What medical/technolgical advanced has religion tried to block?

[Tony]

This post on another thread got me interesting in the subject:

If medicine were capable of keeping the rest of a human body "alive" and running if the entire brain had been removed... say by a bullet or horrible decapitation would you still feel the same way? Would we still be "murdering" someone if we removed their heart and lungs, torso and limbs from mechanical support in that case?

This is what I don't get. The woman's brain was friggin gone there was no higher functioning there at all... and never would be again. Doctor, after doctor, after doctor has demonstrated this to be true to the great satisfaction of the courts and every person who understand that who you are does indeed reside inside that gray matter wrapped inside your skull.

The only people objecting, quite ironically I might add, are the same people who decried antibiotics, heart-surgery, organ transplants, the artificial heart, artificial insemination, invitro-fertilization, and any number of other medical advances. The thing they all have in common is that they created or perpetuated life when it otherwise should have ended or not been able to begin. These were all decried as "removing/interfering with God's will" or "playing God" or "unnatural means of procreation/life-extension".

Now, because all of these procedures have been widely accepted and did not result in the absolute moral destruction of society the religious nutters have to pick a new target. These days it seems to be gene therapy and any acknowledgement that "life" reside in a material structure we call a "body" and that once that body is damaged beyond a certain point, though we can keep blood and O2 flowing, there is no real life there.

Just as I didn't want your nutter great-grandfather telling my great-grandfather that he was going to hell for using penicillin, or your nutter father telling my uncle he was going to hell for using fertility science, I don't want you and your nutter buddies telling me that even with my entire brain gone I'm still "alive" and it is sinful murder to turn-off the same machines your grand-daddy called the "mechinations of Satan".

Frankly, and I think I speak for all rational people, please invent a time-machine and strand yourself in the Middle Ages when you can be happy to live totally according to God's plan and die horribly from famine, pestilence, or the violence of God's appointed lords and bishops. I'm sure you will be quite happy to live your short, miserable existance in the total absence of all our modern "god-defying" scientific and medical advances... have fun!

Historically, what advances in medicine has religion opposed?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Tony
Historically, what advances in medicine has religion opposed?

All of them?

Seriously, this is an interesting topic and I hope someone with more knowledge than I will contribute.

[DVFinn]

All of them is a valid answer since some religions do not allow any medical intervention on the grounds that god's will shouldn't be interfered with, but to throw out a few specifics.

Stem Cell Research
Vaccination
Antibiotics
Birth Control

[Tony]

Originally posted by DVFinn
All of them is a valid answer since some religions do not allow any medical intervention on the grounds that god's will shouldn't be interfered with, but to throw out a few specifics.

Stem Cell Research
Vaccination
Antibiotics
Birth Control

Can you provide sources?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Tony
Can you provide sources?

You are asking for a source on the claim that some religions are against birth control?

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by DVFinn
All of them is a valid answer since some religions do not allow any medical intervention on the grounds that god's will shouldn't be interfered with, but to throw out a few specifics.

Stem Cell Research
Vaccination
Antibiotics
Birth Control

Well, I won't demand sources but an identification of which religions oppose which therapies would be helpful. For example, Jehovah's (sic) Witnesses deplore blood transfusions.

Also to nit pick, stem cell research is not yet a medical treatment and stem cells come from more sources than embryos so the statement is overbroad.

It is also true that not only religions but cultural groups oppose scientific advances. The Europeans oppose geneticly modified crops. Lots of otherwise sane people oppose nuclear energy while moaning about greenhouse gases. People who apparently have not seen Alaska oppose drilling for oil there on 20 acre pads.

The list goes on.

IIRichard

[Jas]

Who was against antibiotics?

I realize that there are a lot of peope who are against antibiotics (you generally find them in the 'natural foods'aisle), but has a mainstream religion ever decried the use of antibiotics?

[Ryokan]

I'd like to nitpick a bit as well. When you say religion, you really mean Christianity, don't you? Because I'd like to think my religion, Buddhism, has been pretty scientifically progressive. Buddhism as a whole (excepting a few individuals and minor groups), have been for all the things so far claimed to be held back by religion in this thread.

While the west feels morally superior for not allowing stem cell research, the research is being done by Buddhist scientists in Asia.

Everything that leads to good things for humanity is seen as a good thing in the eyes of a Buddhist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ryokan said:
While the west feels morally superior for not allowing stem cell research, the research is being done by Buddhist scientists in Asia.
Just you wait until George Bush is out of office! :D

~~ Paul

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Just you wait until George Bush is out of office! :D

~~ Paul

I'm pretty sure that Bush is not the reason that the European nations have also banned human stem cell research.

I also doubt that the only obstacle in the US is Bush.

What is most likely to happen, is that Asia will develop cures for a lot of ills using stem cells, and then the West, be they ever so morally superior, will reap the benefits.

