empiricism and positivism, as well conceptualized atheism, existed prior to early Early Christianity then you are about as thunderingly wrong as someone could be.

Empiricism

Origin
The English term "empiric" derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the word "experience" and the related "experiment". The term was used of the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, who rejected the doctrines of the (Dogmatic school), preferring to rely on the observation of phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Origin

Positivism is philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authentic knowledge. Obtaining and "verifying" data that can be received from the senses is known as empirical evidence. Society operates according to laws like the physical world. Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected. Though the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of Western thought from the Ancient Egyptians to the present day, the concept was developed in the early 19th century by the philosopher and founding sociologist, Auguste Comte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Atheism

Classical antiquity
In Plato's Apology, Socrates (pictured) was accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods.
Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment. The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist", and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order. Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purely materialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity

[big_dave]

If you can honestly claim that empiricism and positivism, as well conceptualized atheism, existed prior to early Early Christianity then you are about as thunderingly wrong as someone could be.

Empiricism

Origin
The English term "empiric" derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the word "experience" and the related "experiment". The term was used of the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, who rejected the doctrines of the (Dogmatic school), preferring to rely on the observation of phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Origin

Positivism is philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authentic knowledge. Obtaining and "verifying" data that can be received from the senses is known as empirical evidence. Society operates according to laws like the physical world. Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected. Though the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of Western thought from the Ancient Egyptians to the present day, the concept was developed in the early 19th century by the philosopher and founding sociologist, Auguste Comte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

"Recurrent theme" and the origin of the word. Great. Try harder, I was talking about two specific schools of thought, not the vague definitions of the words or the vague history.

If I said "positivism" and "empiricism" in any other context, anyone would assume I was talking the two schools of thought which everyone uses them to describe, and not a "theme" in Egyptian thought that you got when you typed into Wikipedia.

Are you getting cross or something? Look at the link you posted:

Philosophers associated with empiricism include Aristotle, Alhazen, Avicenna, Ibn Tufail, Robert Grosseteste, William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Robert Boyle, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, Leopold von Ranke and John Stuart Mill.

Gee, a lot of names I wouldn't associate with learning institutions within Abrahamic religions. It's pretty clear what I meant here, right? I meant people that everyone calls empiricists.

When positivists were writing against religion, Christianity was the religion that they were writing against and it coloured their discussions. Had they been struggling against polytheism, polytheism would have coloured their vocabulary.

For example:

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

Here we are using work invented by Christians to conceptualise the behaviours and beliefs of someone in another culture. Surely I am being anti-euro-centric by pointing this out? Hinduist atheism is closer Christian agnostic theism than it is to de facto atheism.

[Colonel Panic]

Bullshit. You're waffling again.

The themes or concepts of Atheism, Positivism, and Empiricism all existed prior to Christianity. The fact that those concepts may have been called by different names and not lent the legitimacy of formal philosophical schools is irrelevant.

Why do you find it so difficult to admit you're wrong, even when it's been plainly indicated?

Talk about your dogmatic thinking. You've learned well from your theology studies, how to stubbornly avoid learning anything that conflicts with your indoctrinated beliefs.

[big_dave]

Bullshit. You're waffling again.

The themes or concepts of Atheism, Positivism, and Empiricism all existed prior to Christianity. The fact that those concepts may have been called by different names and not lent the legitimacy of formal philosophical schools is irrelevant

Nope. I was clearly talking about those schools of thought as we would know them now, I know they have histories in other models of the world, other schools of thought. I was also trying to discuss how everything we have from outside of the institutions of religion is coloured by whatever religion communicated or recorded it.

Fleeing to Wikipedia is pretty lame. It's like you're so dependent on the favourable definitons of words that you're fleeing to a dictionary.

Why do you find it so difficult to admit you're wrong, even when it's been plainly indicated?

Talk about your dogmatic thinking. You've learned well from your theology studies, how to stubbornly avoid learning anything that conflicts with your indoctrinated beliefs.

Haha. Keep telling me what I think, keep telling me what I actually said.

I was trying to be nice because I was enjoying this, there's really no need to be pricks to each other, is there?

[Colonel Panic]

You're arguing in circles.

The reason for using Wikipedia is for a quick go-to encyclopedia to reference commonly-known facts.

The reason for using a dictionary is because words have specific meanings determined by common usage. The attempt to abuse or redefine the meanings of words to bolster one's argument is a class of logical fallacies, including "redefinition" and "equivocation."

[big_dave]

The reason for using a dictionary is because words have specific meanings dictated by common usage. The attempt to abuse or redefine the meanings of words to bolster one's argument is a class of logical fallacies including "redefinition" and "equivocation."

