He thinks he is, yes. I happen to disagree, often. He looks at history with Walt Disney's eyes, searching for vilains and heroes. — Olivier5

This thread is not about him and it should be against the rules to derail threads by making the topic the person who made a post. If anyone wants to make personal comments, please send me a personal message and when posting in the thread, please stay on topic.

I don't think complicated historical events can be broken down into monolithic stages like this. Metaphysical mutations don't seem like good explanations for historical events, IMO. The material basis (like advancements in trade technology) is what drives events; ideological changes are an effect, not the cause. It doesn't make any sense to me that one region of the planet progressed simply because the inhabitants started believing in something different. It just seems more like mythology than history. — darthbarracuda

I want to bring this post in play because I agree with it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+surrounding+afghanistan&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=AOaemvKStUpx_tH7CK5ZZ7NRxKrvbbnoqQ:1631714083731&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EJNHhDRYoVHDHM%252CXMbzPN4GBml2lM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSP-vxUoxiGbyeXoFpeVLzwU2Yw3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWodfSkIHzAhVhCjQIHY-SAeIQ9QF6BAgHEAE#imgrc=EJNHhDRYoVHDHM

Look at the countries around Afghanistan. Which ones is the US friendly with? Do you suppose the US failed because it has absolutely no interest in those countries succeeding? What would trade agreements with those countries look like? Afghanistan is land locked so how is it going to trade with the rest of the world? And darthbarracuda, might you tell us what can be expected if there is no trade because you may understand this better than I do.

Indeed. Apo has a strong bias in favour of Christianity and against Islam. It colors everything he says about history. He's basically a Christian apologetic.
7 hours ago — Olivier5

He is very well informed and makes good arguments and he really makes me think. There is a thread about what we want from philosophy and he gives me everything I want. I just worry about offending him. We all feel passionate about something and it is really hard when someone is attacking what we feel passionate about. I would settle for some Christians have done wonderful things, and some Muslims have done wonderful things, and most people mean well. However, the success of a nation is about resources, climate, and trading.

One other point I want to make is, our efforts in Afghanistan may have succeeded if we had built on Islam. It is just as good for democracy as Christianity is. When everything is made legitimate with a belief in a God it goes much better. That is what people will fight for.

↪Athena And good science depends on good observation. — Olivier5

No, we must NOT stop at observation. For so many reasons we can be totally wrong and the link I posted is an excellent explanation of that. Please, pay attention to the explanation of fast and slow thinking before making another argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West. — Apollodorus

That seems like a distorted history to me. Christians destroyed the pagan temples that were places for studying math and medicine and they clung to Jesus's word that we do not have to wash our hands or follow the laws practiced in Judism that were based on experience and health issues. A problem for the Jews, was an incomplete understanding of the science of sanitation and avoiding food poisoning. Moses took his people through a desert where burying human waste was a good health practice, but in a wetter Juresalem, it meant contaminating the water supply and lead to spreading disease and death. At the same time, Christians picked up the eastern notion of demons and demons possessing us and making us sick and that lead to returning to superstition and an inferior understanding of health issue that the Greek medicine. Come on, Christian Europeans dumped their waste in the streets, and burned Jews as witches because they were using herbs for healing, and when plagues came they really persecuted Jews, because the Christians had a very superstitious notion of disease, and to this day some of them are rejecting science and refuse to wear masks or to get vacinated while they pray to Jesus to protect them.

If Evanical Christians and Texas Republicans were not so anti science and anti education for indepentent thinking, I would not care so much about how the religion effects our lives. But there is also knowing how Christians displacing all the indignous people in their path. Not even converting to Christianity saved some of these people, and certianly not people with dark skin who the Bible said were cursed by God and justified their slavery. Please, can we get away from religion? The subject has been very damaging to my friendships with Christians. I am so torn between keeping friends and everything thing I think is very important like liberty and justice and what truth has to do with all our understanding of the world and our decisions, such as occupying Aghanstan with a complete disrespect of Islam and totally failing to help them achieve a strong and united nation. What we did was wrong and we seriously need to give up the notion that we are superior. Our superiority is only temporary as civilizations rise and fall. Our democracy and the search for truth was supposed to avoid the pit falls of previous civilizations, but instead of this making us stronger, it has us pitted against each other as strongly as Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Taliban are pitted against each other. I stand for democracy and that necessrialy is a stand against religion. God did not reveal knowledge of health and good government. Both were the result of human beings trying to figure things out.

