Flat earth: Which ancient religions, if any, believed this?

[Vortigern99]

There has been some contention on this point in the "St. George & the Dragon" thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173830&page=4 , among others. I'd like to clarify the answer here, posting evidence in the form of ancient writings and charts, and modern expert opinion.

The argument goes that 19th century writer Washington Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Irving#Impact_on_American_culture) put forward the false notion that prior to Columbus, medieval Europeans believed the earth was flat -- a fiction that has been perpetuated in American classrooms ever since. "One of more fanciful embellishments was a highly unlikely tale that the more ignorant and bigoted members on [the Spanish] commission had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical."

Evidently a spherical earth has been the widely accepted scholarly conception since Greek Hellenistic times, c. 300 BCE. "By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

But what about more ancient cultures, such as the Sumerians and Babylonians? What about the "uneducated Hebrew shepherds" who co-wrote the Bible over many generations, hundreds or even thousands of years before the Hellenistic Age? What about the ancient Egyptians, the pre-Hellenistic Greeks, the ancient Chinese and Indians? Did they believe in a flat earth?

Modern Sumerian expert Samuel Noah Kramer reports that the Sumerians did believe in such a cosmogeny:

[i]"In this primeval sea was somehow engendered the universe the 'heaven-earth,' consisting of a vaulted heaven superimposed over a flat earth and united with it." (Kramer, Samuel Noah. History Begins at Sumer. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959. Pp 76-84. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/4546)

"In this primeval sea the universe was engendered, consisting of a vaulted heaven superimposed over a flat earth and united with it." (pp.122-123, S.N. Kramer, "Sumerian History, Culture and Literature," in Diane Wolkstein & Samuel Noah Kramer, Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth, Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer. New York, Harper & Row, 1983, ISBN 0-06-090854-8 pbk http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-September/008499.html)

"... a vaulted heaven superimposed over a flat earth and united with it..." (Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1969. http://ikhet-sekhmet.livejournal.com/25706.html

And we have these schematics showing how the Babylonians and Hebrews perceived the world:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/image005.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/hebrew-cosmology-illustration.gif

These cosmogenies depict a tiered and/or mountainous region as the "earth", meaning the realm of the universe inhabited by human beings, but the base on which these mountains rested was flat. Obviously peoples living in the plains and fertile river-valleys of ancient Iraq and Jordan did not think they lived in the mountains, so while the mountains were part of their world conception, clearly the portion they lived in was believed to be flat, as opposed to round or spherical.

With all of that as a foundation, let the discussion begin.

[Complexity]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Don't we have something (anything!) more interesting to talk about?

The ignorance of people, especially of religious people, especially of fundies, is well established and is unworthy of more discussion.

[Marduk]

for my part I think the idea that the ancient believed the earth was flat is an entirely modern conception. They had a multi tiered system as you mentioned, with the ground of the earth being flat (ish) but with a large mountain at the centre of the cosmological belief which reached up to heaven. Some mountain this, higher than anything currently known to exist in this planet with civilisation at its feet. Just having a mountain like this in existence for me precludes the possibility that any ancient culture believed the earth was flat and this without accounting for the solid Dome which held in the air in a cosmos entirely made from water.


So this is a flat earth
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/flat_earth.jpg

But the two examples you give, aren't.
In your two familiar examples the ground may be flat, but the earth clearly isn't. The dome of the sky is attached to the earth and beneath it is the underworld through which the sun passes during the night, I put it to you that any concept that has a tunnel big enough for the sun to pass through isn't flat because you can't fit 3 dimensional spheres through flatness (without folding :D)

This confusion may be because of the ancient linguistical similarity between the words for Earth (Planet) http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Ogle.png

and earth (mud) http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Ofsi.png

The black disc http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Obax.png is a numerical character which represents the number 3600 (360 degrees / 10 seconds of arc)

thanks for posting this thread Vort
;)


The ignorance of people, especially of religious people, especially of fundies, is well established and is unworthy of more discussion.
This isn't anything to do with religion C, its a discussion of the science of the ancient world. It may have become in time a part of religious belief. But we aren't talking about that. I think Vort's title is a little misleading, it should be "Which ancient cultures, if any, believed this ?"
;)

[Vortigern99]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Don't we have something (anything!) more interesting to talk about?

The ignorance of people, especially of religious people, especially of fundies, is well established and is unworthy of more discussion.

If I bothered to post messages like this in every thread I personally, subjectively found pointless, I'd never have time to do anything else.

Here's a thought: If you don't think a topic is worth your time, don't post a message in it. Hey! What a concept.

[schrodingasdawg]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Don't we have something (anything!) more interesting to talk about?

The ignorance of people, especially of religious people, especially of fundies, is well established and is unworthy of more discussion.

Your lack of curiosity is reminiscent of the fundies you so abhor.

for my part I think the idea that the ancient believed the earth was flat is an entirely modern conception. They had a multi tiered system as you mentioned, with the ground of the earth being flat (ish) but with a large mountain at the centre of the cosmological belief which reached up to heaven. Some mountain this, higher than anything currently known to exist in this planet with civilisation at its feet. Just having a mountain like this in existence for me precludes the possibility that any ancient culture believed the earth was flat and this without accounting for the solid Dome which held in the air in a cosmos entirely made from water.

I suppose here is a problem of what is actually meant by "flat Earth," and how the cultures in question divide up their Earth and their cosmos. i.e. do they view this gigantic mountain as being something placed upon the flat disc, or they view the mountain and the otherwise flat disc as being parts of the same inseparable object?

