Why have Christians dragged down the world's culture so much?

Why have Christians dragged down the world's culture so much?

I think it's because they're a bunch of stupid cannibals.

Other urls found in this thread:

sys.Veeky
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Christianity began in the Roman Empire fag.

Yeah, it killed it and turned the Romans into a bunch of Greeks getting into civil wars over ikons.

And people are so much happier now that we're so scientifically advanced. Better to desperately try to make every pain on earth go away forever rather than focus on your own response to the pain, that's "life-denying" after all, LOL

that curve is a complete ass-pull

>the world's culture

>science is good because le material wealth xDDDDDD
kys

t. Useless religious ideologue

How the fuck are they even quantifying scientific advancment here?

>muh use
t. industrialist rapist

That graph is complete and utter bullshit, and the "Dark Ages" are a myth.

...

>what if the environment consensus though

What if the environment consents though

>measured in advancement cubits

It doesn't. Please stop

If it doesn't say no, that's a yes

thats one of the stupidest things i've ever seen

The Romans were not scientific at all. They and the Greeks lived in a world of myth and believed obscure mysterious explanations for natural phenomena.

The Catholic Church laid the foundations for modern science by banning alchemy and other hocus pocus and insisting scholars study the world as it is to understand Gods plan through nature. This led to the monastic dawn of the scientific method (Genetics was invented by a monk), until it ran into trouble with Darwin saying lol Gods plan is a struggle for violent supremacy.

There would be no scientific method without Christianity. The Romans and Greeks were great poets, historians, artists but they were really really shitty scientists. The autistic scientist stereotype came out of the medieval Catholic in his garden and study reading books

Ofc its no longer like that, but historically you are just wrong.

>alchemy and other hocus pocus

>Dude what the fuck are Germans lmao

why?

>They and the Greeks lived in a world of myth and believed obscure mysterious explanations for natural phenomena.
Except for all the philosophers who were using reason to try to ascertain the origins of the world.

>banning alchemy
[citation needed]
Alchemy was common practice until the 1600 hundreds when it was supplanted by actual science. The church did nothing to reduce or attempt to reduce its influence. In fact it is in large part because of the church that the influence of alchemy ever became so strong in Europe.

>and insisting scholars study the world as it is to understand Gods plan through nature
The church did the opposite of this. Figures like Bacon had to work against the state of academia in his time which thought that thought was superior to observation. It was by singular radical figures who birthed science against the stifling effect of the church.

>This led to the monastic dawn of the scientific
None of the early figures of the scientific movement such as Grosseteste, Bacon, and Copernicus had anything to do with monasteries.

>Genetics was invented by a monk
He was a monk who lived in the 19th century which has absolutely nothing to do with the dawn of the scientific method.

>The Romans and Greeks... but they were really really shitty scientists
Except how the beginnings of science in Europe are from translations of people like Aristotle back into Europe.

>The autistic scientist stereotype came out of the medieval Catholic in his garden and study reading books
No, it came from maverick individuals rebelling against what they saw was the stultifying effect of the Church which put reason and tradition above empiricism. What you are describing is literally the stereotype that the actual originators of science were arguing against.

OP knows only official history taught in schools.
Dark ages weren't dark at all, that's when people were actually living closest to God. Not that you will ever know the joy, heathen

allow me to fix this chart for y'all

t. took a couple of courses on the history of science

Yep, we would've had cellphones in the year 1000 if it weren't for those meddling Christians!

>posting the incomplete chart

Not him, but:
>Except for all the philosophers who were using reason to try to ascertain the origins of the world.
They were very much the exception rather than the rule, just like the church burning scientific books and jailing scientists were much more the exception than the rule
>Alchemy was common practice until the 1600 hundreds when it was supplanted by actual science. The church did nothing to reduce or attempt to reduce its influence. In fact it is in large part because of the church that the influence of alchemy ever became so strong in Europe.
The kind of alchemy you're talking about WAS actual science before the 1600's
>The church did the opposite of this. Figures like Bacon had to work against the state of academia in his time which thought that thought was superior to observation. It was by singular radical figures who birthed science against the stifling effect of the church.
They were actually king of in the wrong here though. In a lot of ways science took a step BACK with these people. The biggest problem was not church dogma but "dude Aristotle lmao"
>None of the early figures of the scientific movement such as Grosseteste, Bacon, and Copernicus had anything to do with monasteries.
They were standing on the shoulders of the schoolmen
>Except how the beginnings of science in Europe are from translations of people like Aristotle back into Europe.
This is legit pro-muslim propaganda. Aristotle was very well-known well before these people came around. In fact, his influence was holding back science more than anything.
>No, it came from maverick individuals rebelling against what they saw was the stultifying effect of the Church which put reason and tradition above empiricism.
Empiricism was huge withing monasteries. Think William of Ockham and friends.