[triadboy]

You mentioned technology in your subject line:

Xianity KILLED mapmaking during the 'dark ages'.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by triadboy
You mentioned technology in your subject line:

Xianity KILLED mapmaking during the 'dark ages'. How? Where? When? Have you got any sources?

Human disection, during the Renaissance.

In Victorian times, religious people opposed the use of anaesthetic during childbirth --- see, it's contrary to the curse God laid on women in Genesis. It's not clear what proportion of the pamphleteering parsons who condemned this practice could be said to "labour" with the "sweat of their brow", but hey, that's different.

[Tanja]

In vitro fertilisation is, I recall, oposed by the Catholic Church.

[Elio]

It depends why they oppose medical/technolgical advances.

Sometimes you can have good arguments against a given advance. For instance, you could demonstrate that it will bring more problems than benefits.

The problem with some religious is that they have no other arguments except "it's going too far", "it's against The Book" or "Man must not play God".

Oh, and to nitpick as well :

IIRichard,
It is also true that not only religions but cultural groups oppose scientific advances. The Europeans oppose geneticly modified crops...
You must look at the reasons why some Europeans countries oppose (at least for now) geneticly modified crops. They may have rationnal arguments.

Lots of otherwise sane people oppose nuclear energy while moaning about greenhouse gases. People who apparently have not seen Alaska oppose drilling for oil there on 20 acre pads
Again, it is possible to be against nuclear energy with good reasons while at the same time moaning about greenhouse effect and oil drilling...:)

Elio

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jas
Who was against antibiotics?

I realize that there are a lot of peope who are against antibiotics (you generally find them in the 'natural foods'aisle), but has a mainstream religion ever decried the use of antibiotics?
As far as I know, before germ theory, all diseases were thought to be caused by curses or by sin. In other words, in today's fundie terminology "germs are a secular attempt to explain evil!".

Although almost everyone today accepts germ theory, there are still a few who believe disease is caused by God (this is why we still hear fundies say things like "God created AIDS to punish homosexuals").

Here's a selected example from the FSTDT:
"So now they are advertising AIDS-prohibiting pills... 'Take your Anti-AIDS vitamins every morning before you Rump Rangers saddle up...'

All their magic pills will not make the wrath of God go away..."

Lazarus, Free Conservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=273816&postcount=4)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
How? Where? When? Have you got any sources?


Unfortunately, learning and intellect went out of fashion in Europe between 400 and 1200 AD. The storehouses of Greek knowledge were lost to Western society with the advent of the gloomy period known as the Dark Ages. Sea monsters and Vikings ruled the seas, and ships that ventured too far from shore were sure to fall off the edge of a flat Earth. Maps made in that time were based on religious beliefs or superstitions, not on observations, calculations, or scientific inquiry. Rectangular maps of the Earth represented the "four corners of the Earth." Circular maps usually placed the birthplace of Christianity, the holy city of Jerusalem, at the center of the world.

http://octopus.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html

I just googled "dark ages map making". The first link I came to restates what I read by (I think) either Asimov or Daniel Boorstin (The Creators, The Discoverers - these are both great books, by the way)

Don't forget - "learning" was not an encouraged Xian pursuit for a long, long time....and we can still see vestiges of it today.

[Mid]

Originally posted by Ryokan
I'm pretty sure that Bush is not the reason that the European nations have also banned human stem cell research.

I also doubt that the only obstacle in the US is Bush.

What is most likely to happen, is that Asia will develop cures for a lot of ills using stem cells, and then the West, be they ever so morally superior, will reap the benefits.

I'm not certain about other European coutnries but the UK hasn't banned stem cell research, as shown by this link:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ihg/research/developmental/

Also as far as I can remember in the US the ban is more along the lines of a lack of federal funds (although i may be wrong on that part)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
http://octopus.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html

I just googled "dark ages map making". The first link I came to restates what I read by (I think) either Asimov or Daniel Boorstin (The Creators, The Discoverers - these are both great books, by the way)

Don't forget - "learning" was not an encouraged Xian pursuit for a long, long time....and we can still see vestiges of it today.

Didn't we have this discussion last year (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35211&perpage=40&highlight=mapmaking&pagenumber=3)?

I wouldn't say you were able to substantiate the claim then.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Tony
Historically, what advances in medicine has religion opposed?With so many different belief systems, I wonder whether opposition to some medical advance at some time is a valid basis for lumping them together. It's a bit like asking "which social policies have politicians opposed?"
Originally posted by DVFinn
All of them is a valid answer since some religions do not allow any medical intervention on the grounds that god's will shouldn't be interfered with, but to throw out a few specifics.

...

Vaccination
Antibiotics
Birth Control
Here's a link to one church's diatribe against vaccination (http://www.lifespirit.org/vaccbelief.htm). So far as I am aware, though, mainstream Christian religions did not oppose vaccination on doctrinal grounds. Ditto for antibiotics. Anyone else know anything?

Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think birth control can legitimately be considered a "medical advance" in most cases (that is, cases where birth control drugs are prescribed to a fully healthy patient purely for contraceptive purposes). If one considers the standard definition of "medicine" - the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diseases and/or physical disorders and injuries - it's very difficult to see how the Pill can be considered medically therapeutic in such cases. (I doubt we'll find many medical textbooks describing an ordinary pregnancy in an otherwise healthy individual as a disease, disorder or injury.) And in cases where birth control drugs are medically indicated - say, for the treatment of endometriosis - many religions drop their objections to the practice. Accordingly, I'm not sure that birth control belongs on our list.
Originally posted by triadboy
You mentioned technology in your subject line:

Xianity KILLED mapmaking during the 'dark ages'.So far as I am aware, Christianity never opposed mapmaking. Indeed, Christians turned out a number of maps during this time - some of them were simply skewed by the cartographic convention of placing Jerusalem at the center of the world. Obviously this only applied to world maps, which constitute a tiny minority of all maps and tend not to be the ones used for most practical applications (crossing a province or a mountain range; navigating a tricky coastline; fighting a battle; localizing a border or property demarcation; etc.).

Also, Leif Roar already pointed out to you the lack of evidence of any religious edict or doctrinal requirement that maps be drafted in a certain way (in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35211)). So not only does it appear a massive exaggeration to say that cartography was "killed" during this period (or even that imminent breakthroughs in mapmaking were significantly retarded), but it doesn't seem that in any institutional fashion the Church was involved.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Human disection, during the Renaissance.Beg pardon? (http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/walsh-e.htm) Scientific human dissection began in Italy around 1300 in Christian centers of learning and spread rapidly to the other Christian universities of Western Europe. Human dissection had, however, been forbidden by Islam as well as in classical antiquity.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
In Victorian times, religious people opposed the use of anaesthetic during childbirth --- see, it's contrary to the curse God laid on women in Genesis. It's not clear what proportion of the pamphleteering parsons who condemned this practice could be said to "labour" with the "sweat of their brow", but hey, that's different.Interestingly, this subject was examined in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57150) recently (with respect to Catholicism in particular). It seems that while some religious individuals opposed the practice, mainstream institutional religious opposition to anesthesia is a myth.
Originally posted by Yahweh
As far as I know, before germ theory, all diseases were thought to be caused by curses or by sin.Unless you push back the beginning of germ theory awfully far, this is hardly true. The handy Germ Theory Calendar (http://germtheorycalendar.com) describes what scientific theories and observations throughout history culminated in modern germ theory (a number of early advances, of course, were made under the auspices of religious institutions). Even wrongheaded theories like "bad air" and "humours" largely overtook speculations about witchcraft and curses a long time ago, at least in Western Europe.
Originally posted by triadboy
Don't forget - "learning" was not an encouraged Xian pursuit for a long, long time....Triadboy, triadboy... this is just false, and you should know it by now. Don't you remember the old "Is religion slowing us down?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24015) thread?

[Bob Klase]

Originally posted by Mid
Also as far as I can remember in the US the ban is more along the lines of a lack of federal funds (although i may be wrong on that part) [/B]

That's true. Other than poliltical posturing I never understood how it could be called a 'ban'. Bush didn't ban anything- he authorized federal funds for stem cell research. While I don't agree with the limits he put on it (only existing lines could be researched with federal funds) it is more than any other president has done- before Bush there were no federal funds for stem cell research.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by triadboy
I just googled "dark ages map making". The first link I came to restates what I readThat's hardly evidence. It is just an opinion. A rather narrowminded and uninformed one, I think. I've found this page (http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/EMwebpages/EML.html) with many pictures of medieval maps. I've yet to see a single seamonster. I also don't see any evidence that the mapmakers believed the Earth had four corners or that a ship could fall from the edge. I also don't see why placing Jerusalem at the center of a map should be wrong. Modern maps have the 0 meridian at the center, but that does not prove people believe that it is the center of the Earth.

The maps are not scale models of the world as modern geographical maps are. It would be wrong to look at them that way. Most of them are highly stylised depictions of the connections between places of interest, like the modern map of the London Underground. If you view them like that, you'll see that many of the maps are absolutely brilliant: with a few straight lines some of them manage to convey the information they are meant to convey. It doesn't mean the cartographers thought the lines were straight in reality, just that they didn't consider every detail relevant.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Didn't we have this discussion last year (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35211&perpage=40&highlight=mapmaking&pagenumber=3)?

I wouldn't say you were able to substantiate the claim then.

This from a year ago:

Found it! Got lucky and saw a reference to Daniel Boorstin in another book I was searching.

Daniel J Boorstin directed the nation's library from 1979 - 1987. He wrote some great history books The Creators and The Discoverers. These are a must read.

Now I must type.