Well, the reason I am using history to make a point is that you cannot philosophize about a topic that involves historical events without first establishing what the historical facts are.

History is largely open to interpretation of historical evidence and it can become subject to misinterpretation and distortion.

The idea of “European Dark Ages” is a case in point. Precisely because it is often used to denigrate European or Western history and culture, it is necessary to see what the truth of it is.

The first thing that becomes obvious is that there is a curious tendency among present-day Westerners to forget that the Roman Empire in the 300’s AD was split in two halves: the Eastern part centered on Constantinople (Greece) and controlled by the Greeks, and the Western part centered on Rome (Italy) and controlled by Romans.

Equally forgotten (or deliberately ignored?) is the fact that the Eastern part lasted for more than a millennium and largely preserved the Greek and Roman culture of the original Roman Empire, including the civic structures, public baths, forums, monuments, and aqueducts of pre-Christian Rome in working condition.

In contrast, the Western part from the 400’s onwards was overrun by Germanic tribes, disintegrated into many separate kingdoms, and lost much of its Greek and Roman heritage.

The second thing that becomes evident from this is that if there was anything like a “Dark Ages”, it was a) in the Western half of the Empire only and b) it was not the result of Christian rule but the result of rule by Germanic warriors who were among the greatest fighters Europe had ever seen, but had no advanced culture and no knowledge or experience of running an empire based on urban civilization.

Meantime, the so-called “Golden Age of Islam” came about in Muslim-dominated Persia, through the cultural fusion of mostly Greek and Persian traditions.

For example, all the Greek medical works available to the Muslim rulers of Persia were obtained from the Christian Eastern Roman Empire and translated into Arabic by Christian scholars like Hunayn ibn Ishaq:

Various translations of some works and compilations of ancient medical texts are known from the 7th century. Hunayn ibn Ishaq, the leader of a team of translators at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad played a key role with regard to the translation of the entire known corpus of classical medical literature. Caliph Al-Ma'mun had sent envoys to the Byzantine emperor Theophilos, asking him to provide whatever classical texts he had available. Thus, the great medical texts of Hippocrates and Galen were translated into Arabian, as well as works of Pythagoras, Akron of Agrigent, Democritus, Polybos, Diogenes of Apollonia, medical works attributed to Plato, Aristotle, Mnesitheus of Athens, Xenocrates, Pedanius Dioscorides, Kriton, Soranus of Ephesus, Archigenes, Antyllus, Rufus of Ephesus were translated from the original texts.

Medicine in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Moreover, this cultural fusion had already started in pre-Islamic times in urban centers like Harran, Ctesiphon, Gundeshapur, Bishapur and Nishapur, where Christian, Sabian, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Buddhist, and other scholars cooperated in the advancement of learning.

So, the Muslim rulers merely continued what the Persians, Greeks and others had already started centuries before, and only after they were forced to do so by the Persian-Arab revolution of 751 that put the Abbasids in charge. At the same time, the Muslim Arab conquests cut off Europe’s links with Asia, arguably imposing a period of relative isolation on the whole continent. The Greek East had established contact with Persia and India, sending emissaries to China to obtain silk worms for the production of silk in the 500’s. Now all trade with India and the Far East had to be conducted through Muslim-controlled lands.

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West.

The Western attack on the Greek East happened as follows. On becoming Pope in 1198, Innocent III called for a Crusade to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim occupation. Unlike in the previous Crusade when the kings of England, Germany and France had personally led the armies, the new call to arms was answered by French and Venetian knights and barons. En route, a plan was hatched to reinstate Eastern Emperor Alexios Angelos (who had been deposed) in return for financial and military assistance in the campaign against the Muslims.

The Greeks rejected the new emperor and the plan ended with the Crusader army in 1204 attacking, conquering, plundering, burning down, and largely destroying Constantinople, with priceless works of art being lost in the process, and many of its citizens slaughtered. The Crusade against Islam turned into a Crusade against Christians and the Pope himself called it “the work of darkness”. The Greeks finally recaptured their capital in 1261 but their empire never recovered.

