War and Peace

[Sean]

drogulus, that's a bit harsh- I do defend what I say, though it may sometimes get quite complex, and with Mensch's learning curve being dead horizontal I'm not so inspired to keep elaborating.

Why oh why am I typing this?

Soon as I sort one or two things I'm off this dumb forum.

[MishaK]

It's fascinating to really study the influence that the East and Near East cultures had upon the type of thinking O. mentions above. I've read forums where too many young people assumed that the Moors were "barbarians" when they came to Europe spreading Islam. In reality, the Moors had easily as "sophisticated" (feel free to choose your own preferred term here) a culture as any in the world at that time.

I guess that ethno/cultural-centricism will abound wherever one is.

There is a whole chapter in Collapse by Jared Diamond on how early medieval China was leagues ahead techologically and scientifically of Europe. Then, thanks to highly centralized government and internal infighting, a fateful decision was made to stop international contacts and destroy the large merchant fleet and China went into stagnation, leaving the field open to Renaissance Europe to concquer the globe.

Likewise, people forget that Baghdad and Istanbul at different times during the heyday of those empires were the leading global centers of science and attracted talent from all over. It's just silly to pretend science was a European invention, be it to claim superiority of the West or to claim the West's supposed inability to comprehend deeper "transcendental" "Eastern" truths, as our confused exoticist friend argues.

drogulus, that's a bit harsh- I do defend what I say, though it may sometimes get quite complex, and with Mensch's learning curve being dead horizontal I'm not so inspired to keep elaborating.

Sean, LOL, you don't know what a learning curve is! You despise learning. You've said it yourself so many times in so many ways. Accepting faith blindly is not "learning". Look it up in the dictionary.

Why oh why am I typing this?

Everybody wonders about that every time you start one of those twenty-paragraph posts of yours.

[Haffner]

There is a whole chapter in Collapse by Ian Diamond on how early medieval China was leagues ahead techologically and scientifically of Europe. Then, thanks to highly centralized government and internal infighting, a fateful decision was made to stop international contacts and destroy the large merchant fleet and China went into stagnation, leaving the field open to Renaissance Europe to concquer the globe.

Likewise, people forget that Baghdad and Istanbul at different times during the heyday of those empires were the leading global centers of science and attracted talent from all over. It's just silly to pretend science was a European invention, be it to claim superiority of the West or to claim the West's supposed inability to comprehend deeper "transcendental" "Eastern" truths, as our confused exoticist friend argues.

That sounds like a fascinating book, O. I'm going on Amazon.

[MishaK]

That sounds like a fascinating book, O. I'm going on Amazon.

Make sure to also check out the Pulitzer-winning prequel Guns, Germs and Steel. And correction, first name is Jared, Jared Diamond. Not Ian.

[drogulus]

 

Just a small correction here because it pi$$es me off when Sean says it and I don't want you repeating the error needlessly since you are basically in agreement with me on the issue: The West didn't invent empiricism, nor is its applicability culturally limited. Every most basic trial and error type learning is empirical at its base and all cultures have used empiricism in some form or another. There is nothing peculiarly "Western" about it. That's precisely why it works so reliably.

     You're right. Empiricism is not culturally specific and nobody owns it. The propositions produced are true whether they are believed or not. Gravity doesn't ask me to worship it(fat chance!). Krishna, Jupiter, and Jesus lapse into insignificance if no one pays attention to them (ask Jupiter how it's going lately). Their meaning is the cultural heft provided by the attention given to them, and the history of what is done in their name. They're culturally specific with a vengeance. So I think it's fair to say that an idea that's culturally specific in this manner can't at the same time be true as understood by Western rationalism, which means it can't be true, period. If a god exists, it could only be a discovered fact that would show it to be the case, rendering older modes of belief superfluous. There is no culture-bound path to truth. So naturally I don't claim empiricism for the West, except for the history of its development.

Likewise, people forget that Baghdad and Istanbul at different times during the heyday of those empires were the leading global centers of science and attracted talent from all over. It's just silly to pretend science was a European invention, be it to claim superiority of the West or to claim the West's supposed inability to comprehend deeper "transcendental" "Eastern" truths, as our confused exoticist friend argues.

    The lesson of what happened to the Muslim civilization is crucial. Science and reason were rejected on the grounds that Allah could not be confined by a system of rules or laws of nature. I think they were right, in that an omnipotent god makes nonsense of natural law, which, in order to be what it is can't be contravened. The liberal religionists are wrong. A god can't act outside the laws of nature without demonstrating the laws are false. If there's a god all science is mistaken.

[Haffner]

Make sure to also check out the Pulitzer-winning prequel Guns, Germs and Steel. And correction, first name is Jared, Jared Diamond. Not Ian.

Thank you!

[Haffner]

They're culturally specific with a vengeance.

"They" are?


Just asking.

[MishaK]

"They" are?

"Krishna, Jupiter and Jesus"

[Haffner]

"Krishna, Jupiter and Jesus"

I guess I'm not too sure on his point, as there are many, many followers of Krishna and Jesus all over the world (uh, Jupiter is, like, so outdated).

