Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[Herman]

Aristotle held, in regard to the natural world, pagan ideas: that the Heavens were itselves divine; that celestial bodies were animated, incorruptible and eternal; that their motion were caused by something similar to animal desires; that they had influence over the fate of the individuals. (Coincidentally --- or rather not --- besides being pagan these ideas are patently false as well).

Now, the Judeo-Christian theology says something completely different: that the Heavens were created at a specific moment in time; that they are not divine; that they are inanimated, corruptible and will have an end; that their motion is caused by God setting them in an orderly motion; and that they have no influence over the individuals. (Coincidentally --- or rather not --- besides being Judeo-Christian these ideas are also scientifically true, the God part notwithstanding).

(Aristotle held yet more false ideas, such as heavy bodies fall faster than light ones, or organisms are spontaneously generated, but these were not in manifest contradiction to Christian theology).

Now, those Aristotelean views were rejected (most vigorously by Etienne Tempier, bishop of Paris) on strict theological ground, specifically because they were at variance with the Christian doctrine regarding the natural world --- not because they were scientifically unsound. And having been rejected, they made way for the orthodox ideas which assisted the birth, and nurtured the childhood, of rational-empirical science.

It looks like you're approaching this from the wrong end. It's not about the answers that are being given (in the Bible and by Aristotle), but about the questions being asked.

The creation story in the Bible has no scientific aims whatsoever. It's just a standard religious creation story, as there were so many. Aristotle's hypotheses on the nature of the universe may have been wrong, but what he (and many other Greek philosophers) should be credited for is that he was seriously wondering about the way things were constructed, and setting up categories to attack the problem. In that way Aristotle was in fact a seminal figure in scientific thinking.

In some ways your approach is emblematical of this whole discussion: some people start with the answer (Christianity is my team!); some people start with the wuestions.

[Florestan]

The creation story in the Bible has no scientific aims whatsoever.

True. But what you and others fail to see, or rather don't want to accept, is that this story prompted many who believed it to investigate the created world in a programatically rational and empirical manner, while other stories did not have this effect. One may argue in fact that this is the only story that ever had this effect, but to no avail for those blind themselves voluntarily.

Aristotle's hypotheses on the nature of the universe may have been wrong, but what he (and many other Greek philosophers) should be credited for is that he was seriously wondering about the way things were constructed, and setting up categories to attack the problem.

"Seriously wandering about how things works" and "setting up categories to attack the problem" is not enough to have science (actually, even a Siberian shaman does exactly that). What is needed is first and foremost a firm faith in the rationality and comprehensibilty of the world and then a scientific method, i.e. empirical data collected in a careful manner, hypotheses about their ordering and experiments to validate or invalidate the self-same hypotheses. These last Aristotle lacked conspicuously.

In that way Aristotle was in fact a seminal figure in scientific thinking.

So seminal that those who clinged to his categories and pronouncements were scientifically sterile all along. In fact science gave a lie to almost everything that Aristotle held as true in the natural realm, particularly his physics and astronomy being either flawed or utterly absurd. On the other hand, he had it right about some biological issues --- and this precisely because in this field he relied on direct observation rather than on metaphysical presupositions.

The only pre-scientific field where Aristotle was completely succesful and which had an enormously beneficial impact on science was his logic. This is no small accomplishment, to be sure.

[Florestan]

Two Amazon reviews who factually refute this book.

1. Gavin Menzies is a charming, seductive, inventive story teller, but his book is just an elaborate literary hoax, and belongs on the fiction list.
Gavin claims he has real, tangible evidence. Not true. Just check out for yourself some of the sources he cites. His own sources do not support the claims he makes.

For example, at pp 201-2(hardcover) Gavin writes of a pulley "for hoisting sails" found on the beach at Neahkahnie, Oregon, about 60 miles south of me. I drove down there and spoke with the curator of the Tillamook County Pioneer Museum. He had talked with Gavin in 2002 and Wayne told Gavin the pulley had already been carbon dated (in 1993) to 1590; and, the wax was beeswax for candles, prized and common cargo for the Spanish trade galleons that traveled between the Philippines and the west coast of North America, on a regular basis, between 1564 and 1815. The pulley was from one of those Manila galleons. In his book (page520) Gavin lists as a source "Tales of the Neahkahnie Treasure", prepared by the Nehalem Valley Historical Society Treasure Committee, 1991, published by the Tillamook County Pioneer Museum. It clearly states (p5) the beeswax, not as Gavin states "paraffin wax" a hydrocarbon product, had been carbon dated to 1681. Further, a pollen study of the beeswax had revealed its source was northern Luzon in the Philippines where there was a certain variety of shrub the bees visited for pollen.