Such as when I say Empiricism or Positivism, or the Scientific Method, I mean those things as they are taught and not the earliest possible scientific inkling of them. Anybody not trying to shoot me down in a five page messageboard argument would know what I mean and probably not equivocate over the meaning of the word if I said "most Empiricists were educated in either Islamic or Christian institutions"

You're the one doing this, not me. That is why you are frustrated by the argument.

You know, I think it is incredibly likely that complex mathematical and scientific schools of thought emerged in places like Egypt, models that are more complex than we know. But the thing is, there isn't really any evidence to assert that other than looking at the other contemporary achievements and inferring it. We have to go by what we know, and not just assume. Like when you post:

The fact that those concepts may have been called by different names and not lent the legitimacy of formal philosophical schools is irrelevant.

It is relevant because the legitimacy and formal nature of philosophical and scientific models dictate how they are taught, or even if they are taught at all. It also dictates how they are applied, by who, and why.

It is possible that we could discover that a Hindu wrote an equivalent to the works of Frege in the fifth century, buried it and showed it to nobody. This doesn't change my argument because I know that anybody can produce great work, regardless of where they are, but also because I'm talking about the application and practice, and the way in which the information was communicated to people. Applying and communicating ideas is an extremely expensive business when it comes to infrastructure and logistics, it also requires a lot of time and money. Otherwise the Romans would have built railways, escalaters, and started to efficiently mine precious metals - their infrastructure arrived too late, and by the time it did it was used by the evangelists of the early Church.

A Greek might have known about steam power, and some Phoenicans definitely suspected that they could navigate the oceans of a global world, but historically it was Protestants who colonized America and built railways in England.

So when if I said "the religion of the culture that had the technology to colonize North America was Christian", I'm not really saying anything extraordinary or supporting Christianity by pointing it out. In fact, I'm saying something so simple and obvious that it would be shocking if you had any problem with it at all.

[Colonel Panic]

Such as when I say Empiricism or Positivism, or the Scientific Method, I mean those things as they are taught and not the earliest possible scientific inkling of them. Anybody not trying to shoot me down in a five page messageboard argument would know what I mean and probably not equivocate over the meaning of the word if I said "most Empiricists were educated in either Islamic or Christian institutions"

As they are taught by whom? The Western Christian establishment that you regard as the end-all be-all of human learning?

So even though Empiricism existed in ancient Greece—even had a school of thought formed around it—you refuse to acknowledge that because it hadn't yet been formalized and endorsed by the theologians of the Catholic Church? And from that you extrapolate that Empiricism is therefore a product of Christianity?

Circular logic.

Even though atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek thought, you ignore that because you only acknowledge the Christian philosophers' methods as valid, then you claim on that basis that Christians invented it.

Again, it's circular logic.

The "Scientific Method" likewise has roots in pre-Christian classical thought, yet you refuse to accept it until some scientist who happened to be Christian formalized it, and on that basis you claim that Christianity invented it.

More of the same circular logic. You're committing a formal logical fallacy called affirming the consequent:

The classic form of the fallacy is:


If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.



Your argument is:


If Western Christian philosophers invented it, then it's philosophy.
It's philosophy.
Therefore, Western Christian philosophers invented it.

That's a formal logical fallacy because it only acknowledges the work of your preferred Christian schools of thought, and refuses to acknowledge that other earlier philosophers certainly addressed the same ideas prior to the Christians.

The concept of Positivism is known to have existed in antiquity as far back as the ancient Egyptians, you refuse to acknowledge that because it hadn't been codified by Chrsitian scholars.

But how do you attribute Positivism as product of Christianity? Medieval Christian scholars did not "formalize" that one. It was in fact founded by a 19th Century atheist Secular Humanist?

Remember what I said about confirmation bias? You're exemplifying it to a "T."

That is why you are frustrated by the argument.

I'm not frustrated at all. I'm simply astounded at the depth of your denialism and the willful ignorance you're displaying in these arguments.

You know, I think it is incredibly likely that complex mathematical and scientific schools of thought emerged in places like Egypt, models that are more complex than we know. But the thing is, there isn't really any evidence to assert that other than looking at the other contemporary achievements and inferring it.

You can also learn about their science by looking at their actual writings. The ancient Egyptians did write a lot of stuff down, you know.

The fact that those concepts may have been called by different names and not lent the legitimacy of formal philosophical schools is irrelevant.

It is relevant because the legitimacy and formal nature of philosophical and scientific models dictate how they are taught, or even if they are taught at all. It also dictates how they are applied, by who, and why.