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia

We can see why, in these circumstances, Christian Europe at the time was unable to produce a Golden Age of its own. The causes of this were not religious but political. Europe was cut off from the rest of the world by Muslim states in North Africa and the Mid East. The West was too divided and caught up in internal conflict. The East was forced to defend itself against external attacks and gradually lost all its territories to finally fall to the Turks in 1453.

So, I think it is critical to maintain a balance and some degree of objectivity when dealing with historical events that are at the center of the discussion.

Besides, if we are saying that “Islam saved us from the Dark Ages”, then on what basis can we tell the Taliban that they are wrong to enforce Islam in their own country? IMO the “Dark Ages Theory” tends to undermine the Western claim that we can “enlighten” or “civilize” the Islamic world and seems to be the wrong strategy. — Apollodorus

Your account of history is not the same as mine and I rather we stay on good terms than be right about a different account of history. But I think there are somethings we need to consider that are releviant to today and Aghanistans chances of surviving.

All advanced nations are dealing with a barbarian invasion today. In the past, some of those invaders were Christian, just not the same Christianity as Rome had settled on. You know the fight over if Jesus was God or the son of god and when a person must be baptized, etc..

Many of those invading barbarians were people fleeing the Huns or disease, and they did not move in to fight with Rome, but as in the US they were just trying to survive, and some were treated very badly, leaving them to starve to death and to a buffer against violant invaders.

The Celts were not insane and violent people but they did not have a centralized government. Instead, they were spread out and had an amazing road system connecting them. An argument can be made for them being morally superior to Romans because of how they cared for the young, injured, and elderly. And the Romans were chasing after tin the mineral resources held by Celts and others.

After the Romans
Celtic Britain was a valuable asset to Rome, producing significant amounts of grain and beef to feed the military. Its mineral reserves, especially iron, lead, tin, gold and copper, were also successfully exploited.Aug 18, 2020
The Celts in Britain: everything you need to know - History Extra — Historyextra

Constantine moved east because the silver and gold mines of the west were depleted and there was a huge gold mine in the east. Constantinople was closer to the gold and easier to defend and Rome in the west was bankrupt and hard to defend. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/ Rome in Italy had been the center of world trade until its supply of silver and gold was exhausted. And here is Constantinope as the center of trade routs. https://www.google.com/search?q=constantinople+trade+routes&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=AOaemvJK8ZM_-CAGs9tDY31ZpiZ27iYaRw:1631634801596&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=MR5YwuA3bIXkbM%252CirPXjD8s2xW4BM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSouV1aKEJhWJtTpCX5ZsW-jeQX3g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz9oGm6f7yAhXMxZ4KHaKgBUAQ9QF6BAgIEAE#imgrc=MR5YwuA3bIXkbM

Aghanstan benefitted from the Silk road and cultural exchange, but the Silk road, and all cities along it, declined when shipping replaced the need for this land route. https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/countries-alongside-silk-road-routes/afghanistan . Afghanistan is land locked and I can not think of any landlocked nation that has done well.

We can not expect landlocked and poor nations to succeed as Roman succeeded long before it was Christian. That is totally unrealistic. And so is the notion that Christianity is what causes nations to succeed and that not being Christian is why nations fail. The success of a nation does not depend on religion. The success of a nation depends on resources, trade routes, liberty and cultural exchange. We are in serious trouble if people believe national success is about religion. That just is not so, however, liberty is very important to success, and Christians who became literate in Greek and Roman classics did become more liberal and did replace Biblical kingdoms with democracy.

So how do you propose determining what is a fact and what isn't, if you cannot trust what you see? — Olivier5

In a trial, this is done by calling in many witnesses and questioning each one of them, and a jury of peers listens to the arguments and then debates a person's innocence or guilt. This is not perfect and it would be a whole lot better if attorneys were wo/men of integrity who understood the importance of knowing the truth and trial by jury, and if they lived for these values instead of a quick easy buck. Sigh, I think my love of the principles of democracy colors my arguments. But let us move to science.

When Moa became the leader of China he had absolute power and made very bad farming decisions. This was called the Great Leap.

The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with estimates ranging between 15 and 55 million deaths, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest famine in human history. — Wikipedia

In modern countries today we have leaders who ignored the science of dealing with a pandemic and millions of people are dying. Something that could be avoided with leadership that relies on science. Truth in science is about observation and testing what is thought to be true with experiments and peer review. That is the best we can do to have some certainty about facts and our survival and liberty can depend on good science.