Another way to pose the question is how the cultures viewed gravity. Even with the mountain in the middle of the map, didn't they believe that there was one direction that everything heavy would fall? (I'm not sure how abstractly these cultures considered gravity, however.) i.e. something on the side of the mountain would not fall to the side of the mountain, but would fall downwards towards the disc.

When someone in our modern times talks about a flat Earth model, they're probably talking about a model in which all mountains are viewed as things placed upon a flat disc and valleys as things carved out of it; and a model in which there is only one direction to gravity, contrary to a spherical model where the direction of gravity varies so that it always points towards the center of the sphere. Of course, when speaking of such a model in modern times, we may be using a level of abstraction that was not present in these ancient cultures. But I really don't know.

I'm curious what you have to say about these things, Marduk.

[Vortigern99]

for my part I think the idea that the ancient believed the earth was flat is an entirely modern conception. They had a multi tiered system as you mentioned, with the ground of the earth being flat (ish) but with a large mountain at the centre of the cosmological belief which reached up to heaven. Some mountain this, higher than anything currently known to exist in this planet with civilisation at its feet. Just having a mountain like this in existence for me precludes the possibility that any ancient culture believed the earth was flat and this without accounting for the solid Dome which held in the air in a cosmos entirely made from water.

Evidently it comes down to a matter of semantics and linguistics, as you've noted here and elsewhere. Does the presence of mountains, or a single giant mountain, on an otherwise level plane preclude that plane from being accurately described as "flat"? Can the tiered layers of a ziggurat-like mountain accurately be called "flat" -- particularly the layer on which human beings (philosophically speaking) exist? The residents of plains and valleys such as those of Iraq and Jordan could not have believed they lived in or on mountains, since the ground from their perspective was obviously flat.

So I think while you're coming from a standpoint of "flat vs. mountainous", most people who refer to the flat earth conception of ancient peoples are speaking from a "flat vs. spherical" standpoint. Hence the disagreements.

So this is a flat earth
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/flat_earth.jpg

But the two examples you give, aren't.
In your two familiar examples the ground may be flat, but the earth clearly isn't. The dome of the sky is attached to the earth and beneath it is the underworld through which the sun passes during the night, I put it to you that any concept that has a tunnel big enough for the sun to pass through isn't flat because you can't fit 3 dimensional spheres through flatness (without folding :D)

Okay, but again the "heavens" are not part of the "earth", so introducing the "dome of the sky" as conceived by ancients is somewhat irrelevant. The universe or the cosmos included a domed sky, but the earth underneath it, going by the two schematics posted in the OP, is demonstrably flat (vs. spherical).

This confusion may be because of the ancient linguistical similarity between the words for Earth (Planet) http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Ogle.png

and earth (mud) http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Ofsi.png

The black disc http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Obax.png is a numerical character which represents the number 3600 (360 degrees / 10 seconds of arc)

Hmm. Interesting, but forgive me as I fail to see how this could lead to our current confusion. Mud is generally lumpish and uneven, unless it's settled to the point that it's parallel with the ground, which again the ancients conceived of as flat, along with the tiered layers of the earth.

thanks for posting this thread Vort
;)

You're welcome! I think it's an important question; understanding what our ancestors and forebears believed is essential, IMO, to understanding modern viewpoints as well. Obviously it's a source of contention that needs to be clarified, since currently there are four threads discussing it in this forum.

This isn't anything to do with religion C, its a discussion of the science of the ancient world. It may have become in time a part of religious belief. But we aren't talking about that. I think Vort's title is a little misleading, it should be "Which ancient cultures, if any, believed this ?"
;)

Good point; I think I chose the word "religions" for the thread title in order to justify keeping it in the Religion forum along with the other threads currently being side-barred by the question. Substitute "cultures" or "philosophies" or "world-views" for "religions", at your discretion. :D

[MG1962]

Basically any culture that encompassed a seafaring tradition would not have a flat Earth myth as part of their foundation

[Marduk]

I suppose here is a problem of what is actually meant by "flat Earth," and how the cultures in question divide up their Earth and their cosmos. i.e. do they view this gigantic mountain as being something placed upon the flat disc, or they view the mountain and the otherwise flat disc as being parts of the same inseparable object?

To begin with they believed that Heaven was created first, then in the midst of heaven earth was created. At this point heaven and earth are the same thing, then sometime after (according to one tradition but none of the others) the way to heaven was barred causing them to exist separately


Another way to pose the question is how the cultures viewed gravity. Even with the mountain in the middle of the map, didn't they believe that there was one direction that everything heavy would fall? (I'm not sure how abstractly these cultures considered gravity, however.) i.e. something on the side of the mountain would not fall to the side of the mountain, but would fall downwards towards the disc.
There is no ancient word for gravity, the term derived from the latin word for heavy (gravis) didn't exist in that context until the middle seventeenth century. Up until that point no one knew what weightlessness was. There are no descriptions of people floating in the ancient world, but many stories of people being carried by huge eagles or other mythological creatures. Even the Gods are often depicted with wings, so you needed a special power to go up, but there was no thought on the power that held you down, it just was.


