Where would we be if the dark ages hadn’t happened?

23 October 2007

I’m not convinced by the scale of this graph, but it makes a valid point nonetheless.

Thanks Jesus followers!

(via StumbleUpon)

Possibly related posts:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: chart, christianity, history, science, web

Comments

380Comments2007-10-23+11%3A45%3A30nullifidian to “Where would we be if the dark ages hadn’t happened?”

The Vicar on October 23rd, 2007 3:24 pm

Regardless of scale, the graph is just wrong. The Romans, even pre-Christianity, were bad for science, so their chunk of the graph ought to have a downward slope. Examine that chunk of european history, and you’ll find that all the significant discoveries and work were done outside of Rome by non-Romans, usually Greeks, Macedonians, and Egyptians. The Romans were happy to pull in the occasional invention from outside, but for the most part they did a good job of stifling thought. (Look what the Romans did for the library of Alexandria, for example — pillaged twice and then burned.)
PJ on October 24th, 2007 2:26 pm

Hear today’s Thought for the Day?
Joel Sax on October 24th, 2007 7:22 pm

I have to agree with the Vicar: that, like most of the charts faulting religion for this and that, is pure fabrication and propaganda. Atheists are supposed to love science: what is the scientific basis for this chart? You can’t come up with one because it is nothing but a fudge job.

Another problem with the chart is that it is Eurocentric. While Europe was in the Dark Ages, science was blooming in the Muslim Middle East (where Algebra was invented) and in Buddhist China.

Please: stick to what is actually quantifiable the next time. This chart is an embarassment to those of us (e.g. this agnostic) who try to keep grounded.
TW on October 24th, 2007 7:32 pm

Some people seem to have undergone a sense of humour bypass.

As to the pedantic points people are making – nothing on the chart says it is detailing global scientific advancement, if anything what little data it shows implies very strongly that this is a chart outlining European scientific advancement. In this instance, the scientific progress by non-Christian nations during the dark ages is further argument for the validity of the charts overall claims.

Also, I certainly never read the chart as stating the advancement during the Roman-era was solely the result of Roman scientists. While the Roman nation did pillage some centres of learning, scientific advancements did take place – and some were even the result of the Romans themselves (concrete seems to spring to mind, but I may be mistaken there). It is similar to arguing that the Greek scientific advancements were never “Greek” but Athenian, Theban, Cretan (etc). When talking about eras of western European / north African history the dominant culture is used as the descriptor.

Still, who am I to want to interrupt some pedantic rants…
Joel Sax on October 25th, 2007 3:05 am

If it ain’t funny, it ain’t humor. Stupid, sophomoric, but not humor.

Someone also didn’t notice the comment by the reviewer. “It makes a valid point” — even though it doesn’t have any valid data. Sounds almost like a creationist.
TW on October 25th, 2007 1:50 pm

I agree wholeheartedly that if something isn’t funny, it isn’t humour. This was funny.

I did notice the comment by the reviewer and took it to mean that he thought the chart made a valid point that it is reasonable to assume the rise of a certain monotheistic religion in western Europe held back scientific development for a thousand years.

If it is valid data you are demanding, we could begin with your own evidence that during this time, scientific advancement in Asia and the Middle East vastly outstripped the civilisations in Western Europe. I agree that this does not, in itself, prove the existence of said monotheistic death cult is responsible, but there appears to be a relationship broadly in line with that suggested by the graph.

Given the chart has little or no data points and by its very nature is using arbitrary values, it seems that the point it is trying to make is equally generic. In that context, it strikes me that it is a valid point.
Greg on October 29th, 2007 12:57 am

The point this graph makes, as we’ve all said, is good, and the mention of Middle Eastern science is also interesting, but I’d like to make another point.

The Dark Ages were only from the fall of Rome (476ish) to around 1000 AD, not from 425ish to 1400ish.

Regardless, I like the idea of the graph, and I think it’s funny and true in many respects.
probabilityzero on October 29th, 2007 4:49 am

This graph actually does have a point, though a graph is probably the wrong way to convey that point considering it doesn’t actually cite data (nor are there any easy ways of objectively evaluating “scientific advancement”). Historically, the dark ages were a significant step backwards in terms of science. You can’t blame all of that on Christianity, but it certainly isn’t blameless.
highlyoverrated on October 29th, 2007 7:31 pm

In my eyes the question behind this pretty bold graphical statement is: Where would humanity be now if there hadn’t been institutions that suppressed the evolvement of the human mind? I’m not saying there wasn’t any progress before the Renaissance. And I’m not saying that religion is a menace. But to be labeled an heretic or a dissenter by the Catholic Church, the biggest instition in Western Europe at that time, wasn’t exactly a career boost. And all that just because you had a different view on things. Luckily, those times are over. Or maybe not …?
John on October 29th, 2007 10:21 pm

To counter the roman arguement – it could be that he is quoting all science in the area, and just marking the time periods of certain blooming civilizations!
kaeman on October 30th, 2007 10:12 am