From The Discoverers (p 100)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Europe did not carry on the work of Ptolemy, Instead the leaders of orthodox Christiandom built a grand barrier against the progress of knowledge about the earth. Christian geographers in the Middle Ages spent their energies embroidering a neat, theologically appealing picture of what was already known or was supposed to be known.

After the death of Ptolemy, Christianity conquered the Roman Empire and most of Europe. Then we observe a Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia.

We have no lack of evidence of what the medieval Christian geographers thought. More than six hundred mappae mundi, maps of the world, survive from the Middle Ages.

At the center of each map was Jerusalem. "Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her" (Ezekiel 5:5)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It goes on and on through history. This is not an anti-Chrisitan book - it is a history book. Great writing! In fact, I think I'll reread it! Thanks for reminding me about it!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That's hardly evidence. It is just an opinion. A rather narrowminded and uninformed one, I think.

I don't know how many reference you require to understand the great progress made in map making up to Ptolemy. The dull wittedness of the Dark Ages caused map making to flounder

http://math.rice.edu/~lanius/pres/map/maphis.html

http://www.studyofplace.com/Modules/Module.cfm?ModuleId=2&ModuleItemId=8

Once Christianity spread across Europe those of learning were Churchmen and the truth about the world, they argued, was contained in the Bible and not to be found by scientific investigation. Where Bible quotations appeared to contradict pre-Christian scientific discoveries, then good science was dismissed as pagan foolishness. Biblical quotations convinced some that the Earth was a circle, certainly not a sphere, while for others quotations such as "the four corners of the Earth" in Isaiah proved that the Earth was rectangular.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Cartography.html

[AWPrime]

People must be blind not to see that religion hates when people do their own thinking.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
This from a year ago:

Yes, and I responded to that post of yours a year ago.

[Earthborn]

I don't know how many reference you require to understand the great progress made in map making up to Ptolemy.None, as I have not disputed it. What you do have to do is show that Medieval map makers believed that the Earth was flat, had four corners and had Jerusalem at the centre. I have seen no evidence of that.The dull wittedness of the Dark Ages caused map making to flounderYou equate map making with geographic map making. I think that is unfair. When it comes to simplified maps that abstractly depict information that is useful to the average person, nothing like medieval maps surfaced until the end of 19th century (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/uro-neph/new-umap.gif). So were they behind the times, or ahead of it?

I think neither: they just made the maps that were of use to them. That does not prove that they were too stupid or too religious to make other ones, just that they didn't see the point.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Earthborn
None, as I have not disputed it. What you do have to do is show that Medieval map makers believed that the Earth was flat, had four corners and had Jerusalem at the centre. I have seen no evidence of that.

It doesn't matter whether they believed it or not - they did it. And it's there for you to discover. :)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
It doesn't matter whether they believed it or not - they did it.

So you claim; but you seem unwilling or unable to actually back that claim up. *shrugs*

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
So you claim; but you seem unwilling or unable to actually back that claim up. *shrugs*

What kind of proof do you desire?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
What kind of proof do you desire?

I think we covered that fairly well in the old thread, actually.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by triadboy
they did it.So they made rectangular and circular maps of the world, many of which were not to scale, and some of those maps had Jerusalem in the centre, while most of them didn't.

You'll have to explain very carefully why any of that is a problem.And it's there for you to discover. :)I already posted a link to a site with lots of great medieval maps, which I enjoyed a lot. That's more than what you did.

I have yet to see a medieval map with a sea monster on it. There might be one, but it doesn't look like it was terribly common.

[gnome]

I wonder if it may be a mixed history...

During the dark ages, were there not monks as hard at work preserving knowledge as Inqusition types accused of suppresing it?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by gnome
I wonder if it may be a mixed history...

During the dark ages, were there not monks as hard at work preserving knowledge as Inqusition types accused of suppresing it?

In this case, Islamic academics kept Western history alive.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by triadboy
In this case, Islamic academics kept Western history alive.Islamic academics who - if we can believe the medieval maps I linked to - made very similar maps as the people in the West.

Undoubtedly that's caused by the Catholic church as well, the bastards! :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by triadboy
Unfortunately, learning and intellect went out of fashion in Europe between 400 and 1200 AD. The storehouses of Greek knowledge were lost to Western society with the advent of the gloomy period known as the Dark Ages. Sea monsters and Vikings ruled the seas, and ships that ventured too far from shore were sure to fall off the edge of a flat Earth. The "they thought the Eath was flat" thing comes up so regularly that Ashles has a link to a rebuttal of this in his sig --- and also a rebuttal of "scientists have proved that bees can't fly". I have both of these in my top twenty list of things that aren't true (along with "Eskimos have a hundred words for snow", and "You can see the Great Wall Of China form the Moon"). It... just... isn't... true.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
The "they thought the Eath was flat" thing comes up so regularly that Ashles has a link to a rebuttal of this in his sig

You do know that the guy that does that rebuttal is a nutter right?