When someone in our modern times talks about a flat Earth model, they're probably talking about a model in which all mountains are viewed as things placed upon a flat disc and valleys as things carved out of it; and a model in which there is only one direction to gravity, contrary to a spherical model where the direction of gravity varies so that it always points towards the center of the sphere. Of course, when speaking of such a model in modern times, we may be using a level of abstraction that was not present in these ancient cultures. But I really don't know.
I'm curious what you have to say about these things, Marduk.
The shape of the earth was unknown, any claims to know that were boasts made by ancient kings also trying to claim they controlled all of it. Essentially to each ancient culture the shape of the world was the same as the shape of their own borders. Usually it was described as circular, I think this was because each culture saw itself at the centre of the whole world, so anything far away was an equal distance, hence a circle. The Sumerian cuneiform as I showed earlier is the symbol for Mud combined with the symbol for a circle.

Evidently it comes down to a matter of semantics and linguistics, as you've noted here and elsewhere. Does the presence of mountains, or a single giant mountain, on an otherwise level plane preclude that plane from being accurately described as "flat"? Can the tiered layers of a ziggurat-like mountain accurately be called "flat" -- particularly the layer on which human beings (philosophically speaking) exist? The residents of plains and valleys such as those of Iraq and Jordan could not have believed they lived in or on mountains, since the ground from their perspective was obviously flat.
Yet they were fully aware that their flat plain was surrounded on all sides by either mountains that curved up or seas that curved down

So I think while you're coming from a standpoint of "flat vs. mountainous", most people who refer to the flat earth conception of ancient peoples are speaking from a "flat vs. spherical" standpoint. Hence the disagreements.

I am saying that the ancient peoples didn't consider their world as flat, it only appears flat when compared to a sphere, imagine right now that you didn't know the world was a sphere, would you think the world was flat when your eyes can't see past the horizon and ships vanish when attaining a certain distance from land. Then theres the example of the moon, careful observation shows that it isn't flat, if it was, crescents wouldnt appear on it. These people weren't stupid, they had the same power of reason that we did, but they were infinitely more practical


Okay, but again the "heavens" are not part of the "earth", so introducing the "dome of the sky" as conceived by ancients is somewhat irrelevant. The universe or the cosmos included a domed sky, but the earth underneath it, going by the two schematics posted in the OP, is demonstrably flat (vs. spherical).

The heavens only stopped being part of the earth with monotheism, when it became neccesary to stop kings holding the ultimate power and it passed to the priesthood. Up until this point the King was God. With each king claiming to be the embodiment of the divine power. Now this was all well and good until the king from the next city over decided he wanted to be a God and made war on you. If he won he claimed that the vanquished king had been a usurper all along and never divine, because in fact, he himself was the embodiment of the divinity and had been all along. Can you see how this kept civilisations pretty chaotic ?
Then along comes monotheism and the priests say "now look, the god is not the king, the God is in heaven, and the only way you get close to him from now on is through your priesthood. This was the point when Heaven and Earth became separated. Very late in the day and as a religious tactic to empower the priesthood. Up until that point everyone believed that it was possible to reach heaven on foot and there are numerous stories from numerous cultures of heros doing exactly this.


Hmm. Interesting, but forgive me as I fail to see how this could lead to our current confusion. Mud is generally lumpish and uneven, unless it's settled to the point that it's parallel with the ground, which again the ancients conceived of as flat, along with the tiered layers of the earth.

Ask someone, what is earth made of, you'll get two answers,
1. silt, sand, detritus etc
2 a mantle, rock, a crust etc
Now imagine asking someone who doesn't speak your language very well, this is how science spread in the ancient world, by trade contacts between different cultures with different languages.


You're welcome! I think it's an important question; understanding what our ancestors and forebears believed is essential, IMO, to understanding modern viewpoints as well. Obviously it's a source of contention that needs to be clarified, since currently there are four threads discussing it in this forum.

Me too
:D

[quarky]

Its being flattened in parts of Appalachia. I wonder if this loss of surface area is compensated by the holes we dig, or the stuff we pile up?

[Complexity]

This isn't anything to do with religion C, its a discussion of the science of the ancient world. It may have become in time a part of religious belief. But we aren't talking about that. I think Vort's title is a little misleading, it should be "Which ancient cultures, if any, believed this ?"
;)


This has nothing to do with religion?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/hebrew-cosmology-illustration.gif

I beg to differ.

If this really had to with science, it should be in the Math, Science, etc. forum.

I think, however, that it is in the correct forum (and not because it has much to do with philosophy).

Let's face it, the only reason more than a handful of people on the planet care much about this is because of fundies clinging to this stuff as support for their sick and deluded beliefs.

Waste of time.

[Vortigern99]

I respectfully request that since the thread-subject does not interest you, you do not post here. Thanks.

[Marduk]

I beg to differ.

No one else in this thread has discussed "fundie" religions. Only you are doing that. The Hebrew concept of the world is based entirely on the Babylonian concept of the world, which in turn is based on the Akkadian concept of the world, this again is based on the Sumerian concept of the world. Now no one is discussing the religious fundementalists of any of those cultures because none of those cultures knew what religious fundementalism was.

If this really had to with science, it should be in the Math, Science, etc. forum.

Its in here because the flat earth subject is repeatedly bought up in religious discussions and as it turns out it shouldn't be because its irrelevant what ancient peoples believed to what we know exists. If you took an ancient scholar into space on a shuttle and showed him the world he would write about what he had seen, he wouldn't go on and on and on about how what he had seen must have been a trick because his faith told him otherwise.