Gavin ignores the inconvenient facts, hides them from the reader, and writes as if he is just waiting for the lab to confirm the finding of some possible real Chinese evidence. It's not possible, as Gavin well knows, the lab work has long since been done and it does not fit his time frame.

For another example consider the Bimini road story. Gavin devotes a short chapter to this (pp265-277). The Bimini road is a long standing hoax in its own right. Gavin claims all the experts agree it is man made. Not true. He only cites one "expert", David D. Zink, who was not a scientist, rather a former English teacher, a Cayce discple, intrigued with megalithic (big rock) structures and with the origins of myths. All the real experts know it is a natural geologic formation. Just by coincidence I noticed a timely article by Dr. Eugene A. Shinn, a geologist with USGS, in the Jan/Feb 2004 Skeptical Inquirer, pp38-44; "Natural submerged beachrock off the island of Bimini in the Bahamas has been deemed a remmant of Atlantis by the faithful since the 1960s. In spite of geological research demonstrating the stones are natural, 'true believers' continue to be drawn by the strong 'force field'." Take a look at that article and see if you can still believe the nonsense Gavin writes.

I could go on and on. Open any page and you will encounter nonsense. Gavin cites sources to be sure, but, if you take the time to read the claimed source material, you will invariably find it doesn't support what he writes. Gavin is desperate for some real, tangible evidence, and he simply ignores or misstates his own source material, and writes whatever he wishes, whatever he thinks may convince the reader his grand fantasy is true.

The book is a hoax and belongs on the fiction list.


2. I am Australian. I know something about Australia. My judgement of the rest of the book is based on what the author says about something I know.

The Author says the 15th Century Chinese could have called in south-western Australia (near modern Bunbury) for the fruit growing amply there. There was NO fruit there until planted after white settlement in 1829.

The book refers to the "Koala bears" abundant in south Western Australia. There are NO koalas in Western Australia.

Also to the populations of "Quokkas" (A type of wallaby) and fairy penguins allegedly abundant in south Western Australia. Quokkas are found on one or two small islands and in tiny pockets on the mainland. They are not abundant.

The book says modern Perth and Fremantle are seperated by the estuary of the Swan River. Fremantle is the port at the river's mouth and Perth the commercial capital about 10 miles up-river. They are no more seperated by the river than Richmond is seperated from Greenwich by the Thames.

Turning to the Eastern States, the book says there is a variety of valuable minerals at Newcastle, north of Sydney. The only such mineral at Newcastle is coal.

He also says there are diamond mines near Sydney. There are not.

Etc.

Etc.

If I find the parts of this book dealing with a subject I know something about to be absolute rubbish, it does not increase my condfience in the rest of - any of the rest of it.

Where was the publisher's fact-checker or copy-editor?

[Herman]

"Seriously wandering about how things works" and "setting up categories to attack the problem" is not enough to have science (actually, even a Siberian shaman does exactly that). What is needed is first and foremost a firm faith in the rationality and comprehensibilty of the world and then a scientific method, i.e. empirical data collected in a careful manner, hypotheses about their ordering and experiments to validate or invalidate the self-same hypotheses. These last Aristotle lacked conspicuously.

"A firm faith in the rationality [...] of the world"?

I'm sorry, this may be a slip of the pen (so to speak), but I don't think any evolutionary biologist, for example, believes evolution was a rational process, nor do astrophysicists regard the big bang as an event with a rationale behind it.

Your use of the word "faith" is also telling.

[mozartsneighbor]

Two Amazon reviews who factually refute this book.
Where was the publisher's fact-checker or copy-editor?[/i]

Thanks for bringing that to light. I read the book when it came out and wasn't aware that its main thesis had been since debunked. In fact, I was now reading about it and it has been debunked not only in amazon reviews, but thoroughly by professional historians.

However, those same professional historians do not question what had already been established by Admiral Zheng He's voyages in the early 1400s, and which Mr. Menzies apparently decided to groundlessly embellish upon: Zheng He's fleet did pass through most of South East Asia, did reach India, reach the Arabian Peninsula, and visit a great many places in the East Coast of Africa. This has been agreed upon by most historians before Mr. Menzies came along. Some historians think he might have crossed by Cape of Good Hope and reached the Atlantic Ocean on one of the voyages -- there is some evidence to indicate it but it has not been conclusively proved.