So you're saying that those ideas weren't "real philosophy" until the Christians "formalized" them and taught them their way.

I'll give you one guess which logical fallacy that's an example of.

It is possible that we could discover that a Hindu wrote an equivalent to the works of Frege in the fifth century, buried it and showed it to nobody. This doesn't change my argument because I know that anybody can produce great work, regardless of where they are, but also because I'm talking about the application and practice, and the way in which the information was communicated to people.

We're not talking about anybody writing something and burying it in the ground.

You said that Christianity invented atheism, empiricism, and positivism. I cited a source that showed that all those concepts predated Christianity, and now you're arguing that they weren't legitimate philosophy until the Christian theologians got their hands on them. That's a "No True Scotsman" argument.

Applying and communicating ideas is an extremely expensive business when it comes to infrastructure and logistics, it also requires a lot of time and money.

Irrelevant.

Otherwise the Romans would have built railways, escalaters, and started to efficiently mine precious metals - their infrastructure arrived too late, and by the time it did it was used by the evangelists of the early Church.

This makes no sense. The steam engine devised by the Greeks was not a locomotive. The Romans did mine precious metals.

A Greek might have known about steam power

They not only knew about it, but they had proof-of-concept models and might have even used them to power other devices. They were known to be used as "temple wonders" public attractions intended to bring revenue to the religious shrines.

and some Phoenicans definitely suspected that they could navigate the oceans of a global world

They were known to have traveled pretty far down the coast of Africa, in fact.

but historically it was Protestants who colonized America

Did it never occur to you that some of these technological advancements might have resulted from some other factor than religion?

You keep on chalking science and exploration up to Christianity, a position which is demonstrably false. I've already shown that Christian theologians did not invent atheism, positivism, or empiricism.

I've already pointed out that the Middle Ages, the lowest period of scientific advancement in the history of Europe, coincided with the pinnacle of the Church's power. You were unable to name a single discovery that was not imported into Europe from China via the Middle Eastern trade routes, or had not already been known prior to the fall of Rome. That's because the Middle Ages was largely a period where little or no scientific examination was being done.

As the Church lost its grip over the politics of Europe, the science began to progress again. The real acceleration of scientific progress occurred well after the Enlightenment, which was a secular movement to reject religious and monarchic authority in favor of individualism and representational republic forms of government.

So when if I said "the religion of the culture that had the technology to colonize North America was Christian", I'm not really saying anything extraordinary or supporting Christianity by pointing it out. In fact, I'm saying something so simple and obvious that it would be shocking if you had any problem with it at all.

But that's not even what we were talking about, is it? Why do you keep insisting on hanging all these scientific achievements on religion, when many other factors were obviously more important?

You keep moving the goalposts to create room to score points for Christianity, but the points you're making are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Whenever I point out where you're demonstrably wrong about something historical, you simply handwave it away with some irrelevant special pleading, and then continue your incessant cheerleading for Christianity.

[big_dave]

This has become idiotic.

As they are taught by whom? The Western Christian establishment that you regard as the end-all be-all of human learning?

I never said that.

So even though Empiricism existed in ancient Greece—and even had a school of thought built up around it—you refuse to acknowledge that because it hadn't yet been formalized and endorsed by the theologians of the Catholic Church?

I didn't say that.

Empiricism in scentific philosophy and the Greek Empiric School are are two different things seperated by over a thousand years. Sure they are related, but I didn't say that they weren't. In fact, I typed a whole bunch about how Thomism popularized (and bastardized) Aristotle a few pages ago.

And from that you extrapolate that Empiricism is therefore a product of Christianity?

I did not. I said the religion of the cultures and institutions in which the most famous Empiricists worked was either Christianity or Islam, mostly Christianity. Elsewhere I said that there were older examples of empirical thought, but for over a thousand years if you wanted to learn them you needed to be taught them in Islamic or Christian institutions, or use materials from such.

Seriously. I didn't say anything even close to what you want me to have said.

Then you claim on that basis that Christians invented it.

I did not. Find those exact words in any of my posts any I will give you a thousand dollars.

In fact, find me using the word "invent" in this thread, to describe Christianity inventing anything and I will give you a thousand dollars.

This has all been you, not me. You. I haven't said or claimed any of this shit, and the shit you say that I have said gets more exaggerated with every new post.

The "Scientific Method" likewise has roots in pre-Christian classical thought, yet you refuse to accept it until the Christians start teaching it their way, and on that basis you claim they invented it.

I did not. Not even close.