[MishaK]

I guess I'm not too sure on his point, as there are many, many followers of Krishna and Jesus all over the world (uh, Jupiter is, like, so outdated).

That's precisely the point. And the meaning of Jesus and Krishna to people from different cultures and from different eras is very different, indeed.

[head-case]

drogulus, that's a bit harsh- I do defend what I say, though it may sometimes get quite complex, and with Mensch's learning curve being dead horizontal I'm not so inspired to keep elaborating.

Why oh why am I typing this?

Soon as I sort one or two things I'm off this dumb forum.

Hehehe, we don't fall under the same absurd delusions as Sean so our learning curve is horizontal?   

[bwv 1080]

There is a whole chapter in Collapse by Jared Diamond on how early medieval China was leagues ahead techologically and scientifically of Europe. Then, thanks to highly centralized government and internal infighting, a fateful decision was made to stop international contacts and destroy the large merchant fleet and China went into stagnation, leaving the field open to Renaissance Europe to concquer the globe.

Likewise, people forget that Baghdad and Istanbul at different times during the heyday of those empires were the leading global centers of science and attracted talent from all over. It's just silly to pretend science was a European invention, be it to claim superiority of the West or to claim the West's supposed inability to comprehend deeper "transcendental" "Eastern" truths, as our confused exoticist friend argues.

To be fair the empiricism of the middle east was Greek in origin, same as that of the West.  While China really is a different culture, Europe and the Middle East are much closer than either side wants to admit.  Relative to empricism, the West only gets credit for harnessing its power not the idea itself.

[bwv 1080]

with Mensch's learning curve being dead horizontal I'm not so inspired to keep elaborating.
.

Better a horizontal learning curve than an elliptical one

[drogulus]

drogulus, that's a bit harsh- I do defend what I say, though it may sometimes get quite complex, and with Mensch's learning curve being dead horizontal I'm not so inspired to keep elaborating.

     Sean, I apologize for my excess harshness. I really think less complexity would be helpful. That's where the errors in an argument hide. Some of your long posts give the impression that you haven't worked all this out.

I guess I'm not too sure on his point, as there are many, many followers of Krishna and Jesus all over the world (uh, Jupiter is, like, so outdated).

     Yes, that's the point. An idea, like the divinity of some person, isn't rendered true by being believed. It ought to be believed because it's true, and that's where rationalism comes in. It provides a universal method of evaluating such claims. It should be clear, then, that such ideas can't be both culturally specific (my true god versus your false god) and true. That's because the idea of truth isn't relative to culture. You can't proclaim universality for science and relativism for cultures that wish to dissent from it without abrogating the only standard that works everywhere.

[MishaK]

Better a horizontal learning curve than an elliptical one

  Awesome comment.

[Bunny]

My emphasis above.

You keep insisting on a black and white division: Mike is quite correct.  And I will repeat what I wrote yesterday: the primary focus of the Romans was on the preservation of peace and prosperity, not on Judaism. 

We agree that a religious factor was there: but it was by no means the only or a main one. 

On "atheism" and the Romans: the ancient pagans thought the exclusivity of Judaism and later Christianity was supremely illogical, i.e. it placed limits on an infinite being.  If Divinity wants to manifest itself as a Sacred Tree to the Germans or as whatever to whomever, then Divinity would do so.  To say that the only true god was an invisible being occasionally speaking to the prophets of an obscure and quarrelsome desert tribe was simply hugely illogical, and since the Jews and later the Christians denied the existence of the other gods, the pagans labeled them "atheists" as a result.

Again, no historian can agree with your claims: as an example of how ethnic rivalries, money and corruption were also involved besides religion in the causes of the Jewish revolt, I will point out that the sources show how Syrians in Caesarea sent a bribe to have Jewish rights revoked, so that the Syrians could dominate the economy of the city better.

This was an exception, however:

Professor Paul McKechnie of the University of Auckland has written a study of Judean embassies to Roman emperors between 44 and 66 A.D. and relates how the Roman government more often than not found cases in favor of Jerusalem, even overturning the rulings of their procurators.  This article can be found on line.

If Roman hatred of Judaism were so awful, explain why the Roman central government would ever allow Jews any local government for centuries, why they would listen to Jewish entreaties, etc.

No matter what you argue, you cannot refute the fact that the first laws against Jews were enacted by the Romans before the adoption of Christianity as state religion.  After the adoption of Christianity, the antisemitic bias becomes stronger.  You argue that the Romans swatted the Jews the way they would have swatted a fly buzzing at them; that the Jews were more in the nature of an annoyance.  Those pesky Jews!  Bringing down the wrath of Rome merely because they didn't want to comply with the Roman way of doing things.  Those pesky Jews, just refusing to bow to those marble statues the Romans were so fond of putting up.  Pesky Jews, insisting on rebelling because they wouldn't tolerate the presence of those statues in their land!  Constantly rebelling and killing noble Roman soldiers, who just wanted to maintain order so that everyone could live in Roman peace.  Pesky Jews were such a problem: their own foolish attitudes annoyed the Romans so much that they forced the Romans to sack their cities, destroy their Temple, and finally, to force all of those men, women and children out of their homes and into slavery and exile.  Roman religious tolerance only went so far.