This still makes these expeditions highly relevant to the question, which was: Could China have had a scientific revolution like Europe's or close?

Even if Zheng He only reached the East Coast of Africa it still shows the Chinese were capable of undertaking maritime navigation across very long distances. As we know, European navigation and "discovery" of the world were very important factors in leading to the Scientific Revolution. Therefore, what I was trying to demonstrate was that the Chinese, had the next emperor chosen to continue their expeditions, might also have partaken from those same conditions that gave vital impulse to the Scientific Revolution.

[Florestan]

I don't think any evolutionary biologist, for example, believes evolution was a rational process

A process not being rational means that it has no apparent cause, it obeys no laws, it occurs randomly, it could have occured any other way than it actually did or it could have not occured at all. Do you mean to imply that this is the case with evolution?

nor do astrophysicists regard the big bang as an event with a rationale behind it.

Some of them do, some of them don't; but I doubt you'll find a single one of them that douibts the rationality of the Universe's physical behaviour after Big Bang.

Your use of the word "faith" is also telling.

I could have used "belief" instead but I'm afraid you would have stomached it as bad. Frankly, I'm surprised you can't see such an elementary thing, that in order to set about finding the laws that govern nature you must first believe that these laws exists.

Do you really believe that Kepler of Galilei or Newton began their endeavours not knowing what they'll find (i.e, some laws of the nature)? Do you really believe that they said about their research : "OK, let's just do it, and we'll see if it avails to anything; maybe there are laws, maybe there aren't"? (Pun intended)

[Herman]

A process not being rational means that it has no apparent cause, it obeys no laws, it occurs randomly, it could have occured any other way than it actually did or it could have not occured at all. Do you mean to imply that this is the case with evolution?

I think your use of the word rational is not the same as mine. A process having a rationale means there is a purpose to it.

And, yes, aren't there plenty of evolutionary biologists who accept that evolution could have occurred any many other ways?

[Florestan]

I think your use of the word rational is not the same as mine. A process having a rationale means there is a purpose to it.

Yes, I was perfectly aware of the fact that you were confusing "rational" with "having a rationale".

And, yes, aren't there plenty of evolutionary biologists who accept that evolution could have occurred any many other ways?

Could have, yet have not. It seems that we have not only contrafactual history but also contrafactual evolution.

[Herman]

Yes, I was perfectly aware of the fact that you were confusing "rational" with "having a rationale".

For instance. "You're behaving irrationally" doesn't mean "I don't understand it." It means "there's no rationale to your behavior."

[karlhenning]

Dang; you mean this revisionist history is just another Faith-Based Initiative? 

Two Amazon reviews who factually refute this book.

1. Gavin Menzies is a charming, seductive, inventive story teller, but his book is just an elaborate literary hoax, and belongs on the fiction list.
Gavin claims he has real, tangible evidence. Not true. Just check out for yourself some of the sources he cites. His own sources do not support the claims he makes.

For example, at pp 201-2(hardcover) Gavin writes of a pulley "for hoisting sails" found on the beach at Neahkahnie, Oregon, about 60 miles south of me. I drove down there and spoke with the curator of the Tillamook County Pioneer Museum. He had talked with Gavin in 2002 and Wayne told Gavin the pulley had already been carbon dated (in 1993) to 1590; and, the wax was beeswax for candles, prized and common cargo for the Spanish trade galleons that traveled between the Philippines and the west coast of North America, on a regular basis, between 1564 and 1815. The pulley was from one of those Manila galleons. In his book (page520) Gavin lists as a source "Tales of the Neahkahnie Treasure", prepared by the Nehalem Valley Historical Society Treasure Committee, 1991, published by the Tillamook County Pioneer Museum. It clearly states (p5) the beeswax, not as Gavin states "paraffin wax" a hydrocarbon product, had been carbon dated to 1681. Further, a pollen study of the beeswax had revealed its source was northern Luzon in the Philippines where there was a certain variety of shrub the bees visited for pollen.

Gavin ignores the inconvenient facts, hides them from the reader, and writes as if he is just waiting for the lab to confirm the finding of some possible real Chinese evidence. It's not possible, as Gavin well knows, the lab work has long since been done and it does not fit his time frame.