If we have different definitions of the term 'fact' what would determine who is right? I would say the only reasonable answer to that would be common usage, and from what I have observed common usage is on my side.
— Janus

I don't think so. The common usage is rather: "a statement recognized as true by many folks, and beyond reasonable doubt". And for that to be the case, there needs to be evidence for the statement, therefore some accurate observation must be done. — Olivier5

Excellent comments and Olivier I want to highlight your use of the legal term, "beyond a reasonable dought". However, Janus, you immediately made a Black man's trail in the South flash to mind. Horrible things have happened in the South because prejudice can so interfere with our judgment.

As we shift from believing Darwinism to an understanding of the effect of poverty, our approach to social justice is changing. The democratic characteristic of equal opportunity requires things like free lunches because hunger interferes with the ability to learn and for sure we need to work on equal education because our children do not have an equal opportunity without equal education. Our understanding of facts makes a huge political difference.

I thought long ago it was agreed we can not trust what we think we see and our experience of the same thing may not agree. Just because we think it, it does not make it true. If Israel and Palestine taught the same history there would be less friction between them and the US is waking up to a different understanding of confederate statues.

My copy of the Democracy Series grade school textbooks begins each book with a list of democratic characteristics. One character of a democracy is the pursuit of truth. We can see from the examples I have given that agreeing on truth can lead to peace instead of war. That makes determining what a fact is very important.

The universe can't be there (even if eternal and infinite) if not created by gods. — Laguercina

How do you validate the existence of gods?

Olivier5
2.8k
your definition of fact still relies on truth; just dishonestly.
— Banno

Of course, and so does yours. And there no dishonesty about it. You should try and relax a bit. — Olivier5

If it can not be validated how can it be an accepted fact?

Apollodorus
2.5k
↪Athena

1. If none of those religions are superior then it seems pointless to talk of "Islamic Golden Age" vs. "Christian Dark Ages".

2. Greek and Roman religions were just as patriarchal as Christianity.

3. If you define patriarchy as oppression of women by men and matriarchy as oppression of men by women, where is the difference?

Christianity did not carry the math and knowledge of medicine, because they were destroying all that.
— Athena

This is not supported by the historical evidence:

Study of Hippocratic and Galenic texts all but disappeared in the Latin West in the Early Middle Ages, following the collapse of the Western Empire, although the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition of Greek medicine continued to be studied and practiced in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). Beginning in the late eleventh century, the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition returned to the Latin West with a series of translations of the Classical texts, mainly from Arabic translations but occasionally from the original Greek. In the Renaissance, more translations of Galen and Hippocrates directly from the Greek were made from newly available Byzantine manuscripts.

Ancient Greek medicine – Wikipedia[/quote]

I love your post. Our disagreements seem more paradoxical than the head-on conflicts I was dealing with yesterday. I suspect maturity and education have a lot to do with this.

I think the subject of Christianity should go in another thread. I know I am always wondering off topic but I am in favor of keeping threads comprehensible and maybe even good files that can be referred to later if we stay on topic. Also, I think you are I are the only ones participating in this thread and if we start a new one, that might attract others.

However, comparing Islam's golden age with the want was happening in Europe at the time is directly related to this thread, because the success of Islam's golden years proves Islam can be just as successful as Christianity. It is not religious differences that determine their success or failure, but circumstances. Today we can see Muslims in some parts of the world doing very well and nowhere near the mentality of the Taliban. The difference in mentality is a difference in cultures- Islam finds itself in many different cultures, as the Jews existed in many different cultures. And there is the difference of rural or city people. And the difference of national wealth and technological advancement. It is by looking at all the influences other than religion, that we can see a path for the success of Afghanistan or why it can not succeed. It is a mistake to think the only thing that matters is the religion. Let us keep in mind, God's chosen people were sacrificing animals and stoning women, and those who followed Jesus are not God's chosen people. God did not choose the Christians, the Christians chose God.

Greeks and Romans were very patriarchal! Spartan women were liberated but not Athenian women. And Rome, well "Our father who art in heaven" is very Roman! So is conformity very Roman, "When in Rome do as the Roman's do. Any universality of Christianity is Greek and Roman, not Hebrew.