Let's face it, the only reason more than a handful of people on the planet care much about this is because of fundies clinging to this stuff as support for their sick and deluded beliefs.

Its a 'pure' history based discussion, you think only a handful of people on this planet care about history. thats an unsupported opinion worthy of a religious fundementalist, try to remember that what happens in your head and with your own personal beliefs is not what everyone else is experiencing.
George Santayana famously said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". As you don't know this is history we are talking about here and not religion your future is looking decidedly unsteady
:p

Waste of time.
You are the only one in this thread wasting anyones time C
;)

Up til now youve been popular with the anti religion crowd because of your strong stance against religion, if you continue to attempt to paint everything as religious simply so you can tell others that its a waste of time then that popularity will end and everyone will realise youre just a troll with a chip on your shoulder
shhhh
:p
theres plenty of fundies posting in other threads C, why don't you go discuss their waste of time with them where its actually relevant
;)

[MG1962]

Let's face it, the only reason more than a handful of people on the planet care much about this is because of fundies clinging to this stuff as support for their sick and deluded beliefs.


Which fundies are those?

[Third Eye Open]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_240214bddd9daa64bd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19861)


Someone call?

[Ausmerican]

I think it could depend on how far back you go. At one point in time I would not be surprised if there were cultures that believed the world was flat(ish) simply because THEIR world was flat(ish). Think Proto-kansasians.

On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if primitive tribes in an area like Nepal assumed the entire world was one huge mountain that everyone lived on different parts of and the flat parts were just another ledge.

[Complexity]

I respectfully request that since the thread-subject does not interest you, you do not post here. Thanks.


I respectfully inform you that I will continue to monitor this thread and post here if I wish to.

[hgc]

It's turtles all the way down.

[Marduk]

It's turtles all the way down.

Don't forget the Elephants
:D

[Complexity]

Up til now youve been popular with the anti religion crowd because of your strong stance against religion, if you continue to attempt to paint everything as religious simply so you can tell others that its a waste of time then that popularity will end and everyone will realise youre just a troll with a chip on your shoulder


Screw 'popularity' - I couldn't care less.

I will continue to post where and what I think best without regard for anything except the forum rules, and the moderators will inform me if I overstep those boundaries.

I love to read history - ancient Greek history is a passion of mine.

I really dislike religious apologists trying to pass off their garbage for disciplines that I respect.

I don't know if that will be happening in this thread - I will read it with care and post appropriately.

The question is an interesting one. I am one of that handful of people that I referred to.

I will point out, however, that this thread is in the Religion and Philosophy forum, with a title "Flat earth: Which ancient religions, if any believed this?", after a flurry of posts in other threads on the religious implications of this alleged belief. Also, the OP to this thread contains an illustration with the legend, "The Ancient Hebrew Conception of the Universe to illustrate the account of the creation and the flood".

It should surprise no one if my fundie-dar started clanging.

I take after the rhino in The Gods Must Be Crazy.

You may not be happy to have my attention on this thread. So it goes.

[Ron Webb]

Look, if you're arguing that "flat" means absolutely, billiard-table flat, or (worse) that flat implies two-dimensional, then obviously nobody ever believed that. And nobody ever claimed anyone believed that. Of course there are mountains and valleys, rivers that clearly flow downhill, etc. Even the most primitive peoples would know that. But that's not what we mean by a flat earth.

By "flat" we mean that all vertical lines are parallel, i.e. that up is up and down is down no matter where you are on earth. This is in contrast to the spherical earth, where vertical lines converge (roughly) to a point somewhere in the center of the planet.

Every creation legend I've ever read is consistent with the flat earth assumption. The diagrams already posted illustrate a flat earth. Even our own intuition tells us that up is up and down is down -- we have to be taught that people in Australia are "upside down" relative to our orientation, and children are usually quite amused and surprised to hear it. It would be astonishing if a primitive people with no experience in long-distance travel ever reached any other conclusion than that of a flat earth.

I've been looking for a particular discussion by Isaac Asimov about the voyage of Christopher Columbus, in which he explains that the real controversy at the time was not whether the earth was round (almost everybody knew that by then), but about its size. Columbus believed it was small enough that he could reach Cathay by a westerly ocean voyage, while the majority of scientific opinion believed that it was too far. Of course, we now know that Columbus was utterly wrong, and had he not quite accidentally stumbled upon the New World, he and his crew would have been doomed.

I didn't find that discussion. The closest I got was a quote from it here (http://www.dragonbear.com/columbus.html), which unfortunately does not give the exact source. If anyone knows in which of Asimov's essays he says of the scientific establishment that "schoolchildren are taught to sneer at them" for correctly advising that Columbus would never make it to Cathay, I'd appreciate being told.

I did come across the following passage which is relevant to this topic, from Asimov's essay, "By Land and By Sea", published in a collection called "The Road to Infinity": The Greek historian Herodotus, writing about 430 B.C., tells us that about 600 B.C. the Egyptian Pharaoh, Necho, sent out a fleet of ships, manned by Phoenicians, to explore the African coast. The ships apparently sailed down the Red Sea and returned by way of the Strait of Gibaltar in a voyage that lasted three years.

Herodotus haughtily refuses to believe one story told by the Phoenicians. He says, "These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Africa, they had the sun on their right -- to the northward of them."