For another example consider the Bimini road story. Gavin devotes a short chapter to this (pp265-277). The Bimini road is a long standing hoax in its own right. Gavin claims all the experts agree it is man made. Not true. He only cites one "expert", David D. Zink, who was not a scientist, rather a former English teacher, a Cayce discple, intrigued with megalithic (big rock) structures and with the origins of myths. All the real experts know it is a natural geologic formation. Just by coincidence I noticed a timely article by Dr. Eugene A. Shinn, a geologist with USGS, in the Jan/Feb 2004 Skeptical Inquirer, pp38-44; "Natural submerged beachrock off the island of Bimini in the Bahamas has been deemed a remmant of Atlantis by the faithful since the 1960s. In spite of geological research demonstrating the stones are natural, 'true believers' continue to be drawn by the strong 'force field'." Take a look at that article and see if you can still believe the nonsense Gavin writes.

I could go on and on. Open any page and you will encounter nonsense. Gavin cites sources to be sure, but, if you take the time to read the claimed source material, you will invariably find it doesn't support what he writes. Gavin is desperate for some real, tangible evidence, and he simply ignores or misstates his own source material, and writes whatever he wishes, whatever he thinks may convince the reader his grand fantasy is true.

The book is a hoax and belongs on the fiction list.


2. I am Australian. I know something about Australia. My judgement of the rest of the book is based on what the author says about something I know.

The Author says the 15th Century Chinese could have called in south-western Australia (near modern Bunbury) for the fruit growing amply there. There was NO fruit there until planted after white settlement in 1829.

The book refers to the "Koala bears" abundant in south Western Australia. There are NO koalas in Western Australia.

Also to the populations of "Quokkas" (A type of wallaby) and fairy penguins allegedly abundant in south Western Australia. Quokkas are found on one or two small islands and in tiny pockets on the mainland. They are not abundant.

The book says modern Perth and Fremantle are seperated by the estuary of the Swan River. Fremantle is the port at the river's mouth and Perth the commercial capital about 10 miles up-river. They are no more seperated by the river than Richmond is seperated from Greenwich by the Thames.

Turning to the Eastern States, the book says there is a variety of valuable minerals at Newcastle, north of Sydney. The only such mineral at Newcastle is coal.

He also says there are diamond mines near Sydney. There are not.

Etc.

Etc.

If I find the parts of this book dealing with a subject I know something about to be absolute rubbish, it does not increase my condfience in the rest of - any of the rest of it.

Where was the publisher's fact-checker or copy-editor?

[Florestan]

For instance. "You're behaving irrationally" doesn't mean "I don't understand it." It means "there's no rationale to your behavior."

Allow me to give you two concrete examples in order to clarify my use of the words.

1. An irrational process with a rationale behind it: some cases of suicide.

Irrational because:

a. It has no apparent cause --- I've had dinner with John just the other night and this morning I read in the newspaper he hanged himself.

b. It obeys no laws --- I can't certainly tell that the next suicider will also hang himself; actually, the last man who committed suicide before John did, used a gun.

c. It occurs randomly --- I can tell neither when and where the next suicide will occur, nor who will commit it.

d. It could have occured any other way --- John might have shot or drown himself instead of hanging himself.

e. It could have not occured at all --- John might  have gave it up in the last minute.

Yet it has a rationale behind it --- John's despair over his bankruptcy, or over his breaking away with his girlfriend or simply a mental breakdown; whatever it is, there is something behind it that made it happen.

2. A rational process with no rationale behind it: the modus operandi of the Universe according to modern atheist or agnostic scientists (I stress modern as different from post-modern)

Rational because:

a. It has an immediate cause --- no physical, chemical or biological process occurs in a vacuum; it has behind it a whole chain of events pointing all the way back to Big Bang.

b. It obeys certain laws --- for instance, Energy and Mass Conservation Law, Boyle's Law, Newton's Second Law, Kepler's Laws etc.

c. It occurs in an orderly, i.e. not randomly, manner --- one can certainly tell when and where the next Sun eclipse will be visible on Earth.

d. It could have not occured any other way --- given the same conditions and causes, they will always result in the same effects.

e. It's impossible that it could not have happened at all --- once put in motion, the whole process goes on without interruption.

Yet it has no rationale behind it --- one cannot tel why things are like that and who or what made them that way or even if that who or what exists at all (agnostic) or, one can certainly tell there's no who or what behind them and they had no reason to be the way they are (atheist).