If "the primary focus of the Romans was on the preservation of peace and prosperity, not on Judaism,"  then the peace and prosperity you are talking about was Rome's peace and prosperity.  Rome might worry about a famine in Egypt because Egypt was a great source of wheat for them.  They wouldn't worry about a famine in Gaul, Syria or Judea except as it affected commercial Roman interests.  There was no Roman version of Project Red.  Romans could care less about starvation outside Italy. 

As for the reasons they considered Jews and Christians atheists, it doesn't matter how logical or illogical the thought process; the reasons don't really matter at all.  What matters is that they did consider them atheists and they did not accord them equal rights, but rather discriminated against them with legislation specifically designed to limit the practice of their religion, and going so far as to keep them from full citizenship in the Empire long after other ethnic groups were accorded this.  After Christianity was made the state religion, more and more laws found their way into the Roman code of laws.  This is most important because Roman Law became the precedent for the legal codes of the rest of Europe, and what started in the Roman Empire continued until the end of World War 2. 

[Sean]

drogulus & Mensch, there's no important disjunction between the spiritual and the material or scientific in Hinduism. Of all the religions Hinduism has always developed in parallel with science, two well known instances being the calculations of cosmological time, for instance 20 billion years for the age of the universe (one day for Brahma), exactly right, and the relation of verses in the Rig Veda to quantum mechanics and Lagrange equations; also the sophistication of Jyotish or Hindu astrology. While the Mayans were thinking in millions and the Indians in billions the Christians were burning anyone who didn't think the earth was created in 4004BC, or such.

You don't understand guys- the 'mysticism' of the spiritual is gradually being understood by science, eg the observer brought into relation with the observed, strange relativistic effects, exotic subatomic particles etc, all of which we have to accept on faith, and which don't fit comfortably in Mensch's little mechanistic universe.

[Daidalos]

drogulus & Mensch, there's no important disjunction between the spiritual and the material or scientific in Hinduism. Of all the religions Hinduism has always developed in parallel with science, two well known instances being the calculations of cosmological time, for instance 20 billion years for the age of the universe (one day for Brahma), exactly right, and the relation of verses in the Rig Veda to quantum mechanics and Lagrange equations; also the sophistication of Jyotish or Hindu astrology. While the Mayans were thinking in millions and the Indians in billions the Christians were burning anyone who didn't think the earth was created in 4004BC, or such.

You don't understand guys- the 'mysticism' of the spiritual is gradually being understood by science, eg the observer brought into relation with the observed, strange relativistic effects, exotic subatomic particles etc, all of which we have to accept on faith, and which don't fit comfortably in Mensch's little mechanistic universe.

It is a time-honoured practice among religious apologists to claim that their holy books foresaw the revelations that our science has brought us. Upon closer examination, most such claims are revealed to be tenuous at best. It usually requires a good deal of wishful thinking and cherry-picking to interpret the vagueness of most religious texts as scientific claims.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think most physicists would say that you have no idea of what you're talking about. There is nothing "mystical" (as in supernatural, or inherently spiritual) about quantum mechanics or relativity; both are models that describe how certains things in the universe behave. In the case of quantum mechanics, I've been lead to believe that its predictive power is very good. I'm no physicist, but if your knowledge of physics is as limited as your knowledge of chromosomes (as witnessed in that earlier thread of yours), you should be careful to make any statements regarding it.

And I would dispute the notion that modern advancements in physics in any way validate the religious beliefs of anyone, least of all yours. Furthermore, these recent and not-so-recent concepts (relativity is 100 years old!) depend on empiricism as much as any other science and are not borne out of some murky mysticism. You'll find no help in science in justifying your delusions, and you will only appear more desperate if you futilely attempt to enlist its aid in such an enterprise.

[Sean]

I won't argue with you Daidalos, way out though you are.

[drogulus]

    It's not impossible that some things a religion says are true. Some scientists have seen solutions in dreams. But such ideas, in order to be regarded as true, must be verified. And verification is universal. If the universe is 20 billion years old it doesn't matter whether you got it from a dream or a religion or a legend. What matters is the standard by which you verify the claim. This has an interesting corollary. It turns out that all facts are arrived at by the same operations as science uses, though in everyday life we don't call it that. The scientist and the child learning to ride a bike are doing the same thing.

    All real knowledge is organized in such a way as to make plain how it is arrived at. A book has an index and a bibliography. If the author tells you that he omitted them because the truth was revealed to him by spiritual osmosis you are entitled to smell a rat. That would be a very rodential thing to do! 
The big question is why some people never smell a rat, while others routinely do. I think some beliefs disable the bullshit detector in much the same way as the AIDS virus attacks the part of the immune system designed to respond to such invasions.