Your argument is:

If Western Christian philosophers invented it, then it's philosophy.
It's philosophy.
Therefore, it was invented by Western Christian philosophers.

Not even close again.

You truly are making up shit that you have liked me to have said.

The concept of Positivism is known to have existed in antiquity as far back as the ancient Egyptians, you refuse to acknowledge that because it hadn't been codified by Chrsitian scholars.

So how do you attribute Positivism as product of Christianity? Christian scholars did not "formalize" that one. It was in fact founded by a 19th Century atheist Secular Humanist?

I picked Comte in my list of examples precisely because he produced a body of work trying to define secular humanism, and he did this by producing literature which defined it specifically against Christianity. Had he defined secularism against another faith, the vocabulary of his work would had been different. This doesn't mean that Christianity invented positivism, it means that Christianity lead to positivism because much of the text created by positivists was in reaction against Christianity specifically.

Remember what I said about confirmation bias? You're exemplifying it to a "T."

The arguments you are inventing are. You're free to keep inventing them.

You can also learn about their science by looking at their actual writings. The ancient Egyptians did write a lot of stuff down, you know.

I don't deny this.

So you're saying that those ideas weren't "real philosophy" until the Christians "formalized" them and taught them scholastically. Guess which logical fallacy that's an example of?

Where did I say that the Christians formalized them, and when did I use phrase "real philosophy"? You're getting as bad as Gramsci.

This is ridiculous.

You said that Christianity invented atheism, empiricism, and positivism. I cited a source that showed that all those concepts predated Christianity, and now you're arguing that they weren't legitimate philosophy until the Christian theologians got their hands on them. That's a "No True Scotsman" argument.

I did not. If you can find the statement "Christianity invented atheism, empiricism, and positivism" in my posts, you're as high as a kite.

This makes no sense. The steam engine devised by the Greeks was not a locomotive. The Romans did mine precious metals.

Duh.

You keep moving the goalposts to create room to score points for Christianity, but the points you're making are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Whenever I point out where you're demonstrably wrong about something historical, you simply handwave it away with some irrelevant special pleading, and then continue your incessant cheerleading for Christianity.

I'm actually amazed that you still think my posts are an argument for the greatest of Christian, and not just a statement of the relativism of scientific models and philosophical vocabulary. I thought that when I mentioned Comtes work, that would have made my point clear. I give up here.

I'm scratching my head at this point.

[big_dave]

Can we just stop here. At this point all I see are invented bullshit arguments that you are crediting to me as an excuse to keep typing.

I do not believe that Christianity invented science. If I said that, I am sorry that I did and you win the game. You have convinced me. If you want to post a " " in response or something, be my guest. Because you win!

But I still don't think that I said that. But I know what I meant.

[Colonel Panic]

What technological progress antiquity made seems almost arbitrary now - so huge leaps in building and drainage, but extremly primitive and brutal medicine, very refined mathematics but not so much logic before Aristotle.

But Aristotle was an ancient Greek who lived some 600 years prior to the ascendance of Christianity in the Roman Empire!

Contrary to what you've been saying, science, empiricism, positivism and atheism are not products of Christian thought.

Besides that, it's frankly ridiculous how you've been dismissing of the achievements of classical and ancient civilizations in favor of the comparatively narrow accomplishments of medieval Christian Europe.

While it's true that some classical Greek inventions were used as mere toys, "temple wonders" or demonstrations of intellect (like clockwork cogs and gears, for example) they were also utilized for practical purposes, for example the Roman taximeter. The Greeks and Chinese independently invented the windmill, waterwheel, and other basic industrial mechanics. The so-called Antikythera Mechanism, for example, demonstrates that the ancient Greeks had not only a deep understanding of astronomy, but also the technical facility to build mechanical devices capable of predicting the positions of the planets and stars.

All the ancient Chinese inventions I mentioned on the previous page (with the exception of explosives, kites and hot air balloons) were put to widespread practical use.

The Romans did have, and did implement crop rotation. That much is known. The concept of rotating crops was not an invention of the Middle Ages. The medieval farmers might have expounded on the idea and discovered through trial and error that certain crops work best in rotation with other crops, but there was very little understanding or apparent curiosity about the science behind it.

The thinkers of antiquity had a clear understanding of the concepts of empiricism and positivism (observing the Universe for empirical, measurable evidence, and putting one's ideas to the test against objective standards) even though those ideas might not have been formally codified and taught as distinct "philosophies" within a religious ideological framework. Therefore, it's wrong to credit those ideas to the influence of Christianity as you've been doing.

[big_dave]

I think your dismissal of classical and ancient Asian civilizations in favor of medieval Christian Europe is totally unwarranted.