I do not define patriarchy as oppression of women and matriarchy is not oppression of men. Males organize in hierarchies of authority and power/ leaders and followers. Females organize in families. If people are patriarchal or matriarchal is very much about who owns and rules the home/property and that can lead to oppression but I don't think native American males were oppressable. Being submissive is not a male trait. But women in a patriarchy will be submissive when that appears to serve their interests well.

I love your use of history to make a point. You are right, Orthodox Christianity in the east maintained ties to Greek and Roman culture and the West did not. The split of which you spoke is very important, and this goes back to the conditions of success or failure. Western Christians separated themselves from the Greek and Roman philosophy, and then they moved north into Europe where there never was advanced civilizations with global trading partners sharing technology and cultures. Basically the condition of the Taliban in Afghanistan with no ties to the cultures and advancements of Islam, except a book written long ago. Russia had Orthodox Christianity and none of the advancements that the west experienced after the renaissance and I think the Russian communist hatred of Christianity was at least in part the result of church-supported serfdom. Instead of Orthodox Christianity bring out the best in people, it brought the worst and I think climate had a lot to do with that, but also its distance and separation from the ancient civilizations.

:lol: With all that thinking, I am exhausted, but I am also very, very happy. Communicating with someone who is refined, mature, and well informed and I can trust to meet my points of argument with facts and a different perspective is worth living for. This is totally different from what I was dealing with yesterday and that makes me extremely appreciative of your difference. Thank you!

I was concerned that I was straying out of the limits of philosophy but philosophy does draw on all fields of study. However, the discussion today has not been the fun I was I having until today, so I will leave.

I think everyone's thinking is both intellectual and emotional. You clearly are emotional in your opinions. — T Clark

Yes, but voting with our feelings instead of a deliberate attempt to understand the choices, does not lead to a healthy Republic and it puts our liberty in jeopardy.

Oh no, this is a thread about democracy and the survival of humanity. — Athena

And if you don't like it, I hope you stay out of it instead of continuing to make it unpleasant..

I don't think reason is the controlling force of the universe, if that's what you're asking. I don't really think there is a controlling force. — T Clark

You do not think gravity is what holds things to the earth? You don't think we have day and night because the earth turns? You don't think plants and animals die when they do not get water? You think all the forces of nature could suddenly be completely different for no reason at all? Like I know quantum physics gives us portability and not certainty but to think there are no controlling forces opens the possibility that nothing is predictable and I don't think that is very scientific.

In that case, I don't think we can say that Islam is superior to other religions. — Apollodorus

How could any one of these religions be superior when they all are based on the same supernatural beliefs including a humanized god and supernatural beings Satan and demons? They all are patriarchies that suppress women.

He is simply stating a fact. He doesn't say he wants conflict to happen, he only predicts that it will happen. He introduced what he thought was a better religion that promoted higher values instead of sacrifices and rituals. So, of course there were going to be tensions between those who accepted the new religion and those who kept adhering to the old one.

"I have come to divide people against each other!" Why did Jesus come to do that? Maybe we should move this to the thread about patriarchy and matriarchy because that is not a goal of matriarchy. Or we could start a new thread and talk about how changing circumstances changed people's concsiousness? There was a big change in consciousness when the Hebrews went from being nomadic herders to an agrarian society and being landowners. Then when they go from small-town farmers to big-city merchants there is another consciousness change. These changes increased their separation from nature and God. City dwellers focus intently on "the law" not people living in small towns and close to nature.

[qutoe]Sure. But it did happen. And if the Germanic tribes hadn't taken over the West, Greek and Roman culture would not have been lost and there would have been no "Dark Ages".[/quote]

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began during the reign of Constantine the Great (306–337) in the military colony of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem), when he destroyed a pagan temple for the purpose of constructing a Christian church.
Status: Vassal state of the Eastern Roman Em...
Historical era: Late Antiquity and Early Middle ...
Legislature: Roman Senate
Religion: Arianism; Chalcedonian Christianity

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia — wikipedia

Those pagan temples were seats of learning. That is where people studied math and medicine and philosophy that later became science. The break between the knowledge of Athens and Roman began with the Christians. Christianity did not carry the math and knowledge of medicine, because they were destroying all that. Medically this set back Christians and kept them in the superstitious darkness of believing it is demons that make us sick.