Have you ever notice how darth vader resembles the pope in some ways, meaning the leader of a evil empire.
kaeman on October 30th, 2007 7:24 pm

The dark ages still exist and are alive and well lurking behind the doors of churches, temples and mosques everywhere.
Theo on October 30th, 2007 11:50 pm

The Roman Catholic church stood up in the vacuum that was left by the dissolution of the Roman Empire. Whereas it had been the state which was responsible for the welfare of the people now it fell to the church. It is not the church’s fault that it was ready to step up into this vacuum. Nor is it fair to think that the church is to blame for the downfall of science. Certainly certain subjects were unbreachable, but if you wanted to explain astrophysics to the average peasant in the Dark Ages he wouldn’t have the first clue as to what you were talking about. It is really not until the trade unionism in the 18th century that education started to become available to all and correspondlingly that the great scientific minds who never were heard previously (because they were serfs under some ignorant) now had a voice. So one must look rahter to the introduction of universal welafer for the real rise of science and technology
You all on October 31st, 2007 1:04 am

Are so sure of everything. But you’re wrong. You’re all wrong.
Dustin Matthews on October 31st, 2007 1:32 am

This is basically correct aside from the fact that it blames the Dark Ages on Christianity.

Certainly the dark ages were caused by the fact that barbarians destroyed or crippled every advanced western civilization.

In many cases the great works of the ancient Greeks were actually preserved in Christian monasteries.

That said it is still true that religion and the idolatry and dogma that goes along with it has still been more injurious to science than anything else.
physicist/historian on October 31st, 2007 3:01 am

Interesting how so many today have such a complete ignorance of history and of science. The vast majority of scientific advancements in the last 2000 years have resulted from the desire of Christians to better understand Gods creation. Great scholars like Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, and Maxwell were all Christians with a desire to better understand God’s creation.

The Dark Ages, which in all my studies I have never heard called the “Christian” Dark Ages were a dark time because of war and disease more than religion. In fact the church was one of the primary factors in keeping civilization falling into complete barbarism.

I do hope the author of this foolish misrepresentation will return to his/her studies and return more enlightened.
thekure42 on October 31st, 2007 11:49 am

“The vast majority of scientific advancements in the last 2000 years have resulted from the desire of Christians to better understand Gods creation”

That’s just not true. People should stop posting things like this without any backing.

The graph isn’t correct because the Romans weren’t that advanced, because a few advances were made during the dark ages, and because it ignores muslim influence. But this graph isn’t a work of science, it’s just trying to make a point. Which it does well.
daniel on October 31st, 2007 2:56 pm

this graphic is just an ilustration of how hurtful christianity was to the progress of knowledge. in spite of the many flaws of the graphic, which is qualitative, not quantitative, it is undenyable that scientific progress did stagnate. just a tip: don’t miss the forest for the trees, what the graphic intends to represent is true.
daniel on October 31st, 2007 3:04 pm

@ Dustin Matthews

this graphic doesn’t blame christianity on dark ages, it blames it on the lack of scientific progress that was a consequence of the rise of this religion.
war zone’s were unavoidably isolated from knowledge but what could be achieved in this era in places of stability was not even partialy reached because of something called inquisition and other similar undertakings by this church.
it should also be said that there were, in fact, many discoveries during this time but they were supressed in way or another by the church’s influence as is the case of corpernico’s work, gallileo and i think mendel.
JC (not that one) on October 31st, 2007 5:38 pm

Dear Theists,
Just because this graph is inaccurate doesn’t mean that believing in a giant all-powerful invisible monster that controls the universe makes sense. This is not a valid argument. Stop.
Love,
JC
Orly on October 31st, 2007 5:48 pm

You forgot barbaric invasions.
TW on October 31st, 2007 6:28 pm

Physicist / Historian writes:

The vast majority of scientific advancements in the last 2000 years have resulted from the desire of Christians to better understand Gods creation.

Citation welcome here. As it stands, the vast majority of scientific advancements over the last 2000 years haven’t really been in Christian countries – this is part of the point the graph is trying to make. You identify a few pillars of science (4) as if this proves your point. It does not.

The Dark Ages, which in all my studies I have never heard called the “Christian” Dark Ages were a dark time because of war and disease more than religion.

Well I was under the impression they were called the dark ages mainly because they weren’t very well recorded in the history books. The Early medieval period in Europe is pretty lacking in recorded history text – especially compared to the late medieval period or the Roman era.

If the presence of war and disease identify a time as “dark ages,” they started long before Christiantiy and they are still going strong.
guilliame on October 31st, 2007 8:52 pm

gotta say, you’ve all missed the point. This is not a “religion” thing in the slightest. its more a thought about “what if the Empire (no star wars lol) had not colapsed and the romans stayed dominant. it would have undoubtably lead to a faster science development. The “darkages” are mearlly refferring to the tribes and, in comparison, roughians of europe after the romans left there legacy. Nout to do with religion lads.
mike on October 31st, 2007 9:59 pm

dude everybody shut the fuck up, it’s just a fucking joke. honestly.