[AWPrime]

I can show what religion does, just look here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/fundies/

Now if we didn't have access to the great liberary know as the internet, most of us wouldn't been able to refute them. And it also shows their hate of science.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tony
Historically, what advances in medicine has religion opposed? So, what's wrong with dying? It's going to happen anyway isn't it? Why make such a big deal about nothing?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
You do know that the guy that does that rebuttal is a nutter right?

Nutter or not, he's right. The generally held view during the dark ages and the medieval period was that the earth was a sphere, enclosed within the various heavenly spheres.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what's wrong with dying? It's going to happen anyway isn't it? Why make such a big deal about nothing? Oh, I forgot to mention, it keeps the drug companies in business. ;)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Nutter or not, he's right. The generally held view during the dark ages and the medieval period was that the earth was a sphere, enclosed within the various heavenly spheres.

I doubt that this was the general held view. I am sure that the educated were able to ascertain that the earth was a sphere, but I am doubtful if they said this to the masses.

The fact that people in medieval times thought that the sun and the other planets went around the earth, makes this plausible.


ps. What was then the basis for the reluctance against Columbus’s expedition?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Nutter or not, he's right. The generally held view during the dark ages and the medieval period was that the earth was a sphere, enclosed within the various heavenly spheres.

Prove it

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
I doubt that this was the general held view. I am sure that the educated were able to ascertain that the earth was a sphere, but I am doubtful if they said this to the masses.

Most of the population, of course, didn't care one way or the other since it made no practical difference, but why do you doubt "they said this to the masses"?

The fact that people in medieval times thought that the sun and the other planets went around the earth, makes this plausible.

Not really; the belief of the time was that sun, moon, stars and planets were moving within their separate heavenly spheres, each of which surrounded (and shared centre with) the spherical earth.

ps. What was then the basis for the reluctance against Columbus’s expedition?

While it is, today, commonly held that Columbus' sailors believed they'd "sail off the edge of the world;" their actual reluctance was that they feared they'd run out of food before reaching the eastern edge of Asia. (Which, if it hadn't been for the fortunate existance of the Americas, they would have.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
Prove it

What level of proof do you require?

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by Elio
It depends why they oppose medical/technolgical advances.

Sometimes you can have good arguments against a given advance. For instance, you could demonstrate that it will bring more problems than benefits.

The problem with some religious is that they have no other arguments except "it's going too far", "it's against The Book" or "Man must not play God".

Oh, and to nitpick as well :

IIRichard,

You must look at the reasons why some Europeans countries oppose (at least for now) geneticly modified crops. They may have rationnal arguments.

Again, it is possible to be against nuclear energy with good reasons while at the same time moaning about greenhouse effect and oil drilling...:)

Elio
That is true. However, you dismiss any argument that a religious person might make. A rational person might well decide that creating embryos for the purpose of destroying them is wrong because the practice cheapens human life.

When listening to opponents of GM crops and nuclear power, I get the strangest feeling that their opposition is visceral and not based on any rational grounds.

In sum, religious persons frequently have well thought out reasons for holding certain views and non-religious persons can believe things that are totally wackoo. Identification of someone as a theist alone gets you nowhere. IIRichard

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar Most of the population, of course, didn't care one way or the other since it made no practical difference, but why do you doubt "they said this to the masses"?
The jerusalem is the center of the universe bit makes the masses happy, and so easier to control.

Not really; the belief of the time was that sun, moon, stars and planets were moving within their separate heavenly spheres, each of which surrounded (and shared centre with) the spherical earth.
Where did you get that from?

While it is, today, commonly held that Columbus' sailors believed they'd "sail off the edge of the world;" their actual reluctance was that they feared they'd run out of food before reaching the eastern edge of Asia. (Which, if it hadn't been for the fortunate existance of the Americas, they would have.)
And this from?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
What level of proof do you require?

A bunch of web links and information on books containing this information.

[aargh57]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
The "they thought the Eath was flat" thing comes up so regularly that Ashles has a link to a rebuttal of this in his sig --- and also a rebuttal of "scientists have proved that bees can't fly". I have both of these in my top twenty list of things that aren't true (along with "Eskimos have a hundred words for snow", and "You can see the Great Wall Of China form the Moon"). It... just... isn't... true.

Dr. A,

Do you have a link to a website with your top 20 list? I think it would be interesting.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So they made rectangular and circular maps of the world, many of which were not to scale, and some of those maps had Jerusalem in the centre, while most of them didn't.

You'll have to explain very carefully why any of that is a problem.I already posted a link to a site with lots of great medieval maps, which I enjoyed a lot. That's more than what you did.

I have yet to see a medieval map with a sea monster on it. There might be one, but it doesn't look like it was terribly common.