Have you read Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins? The beginning of Christianity was anything but peaceful! People were killing each other over the disagreement about Jesus being the son of God or God himself. Constantine was horrified by how viciously Christians were fighting each other. He called the first Council of Nicaea with the hope of stopping the fighting, but it didn't stop the fighting, and in away it made matters worse because the Council of Nicaea ended the free and open unions of Christians, and put them all the control small group men who dictated the restrictions on Christians and held the all under a hierarchy of authority, exactly what Jesus stood against! And under this hierarchy of authority the God who told Hebrews they were not to be slaves because of their special relationship with Him, tells the Christians they honor God by being good slaves! :gasp:

From there Christianity was spread across Europe wiping out all the people that were in their way, The Celts and others had a choice, be Christian or die. If they were not killed by the sword, they could die of starvation resulting from economic warfare. Christians would not do business with non-Christians. Finally, only Christians remained and that seemed to prove God favored them and they had God's truth.
For a while, the Catholics were very much in the wrong, and Protestantism pushed them out of some areas, but they were no more tolerant of religious freedom nor were they respectful of people around the world. Spain, Portugal, and Britian subjected the natives and in the New Land Protestants drove them away and starved them to death on reservations.

People lived in fear of Satan, demons, and God! God did not become the loving God he is today until our bellies were full. When people were starving to death and leaving their children in the forest with the hope they could fend for themselves, God was a fearsome and punishing God, who sent the Mongols and plagues to punish them. I am totally blown away by how Evangelic Christians swoon in the ecstasy of their God as though this loving God who blesses them, is the same God people once feared.

Is reason the controlling force of the universe? There are lots of reasons. Not only the scientific one. — Inplainsight

Yes, there are reasons for things being the way they are and science helps us learn the reasons. The number of reasons is unimportant. There are many reasons for life on earth being in big trouble right now. Our only hope is to understand them and if there is anything we can do to make a difference. This is not an emotional response, although our feelings may motivate us to learn and take action, but it is a response that requires a lot and learning and a lot of reasoning, and a willingness to cooperate with others.

Do you mean I ignore you information and that I'm ignorant? — Inplainsight

Let's see can we check the logic of what you said?

If you ignore information that you asked for, can you be well informed, or might it be necessary to pay attention to that information to be well informed? Like how can know something you know nothing about? There is a serious difference between basing our thinking on our feelings, or basing what we think on facts and reasoning. To base what we think on facts and reasoning, we need to learn the facts and the reasoning. To react emotionally requires nothing of us and it does not equal good judgment nor good arguments.

I don't get your point. I value democracy. I value reason. I just don't see that they are necessarily strongly related. — T Clark

Do you think knowledge of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, is connected with moral thinking and democracy and liberty? As I understand things that is a very important connection.

That's all I don't have to do. I still have no answer why it's not good to base politics on emotion. — Inplainsight

I know there is far more I do not know than what I do think I know. I do not have a problem when a person does not know something, however, when someone asks for information and ignores that information, that tells me the person is not being honest about having a discussion but is playing a game I do not want to play.

There is a saying "do not argue with ignorance". I think that is good advice when someone asks for information and then ignores it.

Again, I don't get your point. I don't and never did support Donald Trump. I think he was a bad president. What does that have to do with this discussion? — T Clark

It is not just about Trump, but what has happened to our nation. A huge portion of our population is voting emotionally and is lead by people intentionally using emotion not reason, to lead them. If we do not realize the difference between emotional thinking verse logic and reasoning nor the difference between non-fiction and fiction, I don't think democracy and liberty have a chance.

I may be in the wrong, but I come to forums with a sense of purpose and hope to engage with those who might share my sense of purpose and are able to expand my knowledge.

Not to look askance at a compliment, but are you implying my previous posts were not sane? — T Clark

I did not mean to post before completing my thought. And the comment about sanity was a reaction to someone else's posts. Thinking emotionally driven thinking is equal to logical thinking is not the quality of post I have been enjoying until today. I think it is time for me to take a walk.

I gave you the answer and if you do not pay attention to it, I am not replying again.