ITT: the great men meme

kill yourselves

>christfag doesn't understand such a basic mathematical concept as exponential growth
Heh maybe if you were watching Rick and Morty instead of praying to your imaginary sky daddy you'd have an intimate understanding of science and logic such as that possessed by yours truly.

>scientific progress grows exponentially
brainlet

fucking catholics only laying the grounds for the most direct ancestor of modern colleges and universities and cultural institutions so solid they still last until today.

>They were very much the exception rather than the rule
The point he was making was the Greeks and Romans didn't help lead to science at all because they were superstitious. The fact that philosophers are an exception does not change the fact that it makes that poster wrong.

>The kind of alchemy you're talking about WAS actual science before the 1600's
Was a proto-science. The point user was making was that the church suppressed alchemy thus helping science to be born. This is wrong in that alchemy actually helped to lead to science and that the church made no attempt to curb its influence.

>The biggest problem was not church dogma but "dude Aristotle lmao"
"dude Aristotle lmao" was church dogma.

> In a lot of ways science took a step BACK with these people
Laying the groundwork for and applying the scientific method was a step back? Discovering that the earth orbited the sun was a step backwards?

>They were standing on the shoulders of the schoolmen
Whom they were reacting against because the 'schoolmen' were holding them back. It makes no sense to congratulate the parent of a great man rather than the great man just because one would not have existed without the other.

>his influence was holding back science more than anything.
This completely misses the point. The point was that user claimed that the Greeks were scientific. This is patently false considering Aristotle's empiricism . His influence has nothing to do with the fact that this statement by user is incorrect. Speaking of his influence he had both the effect of hindering science because of the church, and of helping it by being an example of the people who are working against the church.

>Empiricism was huge withing monasteries
You literally just said 'dude Aristotle lmao'. The church was for centuries a force opposed to empiricism and asides from select figures such as Ockham did little to contribute to it and much to hinder it. Ockham was very much an exceptional case, one who very consciously was working against monastic climate of the time. He is the exception that proves the rule. He is a man who had to work against the very institution he came from. It is of no surprise the of the people most important to development of science almost none of them were monks.

Which were only needed because they destroyed all the philosophical schools.

You are mistaking reasoning and deduction with science. Science rests on repeated observation while changing some conditions. The exact problem with the Greeks was they used reasoning and logic to try and reach conclusions, as opposed to trial by evidence. Personally I prefer reasoning but in terms of technological discovery etc the scientific method has been vastly superior.

Copernicus had a degree in Canon Law and was greatly respected for his understanding of it. Francis Bacon was a Protestant and never came into contact with the Catholic Church as far as I know. Grosseteste was a fucking bishop. The idea that these people (or any medieval people) were not influenced by Monastic life and Scholasticism is ridiculous.

In terms of the alchemy ban, it was issued by Pope John XXII in 1317 in the bull "Spondent quas non exhibent". It was not a blanket ban, but railed against practices such as turning lead into gold etc etc. This led to a shift in effort away from magical conversion style work towards detailed observations without an end goal. This later evolved into the modern method

Watch it mate, Carlyle will come get u

"dude Aristotle lmao" admittedly became very powerful after Thomas Aquinas, but what I'm saying is that the early monastic study of nature was what led to the scientific method.

No-one claims that by bringing back Plato Protestants have a particular role in bringing about a scientific revolution

You mention laying the groundwork, but an occultish belief in transforming metals into one another is absolutely not the groundwork of the scientific method. These men were interested in the same topics as scientists, sure, but the methods they use have a lot more in common with the Scholastics and monastic life than with alchemy.