Instead of trying to explain what happened during the dark ages. Read up on Cartography. It will become obvious. As I mentioned before - The Daniel Boorstin books are a nice read concerning history in general, but he touches on the progress Ptolemy made and how the dark ages let it slip away.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Also, Leif Roar already pointed out to you the lack of evidence of any religious edict or doctrinal requirement that maps be drafted in a certain way. So not only does it appear a massive exaggeration to say that cartography was "killed" during this period (or even that imminent breakthroughs in mapmaking were significantly retarded), but it doesn't seem that in any institutional fashion the Church was involved.

So religious idiotry HAS to have a church edict for you to believe it happened?!? We have people in the Appalachian Mountains handling poisonous snakes because it says so in the bible. [Nevermind the section mentioning this - Mark 9-20 - is a later insertion] There was no edict on this procedure.

Just because you can't find a Papal edict altering map making, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you read books by historians of Cartography, Dark Ages, etc. You might be surprized to learn you are wrong! (gasp)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
So religious idiotry HAS to have a church edict for you to believe it happened?!? We have people in the Appalachian Mountains handling poisonous snakes because it says so in the bible. [Nevermind the section mentioning this - Mark 9-20 - is a later insertion] There was no edict on this procedure.

Just because you can't find a Papal edict altering map making, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you read books by historians of Cartography, Dark Ages, etc. You might be surprized to learn you are wrong! (gasp) A couple of comments here.

First, the tenor of the OP led me to believe that we were looking for examples in which "religion tried to block advances", not examples of religious idiotry. If it's the Catholic Church we're discussing, then yes, one would reasonably hope to see evidence of some kind of institutional response or dogmatic imperative, whether in the form of an edict or otherwise. I have no problem acknowledging that the very limited subset of cartography that is world maps were affected by pious medieval conventions in the field. I just don't see how this constitutes an attempt by Christianity - much less a successful one - to KILL (caps yours) mapmaking. Earthborn and I have already advised you of the flaws in your case, and you have yet to address them.

Second, you should not rely on Daniel Boorstin's accounts of medieval science and religion. Though a talented writer of pop history, he frankly makes a number of mistakes which have been repudiated by other, more specialized and more recent scholarship (Religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl1.htm), by the way, cites Boorstin's comments about the "Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia" and medieval geography in demonstrating how Boorstin - knowingly or unknowingly - contributed to the perpetuation of this hoax.) As his Guardian obituary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1159014,00.html[/url) last year pointed out, Boorstin's "own work was far more popular with the general reader than with professional historians, who accused him of various biases and myth-making."

Instead, try reading the best in recent historical scholarship about medieval science (such as Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages or God and Reason in the Middle Ages, or any of the many other works I've recommended in past threads on the subject). They are more challenging reading than Boorstin, but virtually indispensable if one aspires to know what one is talking about in this area of history. They also present a completely different image of intellectual life in the Middle Ages than the set of widespread misconceptions under which you are presently laboring, and which also afflicted Boorstin.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ladewig
You are asking for a source on the claim that some religions are against birth control?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not asking for a source to "prove" that some religion is against birth control. I'm asking for a source so that we can have a list of documented cases of relgion being against medical advances.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
A bunch of web links and information on books containing this information.

Well, if that's all you require, then dig in:

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm (this discussion contains a number of further references.)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Flat_Earth
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm


If, instead, you'd like some original sources, here's a few.

The Divine Comedy by Dante describes a journey into the center of the earth, through the various spheres or levels of hell, and then rising upwards back to earth, and up through the heavenly spheres enveloping it.

From "De Civitate Dei, xvi" by St. Augustine, discussing the existance of the antipodes, makes the explicit extends his argument to a spherical earth "even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form,"

And, well, Copernicus' De Revolutionibus refers to the existing cosmology, with its many spheres all over the place: http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
The Daniel Boorstin books are a nice read concerning history in general, but he touches on the progress Ptolemy made and how the dark ages let it slip away.

Ptolemy died in 165 AD; yet no significant advances in carthography occured in the time from his death to the political and religious ascendance of Christianity. Also, no significant advances in carthography occured in the areas of the ancient world where his works survived outside of what was to become Christendom.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The jerusalem is the center of the universe bit makes the masses happy, and so easier to control.

First of all, that's conjecture on your part. It's also conjecture that makes no sense -- why should putting Jerusalem in the centre of maps "make the masses happy"?


Where did you get that from?


And this from?

The links I posted in reply to Triadboy covers this myth , but to spare you digging through them, you can also look here: http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm

[AWPrime]

Leif Roar, what do you think caused the stagnetion of general science seen in the dark ages?



Originally posted by Leif Roar
why should putting Jerusalem in the centre of maps "make the masses happy"?
Pride


ps. you still haven't aswered where you get this from:Not really; the belief of the time was that sun, moon, stars and planets were moving within their separate heavenly spheres, each of which surrounded (and shared centre with) the spherical earth.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Leif Roar, what do you think caused the stagnetion of general science seen in the dark ages?