Herodotus knew that the noonday Sun was always to the south of the zenith in Greece and in all the lands that he had visited, and he considered this a law of nature, apparently. Yet if the Phoenicians had really rounded Africa, they would have penetrated into the South Temperate Zone and the noonday Sun would indeed have been to the north of zenith. It is precisely the story Herodotus would not believe that makes us confident that the Phoenicians were telling the truth -- for they could not have dreamed of a northward Sun (at a time when Earth was not yet perceived to be a globe) without having actually seen it.

This suggests that the flat earth assumption was still prevalent in Herodotus' time, but long-distance voyages were just beginning to provide evidence that it was false.

[Marduk]

Look, if you're arguing that "flat" means absolutely, billiard-table flat, or (worse) that flat implies two-dimensional, then obviously nobody ever believed that. But that's not what we mean by a flat earth.
This is the very issue Ron, they didn't believe it, its just us who believed it of them. This would be like you telling someone your name and them telling you that youve spelled it wrong. In essence this is the whole thing, that we are interested in what they thought, not what we thought they thought because of our own inherrant diffusion.



This suggests that the flat earth assumption was still prevalent in Herodotus' time, but long-distance voyages were just beginning to provide evidence that it was false.

So youre sure that it doesn't suggest that Herodotus believed in a geocentric universe with Greece at the centre then around which the cosmos revolved ?
:D

There they claimed and some may believe it, though I do not, that when sailing around Libya they had the sun on their right hand.
I expect the ones who believed it weren't Greek, as everyone at that time thought their home was the centre of the world, with the possible exception of the Norte Chico culture who thought they were in the fifth world
:p

[MG1962]

I've been looking for a particular discussion by Isaac Asimov about the voyage of Christopher Columbus, in which he explains that the real controversy at the time was not whether the earth was round (almost everybody knew that by then), but about its size. Columbus believed it was small enough that he could reach Cathay by a westerly ocean voyage, while the majority of scientific opinion believed that it was too far. Of course, we now know that Columbus was utterly wrong, and had he not quite accidentally stumbled upon the New World, he and his crew would have been doomed.

There have been a number of similar discussions. One that was interesting was Columbus knew that geographers were probably right, but he had bigger fish to fry. Also the ships he was using were basically glorified taxi drivers, after so many miles, the money ran out, they turned around. Thats why he fudged the daily sailing distance to keep the fleet going

[Marduk]

There have been a number of similar discussions. One that was interesting was Columbus knew that geographers were probably right, but he had bigger fish to fry. Also the ships he was using were basically glorified taxi drivers, after so many miles, the money ran out, they turned around. Thats why he fudged the daily sailing distance to keep the fleet going

The way I heard it the belief at the time was that Eratosthenes was correct and the earth was around 25,200 miles, but that Columbus used the measurement made by Posidonius of 18,000 miles. For what reason he believed that is another matter entirely, but it meant to him that cathay was 7000 miles closer than it actually was,
;)

[Vortigern99]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
...
The ignorance of people, especially of religious people, especially of fundies, is well established and is unworthy of more discussion.



The question is an interesting one. I am one of that handful of people that I referred to.

:rolleyes:


I love to read history - ancient Greek history is a passion of mine.

Then one might imagine the worldview of those people whose history you "love to read" would be a subject you find worthy of discussion. Your whinging self-contradiction has become tiresome and off-topic.

The intent of the OP and of this thread is to discuss the beliefs of ancient peoples; prior to the establishment of the scientific method, systems of belief were inextricable from religion. I have no interest in pursuing discussion about modern-day fundamentalists or their beliefs. If anyone begins to discuss that topic -- and you, Complexity, are the only one doing that so far -- I will ask the Mods to delete those posts as off-topic, and ask the poster to stop discussing it.

[The_Fire]

According to Asatrue, the old version which existed before christianity, Earth was a flat disk with water falling over the edges and the Midgaardswurm encircling the seas biting its own tail to prevent the land, and unfortunate sailors, from going over the edges. Off cause then Thor just HAD to go fishing......And then there was the time at Utgaards Loki's with wrestling match between Thor and the cat that was really the wyrm......Come to think of it Thor had a bad habit of endangering the world, didn't he?

[Complexity]

Then one might imagine the worldview of those people whose history you "love to read" would be a subject you find worthy of discussion. Your whinging self-contradiction has become tiresome and off-topic.


I don't give a damn about flat-earth belief discussions that are religiously motivated. This thread gave every indication of being that at the beginning.

The beliefs of the ancient Greeks, including their religious beliefs, are quite interesting to me. Other cultures are of less interest.

There is no 'self-contradiction'.

[MG1962]

The way I heard it the belief at the time was that Eratosthenes was correct and the earth was around 25,200 miles, but that Columbus used the measurement made by Posidonius of 18,000 miles. For what reason he believed that is another matter entirely, but it meant to him that cathay was 7000 miles closer than it actually was,
;)

He pretty much had to shorten the trip to sell the concept.

Sailing out of sight of land even in Columbus' time was considered a very dangerous exercise. Aside from lack of provisions, sailors had not learned how to tack a ship, so 20 days out with good winds, could mean anything when trying to come back against those same winds.

Again Columbus had a little more knowledge than he admited when he 'discovered' the westerlies further north of his original track

[Marduk]

According to Asatrue, the old version which existed before christianity, Earth was a flat disk with water falling over the edges and the Midgaardswurm encircling the seas biting its own tail to prevent the land, and unfortunate sailors, from going over the edges. Off cause then Thor just HAD to go fishing......And then there was the time at Utgaards Loki's with wrestling match between Thor and the cat that was really the wyrm......Come to think of it Thor had a bad habit of endangering the world, didn't he?