Again, I don't get your point. I don't and never did support Donald Trump. I think he was a bad president. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Nothing is more important to this thread than understanding the importance of science, and citizens who understand what science has to do with our survival and democracy.
— Athena

If that's the point you've been working toward, you set the OP up badly. This thread so far has not been about what you refer to. It's not what I've been talking about. It's a bit late to turn it in that direction. — T Clark

Thank you. I am glad to learn. How should I have begun this discussion? Do you want to start a better thread for looking at the importance of being able to understand the difference between facts and fiction?

Perhaps I was wrong for saying why this subject is so important to me. But I do feel passionate about the importance of understanding logic and science and what that has to do with being a democracy.

What's wrong with appealing to emotions? What's so important about the brain? Emotions need a brain to flourish too. — Inplainsight

Here is the answer to your question.

The story is a fact. — Inplainsight

A librarian would put it on the fiction shelves, not the non-fiction shelves. Would you mind stating how older you are? I am betting you were educated after 1958, when we began educating for a technological society with unknown values and changing the organization of our institutions to take care everything for the people who can not be left to think for themselves because life is too complex. Don't worry dear, you do not need to know the difference between fiction and non-fiction because all you have to do is obey the authorities who handle everything for us.

A lot of people who hate Trump want to drive the bus off a cliff as a matter of principle. — T Clark

Well, maybe we would be done with Covid if Trump had not dismantled the department that was about preventing or at least controlling pandemics, and maybe the economic pain would have been much less if the pandemic had been handled properly from the beginning instead of having a President who denied science and lied to everyone, and is still the king of ignorance flooding our hospitals and requiring refrigerator trucks long after everyone should have been vaccinated. Nothing is more important to this thread than understanding the importance of science, and citizens who understand what science has to do with our survival and democracy. But with a president like Trump who appeals to our emotions but not our brains and a mass that does not understand logic and the difference between nonfiction and fiction or what science has to do with democracy, the challenge seems overwhelming.

We may, for example say factual claims about fictional works. For instance, Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 is a male and a party member, even though there is no Winston Smith in the actual world. — Manuel

That is a scary thought. That means talk of the gods is factual and that does not sit well with me. I do not think that is good logic. I think it is pretty important we distinguish between what is real and what is not and that is why I started this thread.

So, I think it can be seen that the West lost its Greek and Roman cultural heritage NOT because of the Church but because the Romans lost control of their Empire to Germanic barbarians. And the West began to translate Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, not because his works were not available in the Greek East, but because knowledge of Greek had been mostly lost in the West and because of the animosity between West and East. — Apollodorus

Pope Leo III did not like the idea of a female emperor, declared the throne vacant, and in 800 decided to crown Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. The Greeks who saw themselves as the rightful heirs of the Roman Empire protested and this developed into hostile relations between East and West. The conflict led to the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Western sacking of the Eastern capital Constantinople in 1204.

So, I think it can be seen that the West lost its Greek and Roman cultural heritage NOT because of the Church but because the Romans lost control of their Empire to Germanic barbarians. And the West began to translate Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, not because his works were not available in the Greek East, but because knowledge of Greek had been mostly lost in the West and because of the animosity between West and East. — Apollodorus

Oh yeah, the West did loose its Greek and Roman heritage, but it was regained during the renaissance and this ended the Dark Ages and we entered the Enlightenment and Age of Reason that was the beginning of modernization. And if that had not happened we would be as ignorant as people were in the Dark Ages, totally lacking even basic sanitation, throwing our waste into the streets, and burning witches and Jews when a well was polluted or a plague spread. Please, you are not arguing our better standard of living is because of Christianity, are you?

Well, if you have any evidence that Jesus and St Paul spread Christianity by force of arms, feel free to post it here. :smile: — Apollodorus

“I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! 50 I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

53 ‘Father will be divided against son
and son against father;
mother against daughter
and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.’ — Bible

He succeeded. Personally, I think that was a really awful thing to say.

I have enjoyed your post and I do not want to ruin that because we disagree about religion. But I am troubled that you are attacking one of the God Abraham religions and not all of them.

Solomon - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Solomon
According to the biblical account, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. The wives were described as foreign princesses, including Pharaoh's daughter and ... — wikipedia

That is just how people lived back in the day.

The South used the Bible to justify slavery just as the North used the Bible to argue God opposes slavery. How people interpret their holy books differs, and I see more agreements about the holy books as Christians argue with each Christians and Muslims argue with Muslims, and both of these religions have histories of division and killing each other.