Primarily the fall of the Roman empire. (And it should be pointed out that the dark ages weren't as dark and stagnant as is commonly held.)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Primarily the fall of the Roman empire.
One mayor problem with this theory is that the dark ages lasted too long for just the fall of the roman empire to be responsible.

I think that christian radicalisme between 300 AC to 600 AC is more responsible. In this periode Anti-intellectualism was promoted by the likes of Chrysostom, Augustine and Gregory.

This would have effected the very structure of learning.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by AWPrime
I am sure that the educated were able to ascertain that the earth was a sphereAnd it were the educated who made maps. They made maps for the other educated.I am doubtful if they said this to the masses.What they said 'to the masses' is irrelevant and unknown. There is no reason to believe they kept it a secret.The fact that people in medieval times thought that the sun and the other planets went around the earth, makes this plausible.That's what the educated at the time believed. If you take into consideration the level of knowledge they had, and the limited tools to make observations, then you'll understand that for those times it wasn't an unreasonable thing to conclude. Assuming that the Earth went round the sun would have raised more questions than it answered. Questions even Galileo could not answer many years later.What was then the basis for the reluctance against Columbus's expedition?Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus):It is sometimes claimed that the reason Columbus had a hard time receiving support for this plan was that Europeans believed that the Earth was flat. This myth can be traced to Washington Irving's novel The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828).
The fact that the Earth is round was evident to most people of Columbus's time, especially other sailors and navigators

(snip)

In fact, the distance is about 10,600 nautical miles (19,600 km), and most European sailors and navigators concluded that the Indies were too far away to make his plan worth considering. They were right and Columbus was wrongThe jerusalem is the center of the universe bit makes the masses happy, and so easier to control.The fact that a few maps (but not even most) were made with Jerusalem at the center is not proof that anyone actually believed Jerusalem was at the center of the Universe. I've seen modern day maps that have the North or South pole at the center. Does that mean that anyone worth considering believes the North or South pole is at the center of the universe? No, of course not. It is just a way to depict something. It is a projection. Medieval cartographers could easily have done the same, so it is wrong to claim that maps show exactly how they viewed the world.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by triadboy
Instead of trying to explain what happened during the dark ages.Your claim is about what happened during the middle ages.Read up on Cartography. It will become obvious.Alright, here goes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography):European scientific cartography slept through the Middle Ages, when philosophical thought turned toward religion.You are right about one thing: religion did have some influence. But it is not the devastating influence you claimed it had:the field advanced in some ways, such as Roger Bacon's investigations of map projections and the appearance of portolano and then portolan charts for plying the European trade routesAnd the claim that map makers imagined the world as flat with Jerusalem at the center is demonstratably untrue:With the exception of a few theologians of minority opinion, notably Lactantius, Christian and Islamic philosophers adhered to the Greek conception of a spherical earth.It is unreasonable to demand that they should have made geographical maps. They had no use for them:Large-scale mapping tended toward diagrammatic as well, since cadastral needs generally were met by descriptions of landmarks rather than by measurements.I don't see what is wrong with diagrammatic maps.

Let's take another source. Someone (http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20020610/medieval_maps.shtml) who has actually appears to have studied Medieval maps specifically:Medieval men and women were neither stupid nor ignorant. If we look at medieval maps expecting the precise geographical accuracy of, for example, a USGS topographical survey, we are bound to come to one of those conclusions. To be blunt, most medieval maps have next to nothing to do with representing geography. This fact places us at several removes from the mindset of a medieval cartographer, since we tend to view maps as little more than geographical representations of the Earth. This expectation is ignorance on our part, not theirs, because maps are never, ever geographically precise.Though these T-O maps look like representations of a flat, disk-shaped Earth, they are not. The circular shape was merely a convention to represent the concept of the Earth, much as we think conventionally of our planet as a sphere or globe even though it is not.Our modern myth that medieval people thought the Earth was flat rests in two misconceptions. First, as mentioned above, people have misread medieval maps. In particular, modern readers have seen the T-O maps as representing a flat, disk-shaped Earth rather than the projected hemisphere that they really represent. Second, most modern readers have assumed ignorance on the part of medieval people, just as they have assumed medieval people were dirty and lived in dank and dark hovels. There is little truth in either assumption; both are misconceptions begun in the Nineteenth Century as part of a reaction against the Catholic Church.Originally posted by triadboy
So religious idiotry HAS to have a church edict for you to believe it happened?!?Nobody disputes that map making changed in the Middle Ages. I think it is also obvious that religion had some influence on that, although no one was prohibited from making non-religious maps and quite a few of such maps survived. Your claim however that 'Xianity killed map making' is doubtful, as the same changes happened outside the Christian world.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Well, if that's all you require, then dig in:

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm (this discussion contains a number of further references.)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Flat_Earth
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm


If, instead, you'd like some original sources, here's a few.

The Divine Comedy by Dante describes a journey into the center of the earth, through the various spheres or levels of hell, and then rising upwards back to earth, and up through the heavenly spheres enveloping it.