Thats about as relevant as saying according to Wiccans, did you miss the word "Ancient" in the thread title
:D

[Merko]

Thats about as relevant as saying according to Wiccans, did you miss the word "Ancient" in the thread title
:D
Norse mythology may not qualify as 'ancient', but that does not mean it's irrelevant. I'd say it does show a pretty good example of a mythology unencumbered by the discovery of the Earth's sphericity.

I would also say that the question is not as simple as whether the world was considered more like a sphere or a disk (mountains and other protrusions being irrelevant to this discussion of course). For example, someone may have believed the Earth to be a sphere, but still held that this sphere rested on top of a turtle balancing on an elephant and so on. If one believed, as the Greeks appear to have, that only a small portion of the Earth was possible to visit, then I would argue that it's still more of a flat-earth view. They still thought they were living "on top of" this essentially two-dimensional habitat.

Only with the realization that it is possible to travel around the Earth, I would say that a culture has acquired an understanding of the Earth as more spherical than flat.

[Marduk]

Norse mythology may not qualify as 'ancient', but that does not mean it's irrelevant. I'd say it does show a pretty good example of a mythology unencumbered by the discovery of the Earth's sphericity..

Asatru isn't Norse mythology, its German Neo Paganism. Do you think they don't know the earth is a sphere and haven't incorporated that into their very recently (1990s) fabricated religion
:D
So Norse beliefs yes I totally agree with you are valid, but a bunch of fruits running around in the forest with swords telling you that this is what they believe the ancients believed is something else entirely. Thats the very thing we are trying to avoid
;)

[Tumblehome]

Aren't there indirect references to a flat earth in the bible? "Four corners of the earth", and "heaven above earth", etc.

[HansMustermann]

Basically any culture that encompassed a seafaring tradition would not have a flat Earth myth as part of their foundation

You have to remember though that "seafaring" meant just following the shore, for a long while. Odysseus getting lost at sea in the tiny space between modern day Turkey and modern day Greece (go ahead, look at the map) didn't trip their suspension of disbelief much for example. A storm blowing one to a point where they can't see the shore would render anyone lost at sea.

At any rate, the Greeks themselves are the best counter-example to this idea. They were seafarers all right, but as late as the 4'th century BCE Philolaus was coming up with his "central fire" theory in which a flat Earth revolved around a central fire on the other side. (The Sun was just a mirror that reflected that central fire, in his idea.) And a counter-earth on the other side of that fire, basically to keep the balance. So the universe won't wobble, basically ;)

Ironically Philolaus's ideas were born out of observation which should have told him that the Earth is a sphere rotating around its own axis, with a rotation period of 24 hours. But obviously he couldn't imagine Earth being a sphere, and would have probably bucked those seafaring greeks' view a lot to say it was one. So he imagined two discs rotating around a fire where the centre of the Earth should be.

Even more ironically, while technically he started the idea that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe, in his view that central fire is the centre of the universe. And it's placed where the centre of Earth is. Once you turn those two discs into the actual shape of a spheroid around that point, you get geocentrism.

[Darth Rotor]

Seafaring:

If you've ever been on a ship at sea, out of sight of shore, you can easily imagine yourself being on a big, flat, beautiful and perfectly round blue platter. Fly about 5,000 feet up ... and you get the same visual, when there are no other visual references to indicate the horizon and the curvature we now understand.

An ancient seafaring people might easily think about the world as a platter, or a disc ( ;) ), until somebody figured out the curvature idea from visual cues, which approaching and leaving the coastal areas provides.

DR

[quarky]

Seafaring:

If you've ever been on a ship at sea, out of sight of shore, you can easily imagine yourself being on a big, flat, beautiful and perfectly round blue platter. Fly about 5,000 feet up ... and you get the same visual, when there are no other visual references to indicate the horizon and the curvature we now understand.

An ancient seafaring people might easily think about the world as a platter, or a disc ( ;) ), until somebody figured out the curvature idea from visual cues, which approaching and leaving the coastal areas provides.

DR

Yes, a huge breakthrough came with the realization of the spherical shape of the planet: All that new habitat, on account of it being hollow inside!

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, a huge breakthrough came with the realization of the spherical shape of the planet: All that new habitat, on account of it being hollow inside!

One wonders of there wasn't a PT Barnum sort making a small killing by selling the first packaged tours to the center of the earth ... :cool:

[quixotecoyote]

One wonders of there wasn't a PT Barnum sort making a small killing by selling the first packaged tours to the center of the earth ... :cool:

I can't tell if you're referencing it or not, but it has been done. Repeatedly.

http://www.voyagehollowearth.com/hollow_earth_trip_itinerary.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread57068/pg1
http://www.npiee.org/

[Darth Rotor]

I can't tell if you're referencing it or not, but it has been done. Repeatedly.

http://www.voyagehollowearth.com/hollow_earth_trip_itinerary.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread57068/pg1
http://www.npiee.org/

Actually, I was thinking about "There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him" fused with the Jules Verne novel. :D

[Ron Webb]

This is the very issue Ron, they didn't believe it, its just us who believed it of them.
Who is "us"? Nobody I know ever believed it of them. The very idea of ancient peoples not knowing about mountains and valleys is silly.