That's what I meant.

[mozartsneighbor]

     The best results in politics and ethics have been produced by people who have treated the truth and good as things which must be discovered, analyzed, debated and decided upon. This is a messy, error-filled process without supernatural or logical guarantees. It's the approach of democratic politics and open societies, which requires restrictions on the ability of religion to torment people generally and even their own followers to some extent. It has been so successful as a strategy that Christians now wish to take credit for it, as you see here. I'll be glad to give them credit for everything they are responsible for, but it's a package deal.

That is very well put. That some Christians now wish to take credit for these things is at best an iffy enterprise and at worst completely preposterous.

The attitude of these posters here is itself a convincing proof that the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment did not derive from Christian values: these posters completely flout the basic principles of these movements in their reasonings. They assert ideas that are highly convenient to them and offer as only proof basic correlations by saying that the Scientific Revolution occurred in the same geographical area as the presence of Christianity. That correlation is not causation, a basic principle in dealing with any scientific analysis, apparently holds no importance to this crowd.

The Scientific Method and Revolution were based on rejecting conveniently easy answers (faith), and embracing doubt and skepticism as the way to a greater understanding of reality. It looked at empirical data, formulated a provisional hypothesis, and then tested it again and again. Knowledge was reached not by accepting dogmas, but by questioning and examining repeatedly what the scientists thought might be the explanation.

One of the later offspring of the Scientific Revolution was psychology. One of the most interesting features of the human mind that psychologists have again and again observed is our tendency to see what reinforces our beliefs and our self-convenient ideas. Religious belief is the very definition of this feature, for what more convenient idea could there be -- that for adhering to a certain set of beliefs you will not face death and oblivion, but that you are instead one of the elect who has seen divine truth and will therefore live for eternity in bliss.

Another self-convenient belief for Westerners is to believe Western civilization was pre-destined to superiority. I am a Westerner and an European who closely identifies with many awe-inspiring ideas, principles, and achievements of Western civilization -- it would be highly convenient to my vanity and self-esteem to believe this was all inevitable, a glorious mark of the intrinsic superiority of my culture.
It may even be that it is so. But given the enormous complexity of factors that contributed to this coming about in Europe, and seeing that other cultures, particularly China, had achieved a similar stage of development to that of Europe just before the Scientific Revolution, then I have to at least pose the question and wonder -- there is no definite answer. Maybe China could have achieved a similar scientific revolution had a few chances of history been otherwise, maybe not. But I do not pretend to pass my self-flattering desires as certainties.

[Florestan]

other cultures, particularly China, had achieved a similar stage of development to that of Europe just before the Scientific Revolution

You keep repeating this mantra without offering the least evidence.

That the Chinese invented and used compass-rose, powder gun, paper and printing press long before their advent in Europe is a well-known fact. It is also a well-known fact that nothing even remotely similar to the European scientific revolution and Enlightenment occured in China, revisionist propaganda or plain hoaxes notwithstanding. It is not enough to have at one's disposal several techological gadgets in order to create and develop science. What one needs is first and foremost a mindset, a Weltanschauung if you wish, that allows you to imagine, devise and pursue a systematic, thorough and carefully planned program of scientific research aimed at discovering and using nature's mode of operation, i.e. its principles and laws--- and it is precisely this mindset that the Chinese lacked conspicuously, unless you mean to imply that the divinations of Tao-Te-Ching are a sort of Novum Organon and the omens that the imperial astrologers read in the skies  are equivalent to Astronomia Nova.

One of two books you enthusiastically recommended is a hoax, debunked by historians long-ago --- a fact that  apparently you weren't aware of, thus ruining the credibility of the other one as well.  I address to you the same question I addressed to another poster here: please show us, based on concrete  and  credible reference, the Kepler, the Galilei, the Newton and the Francis Bacon of China, along with their achievements.

[DavidRoss]

...unless you mean to imply that the divinations of Tao-Te-Ching are a sort of Novum Organon....

I believe you're thinking of I Ching, a manual and method of divination, not Tao Te Ching, a summary of principles related to morality, political conduct, philosophy of language, and natural law.

[Florestan]

I believe you're thinking of I Ching, a manual and method of divination, not Tao Te Ching, a summary of principles related to morality, political conduct, philosophy of language, and natural law.

Exactly. Thank you for spotting the error.