Keep wasting your time typing, I am not doing this. Christianity preserved and popularized what we have now. I have never claimed that it invented any of it, or that it is a requirement for it, or that those discoveries couldn't have been made independently. Seriously, I'm not saying that.

Thank you for telling me what the Antikythera Mechanism is, because I never had a picture book of Amazing Mysteries! when I was nine years old.

At this point I am just willing to admit that I am an insanely bad communicator to get you to stop wasting your life by replying to assertions that were only made by me in your head.

The thinkers of antiquity had a clear understanding of the concepts of empiricism and positivism (observing the Universe for empirical, measurable evidence, and putting one's ideas to the test against objective standards) even though those ideas might not have been formally codified and taught as distinct "philosophies" within a religious ideological framework. Therefore, it's wrong to credit those ideas to the influence of Christianity as you've been doing.

This is basically the only thing we really disagree on.

I am saying that things like positivism and the scientific method are just models we have, and they change dependent to the culture in which they are situated. So naturally our positivism and scientific method is coloured by our Christian history.

Positivism, the compass, mathematics, agriculture, empiricism, etc. aren't like single, discreet XBox Achievements that are unlocked by different people as they progress. They're adaptive and reflexive models. So it is important to look at the epistemology and history of different models of the world, which are contingent. In the Western world that means the part that Christianity played, positive or negative. Like, Thomism did more to popularized Aristotle than anyone had done before, but the Thomist Aristotle is bastardized.

[Colonel Panic]

Contrary to what you've been saying, science, empiricism, positivism and atheism are not products of Christian thought.

Keep on backpedaling and you'll find yourself all the way back on page 1.

[big_dave]

Contrary to what you've been saying, science, empiricism, positivism and atheism are not products of Christian thought.

Are you taking the piss now, I did not say that. You're free to think that I did, but I didn't.

on Atheism and secularism, because until relatively recently the vast majority of secular literature after the Reformation was written in response to Christianity, and not just religion in general. But this is semantics, the difference between Agnostic Theism and Atheism means nothing to an Indian or African who doesn't believe in God.

Keep on backpedaling and you'll find yourself all the way back on page 1.

I can't wait until Christianity invents the Time Machine so that I can go back and not post in this thread.

[Colonel Panic]

Positivism, the compass, mathematics, agriculture, empiricism, etc. aren't like single, discreet XBox Achievements that are unlocked by different people as they progress.

I never argued they were anything of the sort. My point of bringing up inventions was to point out that under the strict ideological dominion of the Church and the constant political power struggles of warlords, medieval Europe progressed very little in the way of science. One would be hard-pressed to think of even a handful of scientific achievements that came out of that environment, outside of military technology.

So it is important to look at the epistemology and history of different models of the world, which are different. In the Western world that means the part that Christianity played.

Except that you're ignoring the models of most of the rest of world history outside that of Western Christianity.

[big_dave]

I never argued they were anything of the sort. My point of bringing up inventions was to point out that under the strict ideological dominion of the Church and the constant political power struggles of warlords, medieval Europe progressed very little in the way of science. One would be hard-pressed to think of even a handful of scientific achievements that came out of that environment, outside of military technology.

The establishment of the first modern university campuses and the insitutionalization of teaching outside of monastries proves that you are wrong. The ideological domination of the Church was also not at all consistent, due the military power struggles the Church was could foster learning and relative prosperity in one area while brutalizing in another, and then revert as soon as the next autocrat took the reigns.

The medieval period is not the dark, ignorant period you might imagine it to be. They might have been popularizing things already discovered and invented, but the range and extension of medieval teaching and the Islamic Golden age are both historically significant achievements.

You might scoff at it not being "science" but the large amount of manuscript and text produced during that period was also a historically significant achievement.

Except that you're ignoring the models of most of the rest of world history outside that of Western Christianity.

Because I was talking about the world today, our culture and discourses. I would not expect a non-European to know or care.

Our scientific method was filtered through Islam, Thomism and Descartes.
Our history of education involved mass public demand for access to the Gospel.
Our Liberalism has roots in the reformation.
Our democratic methods have roots in the rejection of the idea of Divine rule.
Our way of expressing individual rights involve some vocabulary once used to describe a person's individual accountability to God.
Our secularism was written mainly in response to Christianity.

If I'm talking about the influence of Augustine and Kierkegaard on Wittgenstein, it doesn't matter if someone else developed a very similar model uninfluenced by theology, because the one at hand is the one that I am discussing. Noting how theology leads to other things is not as statement that only theology leads there - and this seems to be the hurdle that is snagging you.