So youre sure that it doesn't suggest that Herodotus believed in a geocentric universe with Greece at the centre then around which the cosmos revolved ?
:D
No, because a geocentric universe (with a spherical earth) is perfectly consistent with the sun appearing north of zenith. Only a flat earth would make that improbable.

[MG1962]

At any rate, the Greeks themselves are the best counter-example to this idea. They were seafarers all right, but as late as the 4'th century BCE Philolaus was coming up with his "central fire" theory in which a flat Earth revolved around a central fire on the other side. (The Sun was just a mirror that reflected that central fire, in his idea.) And a counter-earth on the other side of that fire, basically to keep the balance. So the universe won't wobble, basically ;)

As with any scientific exploration there are going to be theories and counter theories. As early as the 6th Cent BCE, Pythagoras, was arguing for a spherical Earth. This is believed to be based on two basic observations. One, as a ship approaches, first the upper works appear, then the deck area, finally the hull ( Hence my reference to seafarers). The other 'proof' is the shadow cast by the Earth during Luna eclipses

[Marduk]

No, because a geocentric universe (with a spherical earth) is perfectly consistent with the sun appearing north of zenith. Only a flat earth would make that improbable.

Uhuh, so the Greeks knew that the earth revolved around the sun now then ?

They didn't perhaps think that the sun revolved around the earth instead ?

Herodotus believed that the earth was the centre of the universe and that Greece was at the centre of the earth. This is why he thought the testaments of the Phonecians unlikely.

[Complexity]

An error has arisen in this thread a few times - that of ascribing a belief to a group of people merely because one member of that group expressed that belief.

Caution is advised.

[quarky]

An error has arisen in this thread a few times - that of ascribing a belief to a group of people merely because one member of that group expressed that belief.

Caution is advised.

May I add this counter to your strictness?
I suggest that some pre-science tribes of people didn't even think in terms of the world being solid or round or flat or disconnected from the sky or anything like that. Their perceptions and filtrations and communications and consensus might have indicated a world made of dream matter; energy; great spirit-farts; ethereal stuff.

I'd go this far: For some 'primitives', not only wasn't the world flat, it was positively 4 dimensional.

(Btw, Complexity, this isn't in response to anything you posted. I just wanted to tease you about your strictness, which is actually quite refreshing.)

[Complexity]

May I add this counter to your strictness?
I suggest that some pre-science tribes of people didn't even think in terms of the world being solid or round or flat or disconnected from the sky or anything like that. Their perceptions and filtrations and communications and consensus might have indicated a world made of dream matter; energy; great spirit-farts; ethereal stuff.

I'd go this far: For some 'primitives', not only wasn't the world flat, it was positively 4 dimensional.


You are absolutely right.

(Btw, Complexity, this isn't in response to anything you posted. I just wanted to tease you about your strictness, which is actually quite refreshing.)


(I'm hoping I made a few people faint dead away by agreeing with someone so strongly, but what you said earlier is true.)

'Strictness' is out; 'snarkiness' is in. I am now snarky.

Being celebrated for being 'strict' might make some people think I'm into something that I'm not.

To your earlier statement: A great many scientific-era tribes of people don't think very well or about very much at all. (I can't call them scientific tribes, can I? And we aren't post-scientific yet, are we? Are we?)

[HansMustermann]

As with any scientific exploration there are going to be theories and counter theories. As early as the 6th Cent BCE, Pythagoras, was arguing for a spherical Earth. This is believed to be based on two basic observations. One, as a ship approaches, first the upper works appear, then the deck area, finally the hull ( Hence my reference to seafarers). The other 'proof' is the shadow cast by the Earth during Luna eclipses

But I'm just saying that seafaring doesn't make it automatically clear that the Earth is a sphere. We're talking thousands of years of some form of sailing or another, some thousand of it by greeks too, before that kind of thing dawned upon Pythagoras. And some more centuries for his ideas to spread and be taken in any seriousness. Protagoras obviously didn't yet believe Pythagoras's view, for example.

[quarky]

We might be. Down here in Appalachia, we're trying Scope's son, a biologist in Tennessee, because, frankly, he may be a homo-sexual.


(Oh yeah...he also told the kids that fossils are really old.)

But mostly we're worried that he will turn future Nascar stars gay, and they won't have the balls to get in a horrible wreck, like god intended.

When the big (legitimate) media announces a gay Nascar driver, rest assured, the end is near.

(Sorry, I live in the Bible belt.)

edit: this was in response to Complexity, not Hans. Though I shouldn't draw attention to it. This was a very bad post, and I feel shame.

[Complexity]

We might be. Down here in Appalachia, we're trying Scope's son, a biologist in Tennessee, because, frankly, he may be a homo-sexual.


(Oh yeah...he also told the kids that fossils are really old.)

But mostly we're worried that he will turn future Nascar stars gay, and they won't have the balls to get in a horrible wreck, like god intended.

When the big (legitimate) media announces a gay Nascar driver, rest assured, the end is near.

(Sorry, I live in the Bible belt.)

edit: this was in response to Complexity, not Hans. Though I shouldn't draw attention to it. This was a very bad post, and I feel shame.


It's ok, dude. Hang in there.

(Help! :eek: I think he's channelling the love child of edge and annnnoid!)

Silliness aside, is any of that true (re Scope's son?).

Several nascar drivers are gay. I try, lordy knows I try, not to hold their profession against them.