I wouldn't say the Greeks were scientific

Still wrong, the 'history of science' is a nonsense construct.
Because they were bad

>The exact problem with the Greeks was they used reasoning and logic to try and reach conclusion
The Greeks lacked the framework to do something like real science (which can be said for everyone everywhere before maybe the 13th century Europe) but you can still see in the empiricism of Aristotle that for example the way he talks about animals it is clear that these are ideas he has come to by observing them. This is the sort of attitude that is picked up by later thinker that leads to science.
I think we need to set this straight before it leads to pointless argument. user said that the Greeks were scientific. If we use anything like what science means today then this is true, but it is true for as I said before pretty much everyone. It makes no sense to single them out so I assumed user meant that Greek thought had nothing scientific at all and could not lend itself towards science. This is what I was objecting to.

>Grosseteste was a fucking bishop
I am aware, but he is not of a monastery and his ideas ran against them. The claim I am arguing against is that monasteries are what created science. A christian who is not affiliated with a monastery make a contribution to science does nothing to further that claim. The same can be said of Copernicus.

>The idea that these people (or any medieval people) were not influenced by Monastic life and Scholasticism is ridiculous.
No one said that weren't influenced. To react against something is still to be part of that tradition. What I am saying is you can't give x the credit for what y did because there is a relationship between x and y especially in this case where is was a reaction against monastic thought and not a continuation of it.

>but what I'm saying is that the early monastic study of nature was what led to the scientific method.
This is far to vague a statement. I need to know what you mean by early monasticism. It makes me think of people 1700 years ago not something during the 13th century. Also I would be interested in any articles or summaries you can link to in regards to monastic study of nature. This is not something I am familiar with and it sounds very interesting.

>No-one claims that by bringing back Plato Protestants have a particular role in bringing about a scientific revolution
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why are you mentioning Plato and Protestants?

>You mention laying the groundwork, but an occultish belief in transforming metals into one another is absolutely not the groundwork of the scientific method
Alchemy is more than just changing metals about and is more than merely cultish. My knowledge of alchemy is not that great and in responding to both you and it looks like that he is correct in that alchemy after being banned (which I thought didn't happen) by Pope John XXII changed tact became the thing that turned into chemistry.

>I wouldn't say the Greeks were scientific
I addressed this in my response to the other poster.

>stoicism
>making huge advances to the field of logic
>nah let's ban them because they aren't christian

>stoicism
Absolute shit, the biggest shit on shit to ever shitxist.
>field of logic
More trash.
>logic is troo becuz its logical!!!
Real convinced

>More trash.
You can't have maths without logic and you can't have science or engineering without maths
so you are pretty much calling every advance that humanity has made in the last several hundred years trash. Which makes one ask what do universities do that makes you call them great if all the learning they produce is trash?

>logic is troo becuz its logical!!!
That's an epistemological statement. Whether logic is true/real or not is not something dealt within logic but rather epistemology.

logic didn't exist until Frege

>you can't have science or engineering without maths
you can t. Hartry Field

Oh look, a list of shit!
>STEMshit
>'advance'
Industrialist delusion
>Whether logic is true/real or not is not something dealt within logic but rather epistemology.
No summerchild, I'm referring to the necessity of logical statements, not the field of logic.

>No summerchild, I'm referring to the necessity of logical statements, not the field of logic.
Necessity for?

Hey man it's measured in very accurate "science units"

How about starting with the greeks and shutting the fuck up about things you don't know about dipshit

But you were just saying that the Greek philosophic schools were trash.

report non-literature threads
sys.Veeky Forums.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=10146776

Logic is necessary to make any sense of the statement
>logic is true
In fact, the statement is more accurately put as:
>logic is logical
An analytic a priori proposition, which supposes buzzword such as 'logic' and 'reason' to make sense of.

If this axiomatic proposition cannot be defended without presupposing some universality of its object, then there is no trusting it.
Put simply:
>A = A
Is not true without some other foundation. Axioms require axioms. Axioms which go beyond all possible understanding.

had no idea the dark ages meme was still around

1) I'm not him
2) Read a book nigger

>Axioms require axioms.
They don't by definition

Anyways come over to the coherentist side and stop worrying about this nonsense

They do though, 'definition' is still a logical claim.
>coherence
A logical system, which requires axioms, upon axioms, upon axioms.