All God of Abraham religions are patriarchal and follow a war god. To continue to think like that is just wrong but that is what many religious people do, and it doesn't matter which holy book they use as their explanation for life and moral judgment. Religion is not compatible with democracy and since the US stopped educating for good citizenship and the defense of democracy, as Thomas Jefferson thought education was essential to a strong Republic, we are no longer a strong Republic and do not have a strong culture for democracy. Please, one religion is not better than the other because they are all about a past that was horrible.

↪Athena So this is just yet another thread about god. And here was I thinking it might be interesting. — Banno

Oh no, this is a thread about democracy and the survival of humanity.

I don't see how the belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts is somehow a democratic principle. — T Clark

:gasp: You must be a citizen of the US or maybe a member of the Taliban in Afghanistan? What is your understanding of democracy if it is not understanding what reasoning has to do with democracy? Do you understand what freedom of speech has to do with democracy? Science gives us information that is essential to good moral judgment. The whole climate change discussion is about what has caused climate change and if we can and should do something to correct a manmade problem. There are political and economic and life and death ramifications, to understanding science and what behaviors will increase or decrease our shared problems.

↪Athena I think facts are what true propositions assert. So if the proposition "It is raining" is true, then that it is raining is what's being asserted. That is, it is a fact that it's raining. Not married to that analysis, but it sounds about right to me. — Bartricks

That sounds good to me. However, if we want to be precise we might clarify the time and place it is raining. Unless we are talking with someone in the same place at the same time. However, if you are talking to a child who does not want to wear a coat, it doesn't matter what you say. Just as if someone doesn't want to wear of mask or get a vaccine, it doesn't matter what you say. :lol:

I wasn't speaking about science when I gave my example about WWII, so I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in this part. It wasn't a scientific fact, but a historical one.

Faith is faith because it is based on belief alone, with little to no attention to facts. Science and religion in this sense are not compatible when describing the same situations. Sure, science is not sure proof, but nothing is. It's just that science is the best tool we have for ascertaining facts about the world.

Absent good evidence, we need good reasons to belief so and so. Philosophy can help us here. But if you want to speak about facts and how they relate to religion, I don't think one will get very far. — Manuel

I very much like your explanation. If I understand you correctly apples are not oranges. Some of what we say is factual and not everything we say is factual. If it is factual, there are proves of that, but if it is fictional there are no proves of what is said.

A fact is everything. Everything that is is a fact. That's a fact. A fact of life. Every thing is a fact. Evey fact is a thing. Undeniably, Falsifiably, confirmably, liably. Factual knowledge is knowledge about these things. For example: Hannover is written with two n's. — Donkeywelling

Is a story about a god walking in a garden with a man and woman and that this god cursed them because they ate a forbidden fruit, a fact? Please explain why the story is or is not a fact.

So some guy posts a video as to why and you suppose that is true for all eternity. Many a scientist was firmly convinced of many an error, why do you think your (or his) certainty creates facts where other people’s certainty failed to create facts before? — Ennui Elucidator

Because I have some understanding of scientific thinking.

Your post is not following the rules of a good argument. If you want to argue the man in the video is wrong, first you have to pay careful attention to what he said. Then you have to repeat what he said that you do not believe is true. Then you explain why you do not believe what he said is true. That I could be wrong or that mistakes have been made, is not a good argument against what the man in the video said.

And now of course it's neither what nor how, but what a great guy or girl you are. With exceptions: some people are just plain smart, and smart enough to recognize they'll have to row their own boat. And life itself, which can and does administer its own correctives. — tim wood

A smart person puts a motor on that boat. :rofl:

It would be nice if facts mattered, but they don’t. The wall pushes back until it doesn’t. Your assertion we can never walk through it is true until it isn’t. What was true is no longer true and what will be true has yet to be. Facts are not substance, but wispy things that evaporate the harder we look or the harder we try to hold them. (Go ahead, start with the block universe.) — Ennui Elucidator

If we can not walk through a wall, there is a reason for that being true and that truth is very unlikely to change. Here is a cute video explaining why we can not walk through a wall.

https://scienceswitch.com/2018/04/24/cannot-walk-through-walls/