:wave1

[Ron Webb]

Uhuh, so the Greeks knew that the earth revolved around the sun now then ?

They didn't perhaps think that the sun revolved around the earth instead ?

Herodotus believed that the earth was the centre of the universe and that Greece was at the centre of the earth. This is why he thought the testaments of the Phonecians unlikely.

Yes, of course the Greeks, along with the rest of the ancient world, believed in a geocentric universe, i.e. that the earth was stationary while the sun moved. But what does any of this have to do with a flat versus spherical earth? Why would a geocentric universe make the Phoenecians' observation unlikely?

[HansMustermann]

May I add this counter to your strictness?
I suggest that some pre-science tribes of people didn't even think in terms of the world being solid or round or flat or disconnected from the sky or anything like that. Their perceptions and filtrations and communications and consensus might have indicated a world made of dream matter; energy; great spirit-farts; ethereal stuff.

I'd go this far: For some 'primitives', not only wasn't the world flat, it was positively 4 dimensional.

(Btw, Complexity, this isn't in response to anything you posted. I just wanted to tease you about your strictness, which is actually quite refreshing.)

Actually, I'm not aware of any animist system where that might be even remotely true. Can you please point me at an actual example?

[quarky]

Aboriginal Dreamtime?

[HansMustermann]

Hmm... I'm still not sure how that would count as 4D, or how that made their world anyting but flat -- as noted, that doesn't mean there is no vertical axis, but the belief that basically the axis here is parallel to the axis there -- but maybe that's my limited understanding of that belief system.

[MG1962]

Aboriginal Dreamtime?

Any specific example you'd like to share. I dont recall anything I have heard in the Dreaming that points either way

However if anyone had a right to think the Earth was flat, nomadic Aboriginals in Central Australia would be the ones

[quarky]

Well, I doubt I can make a serious case for this idea, with evidence and links and all...though I suspect that we tend to look at how they thought and felt through the eyes of our Newtonian background, which they lacked.

My own few encounters with 'backward' peoples has suggested that their internal chatter and self-referencing; their mental reality and their consensual feedback, is much more focused on spiritual type expectation and confirmation bias, and less on getting to the hard, underlying facts of the nature of the planet.

Even the Australian Aborigines, living mostly on flat dry land, were aware, through stories or first hand experience, of the ocean, mountains, and wet forest regions 'Primitive' Amazonians often had a significant involvement in hallucinogenic drugs, and put a good deal of stock in their hallucinations.

[HansMustermann]

Again, being aware that mountains exist isn't what disproves "flat earth". We're not talking 2D Earth. Protagoras was very aware that mountains exist in Greece when he made Earth a disc orbiting the central fire. The question is whether they realized that the vertical here isn't parallel to the vertical there, and honestly, ironically probably Protagoras was the first who actually made a good case for that.

And while parallel realities nowadays are handwaved under the explanation of a multi-dimensional universe, and even "dimension" has become a synonim for other reality, I'm not aware of any primitive cultures who actually explained their spirit world / underworld / whatever by multi-dimensional maths. There's no evidence that they actually had such a maths framework to explain it like we do.

[quarky]

Shamans were often part of this old world. Every tribe had someone that was a living reminder of their belief in a realm 'beyond', or at least a dream world, that the shaman could visit for guidance and information.

[quarky]

It's ok, dude. Hang in there.

(Help! :eek: I think he's channelling the love child of edge and annnnoid!)

Silliness aside, is any of that true (re Scope's son?).

Several nascar drivers are gay. I try, lordy knows I try, not to hold their profession against them.

:wave1

oops,

sorry; no. I totally made up the Scope's son thing. God pretty much made me do that. You know how it is.

[HansMustermann]

Shamans were often part of this old world. Every tribe had someone that was a living reminder of their belief in a realm 'beyond', or at least a dream world, that the shaman could visit for guidance and information.

Oh, that various religions had some other parallel realm, that's not something I'd dispute. I'm just saying t doesn't necessarily make it 4D. The tendency to explain other worlds by extra dimensions only came after we were all comfortable with that concept, in the 20'th century. Before that, parallel worlds just were.


I doubt that those people could even imagine a tesseract, basically :p

[Complexity]

oops,

sorry; no. I totally made up the Scope's son thing. God pretty much made me do that. You know how it is.


It's just that it was so... plausible.

Fundies would love to plague the son of the teacher who stood up to them.

[quarky]

It's just that it was so... plausible.

Fundies would love to plague the son of the teacher who stood up to them.

Not to pop any bubbles, but truth be told, young Scopes was drafted for the job by a group of town movers and shakers. The fundies wanted the trial, for all the business it would bring into their back-water town. Scopes fit the bill.

The ignorant hillbillies were putting on a show. It brought an amazing amount of commerce to that town. Nobody really cared too much if their kids were taught evolution or not, as they mostly still don't.

But it sure made an effective show for the 2 main players in the court.
That law was never enforced; never an issue.
The A.C.L.U., bless their hearts, honed in on it; found willing players; a big show unfolded; went through higher courts; ended up not even being defeated, despite the stunning oratory...nor did it change a thing, for either side.

Hillbillies often get drafted into representing ignorance for the media's needs.
Its true that they are too guileless and unsophisticated to protest much...plus, they can always use the money.

Sorry for the off-topic rant. The Sope's trial is a fascinating slice of Americana; more so if you dig into it a bit.

[Complexity]

Bubble somewhat popped, but not fatally.

Thanks!