From "De Civitate Dei, xvi" by St. Augustine, discussing the existance of the antipodes, makes the explicit extends his argument to a spherical earth "even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form,"

And, well, Copernicus' De Revolutionibus refers to the existing cosmology, with its many spheres all over the place: http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html

I'm confused by your sources - all they prove is the Church was against the concept of a round earth. Augustine's quote makes it clear the concensus of the day was for a flat earth, because nobody could possibly live on the other side of a sphere.

Did you prove the wrong thing?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Alright, here goes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography):You are right about one thing: religion did have some influence.

From your source:

Most world 'maps' of the period were Christian cosmological diagrams not intended as rigorous geographical representations. Typically rectangular or circular, they followed the style of the so-called "T and O map," which represents the earth's single land mass as disk-shaped and surrounded by ocean.

A map not intended as a rigourous geographical representation is a bad map. Bad map.

[Earthborn]

Augustine's quote makes it clear the concensus of the day was for a flat earth, because nobody could possibly live on the other side of a sphere.You misunderstand Augustine's argument. He argued that nobody could live on the other side of the Earth, because it was commonly believed that the equator was too hot to pass, so if God created Adam on one hemisphere, his descendants could not have found their way to the other hemisphere.A map not intended as a rigourous geographical representation is a bad map. Bad map.Then according to you, this map (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/uro-neph/new-umap.gif) is a bad map. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners disagree with you everyday.

Whether a map is bad or good does not depend on whether it is a rigorous geographical representation. It normally depends on whether it is useful for its intended purpose. Some maps have rigorous geographical representation as their purpose, and should be rigorously geographical representations. Other maps (such as that of the London Underground) are simply not useful at all if they were geographical representations.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by triadboy
I'm confused by your sources - all they prove is the Church was against the concept of a round earth. Augustine's quote makes it clear the concensus of the day was for a flat earth, because nobody could possibly live on the other side of a sphere.

Nonsense -- he excplicitly says that nobody can live on the antipode even if the earth is a sphere.

You have also ignored the links that explicitly discusses the flat earth myth.

Did you prove the wrong thing?

No, you misinterpreted the sources I showed you.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by AWPrime
One mayor problem with this theory is that the dark ages lasted too long for just the fall of the roman empire to be responsible.

I disagree that that is the case; but I don't think we'll be able to resolve our differences on that here. Let's leave it to the historians.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I disagree that that is the case;
On what argument? Many empires have fallen in the histroy of mankind but such a long setback would be 'strange'.

but I don't think we'll be able to resolve our differences on that here.

That would be sad.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You misunderstand Augustine's argument. He argued that nobody could live on the other side of the Earth, because it was commonly believed that the equator was too hot to pass, so if God created Adam on one hemisphere, his descendants could not have found their way to the other hemisphere.

They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, ...

This doesn't appear to be someone who is totally onboard with the spherical earth idea.

Then according to you, this map (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/uro-neph/new-umap.gif) is a bad map. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners disagree with you everyday.

I've used this map several times - I thought it was great.

Whether a map is bad or good does not depend on whether it is a rigorous geographical representation. It normally depends on whether it is useful for its intended purpose.


Agree. The London tube map is good.

[LW]

Originally posted by AWPrime
ps. you still haven't aswered where you get this from:

For example, here (http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLTnoframes/ideas/universesubj.html).

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by LW
For example, here (http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLTnoframes/ideas/universesubj.html).

I don't see how it contradicts what I said.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by aargh57
Dr. A,

Do you have a link to a website with your top 20 list? I think it would be interesting. Made Up Science Facts (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58946)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by DVFinn
All of them is a valid answer since some religions do not allow any medical intervention on the grounds that god's will shouldn't be interfered with

I always wondered how Christian sects could believe this. After all, what they're saying is "We could cure this child with modern science, but if you want him saved, God, you do it."

And that's putting God to the test, which is also a no-no in the Bible.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by IIRichard
It is also true that not only religions but cultural groups oppose scientific advances. The Europeans oppose geneticly modified crops.

You'll note the social power dynamics are the same: certain people in power are using fear of such-and-such to gain power, to heck with wether it's really valid or not (or if so, to what degree, and if so, are consequences worse than the benefits...)


Lots of otherwise sane people oppose nuclear energy while moaning about greenhouse gases. People who apparently have not seen Alaska oppose drilling for oil there on 20 acre pads.

That last one really gets me. The indescribable innumeracy of politicians and the populace as a whole, who rely on them largely.

I also love banning yard waste from landfills because of latent 1970's innumeracy that we're running out of space. The one reasonable solution to clearing C02 (if necessary, which many believe) out of the atmosphere is planting fast growth trees then burying them in non-decomposing landfills (which are also in shorter and shorter supply.) Certainly everyone throwing out bags of grass every week would aid in this. But noooooooooo.....