[Josquin des Prez]

Another self-convenient belief for Westerners is to believe Western civilization was pre-destined to superiority. I am a Westerner and an European who closely identifies with many awe-inspiring ideas, principles, and achievements of Western civilization -- it would be highly convenient to my vanity and self-esteem to believe this was all inevitable, a glorious mark of the intrinsic superiority of my culture.

Convenient or not, what if it's the truth?

[Florestan]

Another self-convenient belief for Westerners is to believe Western civilization was pre-destined to superiority. I am a Westerner and an European who closely identifies with many awe-inspiring ideas, principles, and achievements of Western civilization -- it would be highly convenient to my vanity and self-esteem to believe this was all inevitable, a glorious mark of the intrinsic superiority of my culture.

You're off the mark here as well. I am Romanian by ethnicity and Orthodox Christian by faith --- i.e., I belong to a nation which played no role whatsoever in the scientific revolution and profess a religion that had only minor, marginal involvements with it. The main credit for that goes to Catholic and Protestant scientists. So, if anything, recognizing this, far from pandering my self-esteem should give me a feeling of inferiority --- unless, of course, I don't view it as a problem of who did what first or feel-good vanity, but of historical truth.

Besides that, your double-standard is amusing. When it's about science and Enlightenment, their causes lay in the diverse and competing cultures, states and religions of Europe. When it's about a so-called self-proclaimed European arrogance and superiority, Europe is no more a conglomerate, but a monolythic block pampering itself. Please be kind and make up your mind.

[mozartsneighbor]

Regarding Drogulus' proposition of a package deal in regards to the laurels some Christians want to take vis-a-vis the achievements of Western civilization:
Claiming credit for everything good that came out of Western civilization while conveniently ignoring all the rest is a spectacular exercise in being self-serving.

If they truly wish to take this position that what happened in the geographical area of Christendom stems automatically from Christianity then this game must be played all the way through.

The perfect place to start is at the beginning of Christianity in Europe. Consider this: in 330 AD the Roman empire, the empire that had dominated most of Europe for centuries and turned it into a prosperous unified empire was linked by excellent roads and dotted with cities with up to 1 million inhabitants. Many of these cities had sophisticated sewage systems and civilized features like public baths, courts functioning according to a rational and secular code of laws, theaters, etc. The cultural and technological heritage of the great thinkers of Ancient Greece and of the Roman Empire was honored and people sought to improve upon it. The empire's armies were an efficient military machine that secured the empire's territory against invaders.
That same year the emperor adopts Christianity and over the next hundred odd years the empire becomes more and more Christianized until all other religions are outlawed.
Within a couple more decades the empire was gone. The next 1000 years were for Europe a period of dark decline. The classical heritage ignored or picked very selectively to suit the purposes of the Church. Cities who once had hundreds of thousands of inhabitants and impressive amenities and institutions became ghost towns of a few tens of thousand people. Literacy dropped sharply. People looked only at the next life and looked only to the pronouncements of their priest -- who could blame them, when their life was so short and largely unpleasant, and when they possessed no access to any ideas or culture but what came from the Church. Medicine was nothing more than superstition, including mention of devils and other "causes" for illness. Justice was often administered not in courts presided by learned judges following a code of law, but by guilt or innocence being determined by dunking the accused into water and other such methods.
It was at the end of this period that there was a paradigm change in the Western mind that was brought about by a revival of the Ancient Pagan cultural heritage of Rome and Greece -- the Renaissance. It was a change away from a theocentric world view, away from sole focus on religious ideas and on the next life, and toward what Plato and Plutarch wrote, as well as toward this life and what can be understood about it and achieved in it.

[mozartsneighbor]

You're off the mark here as well. I am Romanian by ethnicity and Orthodox Christian by faith --- i.e., I belong to a nation which played no role whatsoever in the scientific revolution and profess a religion that had only minor, marginal involvements with it. The main credit for that goes to Catholic and Protestant scientists. So, if anything, recognizing this, far from pandering my self-esteem should give me a feeling of inferiority --- unless, of course, I don't view it as a problem of who did what first or feel-good vanity, but of historical truth.

Besides that, your double-standard is amusing. When it's about science and Enlightenment, their causes lay in the diverse and competing cultures, states and religions of Europe. When it's about a so-called self-proclaimed European arrogance and superiority, Europe is no more a conglomerate, but a monolythic block pampering itself. Please be kind and make up your mind.