*ride the snake*
WORSHIP SATAN
Kevin Nickoson on November 1st, 2007 2:28 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_the_Middle_Ages#Dark_Ages.3F

The “dark ages” saw much advancement in science. Also, if you want to try and blame religion here, I think I’ll point out that the only entity trying to stifle progress was the Catholic Church, as in the political entity; all will agree that “The Church” was hardly religious in essence. On the other hand, the truly religious Christians of the times, ie monks, started the first universities, the first hospitals, and spent hours upon hours copying books so they would not be lost. What did the secular community do for us during the middle ages?
bah on November 1st, 2007 3:47 pm

What did the secular community do for us during the middle ages?

There was a secular community during the middle ages???
lysander on November 1st, 2007 4:54 pm

guilliame: First of all, in regards to the ““what if the Empire (no star wars lol) had not colapsed and the romans stayed dominant” idea, Robert Silverberg already had that idea in his book Roma Eterna.

This graph, on the other hand, specifically says the “CHRISTIAN” Dark Ages; thus, it’s implied that Christianity has something to do with the Dark Ages and the (supposed) hole in scientific advancement. It’s got everything to do with religion, not tribes and “roughians.”
TW on November 1st, 2007 5:06 pm

Kevin, describing the Roman Church as “hardly religious” is a complete misdirection.

That the Church was corrupt, evil, greedy and violent does not take away from the fact it was the ground point of the Christian religion. The bible is written in accordance with the Roman Church’s doctrine – even for most protestant groups, they carry major elements from the Pontifex Maximus’ decrees.

By no stretch of the imagination were monks more “religious” – Monasteries were also often greedy, grasping organisations which answered to the Church in Rome. The books they spent time copying were, nearly always, religious texts and treaties which is why the events of the “dark ages” are so shrouded in a cloud now. I am sure Bede and his associates thought they were doing a good thing, but his writing is hardly “accurate” in any meaningful sense.

I will echo bah’s comment – what secular community existed in the Middle Ages? Where on Earth was there a secular community?
JJ on November 2nd, 2007 7:50 pm

This was humorous; one side note the end of the dark ages is normally tied to the re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. When the Moors were driven off of Europe many lost text of Greeks were made available again. The library at Toledo was a huge source of information. Let’s not forget the Jews who translated these texts. It took 359 years for the Church to pardon Galileo. That is forward thinking.
ANHONESTTOGODATHEIST on November 3rd, 2007 12:23 am

If you think this is funny or, worse, think it is true, you should kill yourself.
Apatheist on November 3rd, 2007 1:56 am

This graph is mostly correct from an Eurocentric point of view. Don’t forget how advanced in the sciences the Muslims were or the Asians. In reality, the graph should be more cyclical with the hugest dip in the middle ages. We’re not always progressing as optimistically as we want to see it, but even in today’s world the chart would have minor dips in progress.
tango20 on November 3rd, 2007 5:37 pm

For those not convinced that rise of Christianity was major step backward in advancement of science consider the fact in 60AD Hero of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria) had a functioning steam engine and a jet engine (aeropile). Long road through the valley of ignorance, 1700 years later, James Watt “reinvents” the steam engine. How would humanity have been different if progress had continued without the pernicious effects of religion? And if you think this can’t happen again…have a chat with your friendly neighborhood evangelical (substitute your favorite ignoramus sect) who believes that earth was created 6000 years ago, and would love to stop kids from questioning that “fact”. Be scared. Be very scared.
TeN on November 3rd, 2007 6:09 pm

Quite a ways back in this rambling discussion, a point was missed. While it is true that the Romans were happy to appropriate scientific or medical knowledge from areas such as Greece and Egypt, their greatest talent was engineering, which I think is quite different than science. Although, like most people idly stumbling the Web, I don’t have a citation handy, I believe the comment about concrete was correct – most of those monumental works in Rome were of poured concrete faced with stone or brick.
Michael Fye on November 4th, 2007 2:59 am

Read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by: Thomas Woods
Modern day science wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the rise of Christianity. The difference was that science in those times was developed within a certain philosophical and religious school of thought… Middle-Age Christians viewed science as an exploration/development of reason and creation — both of which are manifestations of both the reasonability/order and beauty of God.
Modern-day creationists give Christianity a bad name.
Kokomo on November 4th, 2007 7:03 am

It’s obviously satirical. I don’t think it’s an offensive joke. I don’t think it’s appropriate, however, to blame the Dark Ages on “Jesus Lovers” or to consider the following of Christ to have contributed much to this lengthy time in European history. Let’s remember, unless you never learned, that the Catholic church has not traditionally led with the teachings of Jesus in mind.
nullifidian on November 4th, 2007 10:35 am

Seeing as the lying for Jesus crowd are starting to talk shite, I’m closing comments here.

Thanks to everyone for your comments.