Maybe so but you are still: 1. a Christian 2. a Westerner 3. an European
Besides, often the most marginal members of a group are the ones that are most preoccupied with distinguishing themselves from outsiders and beating the drum for that group. For example, the lower middle class is the one that most despises the lower class, since their membership in the middle class is precarious. Or when I lived in Berlin, I learned that a great number of the skinheads that are so xenophobic and mindful of German identity are in fact ethnic Germans that came from Eastern Europe and sometimes can barely speak German.
(Not that I am implying any parallel between you or anyone here with a skinhead. It is just an interesting sociological case I once saw -- if you still feel that is the implication please let me know and I will strike it out)

As for your second paragraph: I am not completely sure if Western civilization was intrinsically destined to be superior; on the other hand the qualities of arrogance and superiority I am sure are not Western or European -- they are simply human qualities. Most human groups that feel they can afford to portray themselves as superior and intrinsically so, will do it. The Chinese at their peak did it, the Americans have been doing it the last 50 years, and the Islamic fundamentalists (these without any reason whatsoever, moreover) do it now. I catch myself at it too unfortunately in one way or another, and few are the people that consistently resist that impulse totally. It's human, all too human...

[Florestan]

Consider this: in 330 AD the Roman empire, the empire that had dominated most of Europe for centuries and turned it into a prosperous unified empire was linked by excellent roads and dotted with cities with up to 1 million inhabitants. Many of these cities had sophisticated sewage systems and civilized features like public baths, courts functioning according to a rational and secular code of laws, theaters, etc. The cultural and technological heritage of the great thinkers of Ancient Greece and of the Roman Empire was honored and people sought to improve upon it. The empire's armies were an efficient military machine that secured the empire's territory against invaders.

Your distortion --- or ignorance --- of history is staggering. In 330 AD the highlighted features were long gone.

That same year the emperor adopts Christianity and over the next hundred odd years the empire becomes more and more Christianized until all other religions are outlawed.
Within a couple more decades the empire was gone. The next 1000 years were for Europe a period of dark decline. The classical heritage ignored or picked very selectively to suit the purposes of the Church. Cities who once had hundreds of thousands of inhabitants and impressive amenities and institutions became ghost towns of a few tens of thousand people. Literacy dropped sharply. People looked only at the next life and looked only to the pronouncements of their priest -- who could blame them, when their life was so short and largely unpleasant, and when they possessed no access to any ideas or culture but what came from the Church. Medicine was nothing more than superstition, including mention of devils and other "causes" for illness. Justice was often administered not in courts presided by learned judges following a code of law, but by guilt or innocence being determined by dunking the accused into water and other such methods.

I have news for you: this view, originating with Edward Gibbon, was debunked long-ago by historians --- but I guess you have to acustom yourself with this intrinsic feature of your sources.

It was at the end of this period that there was a paradigm change in the Western mind that was brought about by a revival of the Ancient Pagan cultural heritage of Rome and Greece -- the Renaissance. It was a change away from a theocentric world view, away from sole focus on religious ideas and on the next life, and toward what Plato and Plutarch wrote, as well as toward this life and what can be understood about it and achieved in it.

Your persistence in ignoring reason and common-sense is worth a better cause. The Greek and Roman Pagan ideas about nature and natural phenomena were exactly as conducive to the birth of modern science and Enlightenment as those of the Chinese: not at all.

As for Plato championing this life instead of next life, this world over the other world and empiricism over metaphysics, this claim is so manifestly ridiculous that even a mediocre high-school graduate would refrain from presenting it. With such blatant ignorance of facts, Plato could also be presented as a forerunner of Jeffersonian democracy, this absurdity being prevented only by any average-educated person knowing --- yet --- that modern democracy and Plato's democracy are in the same relation as fire and ice.

The paradigm shift that allowed science to appear and develop took place long before Renaissance, i.e. in the 13th and 14th centuries, as proved abundantly by the works and writings of Jean Buridan, Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, William of Ockham and Nicolas Oresme, these being only the most prominent in a larger group of theologians and philosophers turned scientists.

I know that these are facts that the radical secularists will never accept because they contradict their ideological fanaticism, which is, curiously, very similar in spirit actually with the fervor that Aristotelean theologians displayed in trying to suppress or silence the nascent modern science. It is, in fact, amusing to see how the lipservice paid to reason and logic makes way for ignoring them altogether when their inferences are at variance with the secularist credo.