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/

If something can be confirmed as fact, explain how. — Yohan

It works like this- If someone says don't drink the water because it is polluted and if you drink it you will get sick and may die, and you observe that this is in fact what happens to the people who drink that water, you might agree the fact is true. Fortunately, nature is wise and kills the ignorant. We can see that with Covid. Our hospitals are so overwhelmed we have called in the National Gaurd to help and we have refrigerator trucks waiting to receive the dead bodies. Hopefully, this will also reduce the population who denies global warming and we can get on with the steps to respond to the reality of climate change.

Houellebecq coined it. I think it is supposed to refer to a large shift in the way a civilization views themselves and the world. — darthbarracuda

Now things may be making sense to me? My brain is overheated and I am going for a walk. I found a book on my shelf that will help me know more about Al-Ghzaile. Maybe I will know a little more when I return? Jeeze, I have been avoiding all this brain work and understanding why the Shia and Sunni are at odds with each other, but if this is connected to Aristotle and a metaphysic mutation, I MUST understand it.

"This is the dawning of the Angel Aquarius". :lol: That doesn't belong in this thread but maybe a thread about the New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. Sorry, my bad, but talk of a metaphysical mutation set this line of thinking off. I love not being too sure of what I know and realizing totally unexplored possibilities.

Some say the Mongolian invasion contributed to the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam, especially the sack of Baghdad in 1258 and the destruction of the library. It was also an internal movement to turn away from it it earlier by people like Al-Ghazali. — schopenhauer1

Wow, I think you get the prize for the best post of the day! I did not have this information but thanks to you I looked for it. :love:

Al-Ghazâlî (c.1056–1111) was one of the most prominent and influential philosophers, theologians, jurists, and mystics of Sunni Islam. He was active at a time when Sunni theology had just passed through its consolidation and entered a period of intense challenges from Shiite Ismâ’îlite theology and the Arabic tradition of Aristotelian philosophy (falsafa). Al-Ghazâlî understood the importance of falsafa and developed a complex response that rejected and condemned some of its teachings, while it also allowed him to accept and apply others. Al-Ghazâlî’s critique of twenty positions of falsafa in his Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahâfut al-falâsifa) is a significant landmark in the history of philosophy as it advances the nominalist critique of Aristotelian science developed later in 14th century Europe. On the Arabic and Muslim side al-Ghazâlî’s acceptance of demonstration (apodeixis) led to a much more refined and precise discourse on epistemology and a flowering of Aristotelian logics and metaphysics. — Stanford

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

What is a metaphysical mutation?

I am adding information I just came across because of Schopenhauer's post. I am still not sure of what metaphysical mutation means but understand it now seems important.

Sure. But (1) KKK and neo-Nazis are racist, not religious fundamentalist, (2) they are not supported by Western governments, or indeed, by the Western public, and (3) they do not attack Muslim countries. — Apollodorus

Oh dear, we don't usually disagree and I am uncomfortable with this. If the Southern government had made racist laws and protect racism as a way of life, there would not the Black pain and anger that we have today, and please, that was supported by Christianity and still is.

Yes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam are the same religion but with different cultural understandings of the God of Abraham religion. And discussing this could be a way to better judgment and even peace. We need to end the lies that have been very divisive and are behind the wars we have had.

However, there are times when our disagreements lead to me searching for more information and this piece of information seems very important to resolving a misunderstanding.

Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy
In Arabic, Aristotle was referred to by name as Aristutalis or, more frequently, Aristu, although when quoted he was often referred to by a sobriquet such as 'the wise man'. Aristotle was also generally known as the First Teacher. Following the initial reception of Hellenistic texts into Islamic thought in al-Kindi's time, al-Farabi rediscovered a 'purer' version in the tenth century. In an allusion to his dependence on Aristotle, al-Farabi was called the Second Teacher. Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes, was the last great Arabophone commentator on Aristotle, writing numerous treatises on his works. A careful examination of the Aristotelian works received by the Arabs indicates they were generally aware of the true Aristotle. Later, transmission of these works to Christian Europe allowed Aristotelianism to flourish in the scholastic period.

We should not take at face value the Islamic philosophers' claims that they were simply following Aristotle. The convention in Islamic philosophy is to state that one is repeating the wisdom of the past, thus covering over such originality as may exist. There was a tendency among Islamic philosophers to cite Aristotle as an authority in order to validate their own claims and ideas. — Muslim Philosophy

I do not think the Taliban was influenced by Aristotle. The condition of life for the Taliban does not promote a refined intellect. They are not seeing the more civilized aspects of their Holy Book because the conditions of their lives not supporting civilized living. This was also true of Christians who lived for holy wars, not the refinement of civilization.

I do not think the US would elect a person who was not Protestant or at least Catholic. I would go into shock if an atheist or even a deist, became our president. Christian domination in the US has questionable power of domination and not all of these people are knowingly and intentionally influenced by Aristotle, however, oddly many of them do embrace Neitzche and Hegel and the notion of national Protestanism. That is an ingredient of war and the Military-Industrial Complex and very bad decisions made in the Mid East.

Absolutely sure. Christianity started as a peaceful movement within the Roman Empire and spread peacefully and gradually through its teachings. — Apollodorus

:gasp: Are you being sarcastic or is that what you really believe. If that is what you believe we have read different books. What can people do when they believe different facts and do not agree about something as important as how the world came to be as it is today?

Citation, please. I can't find that.
This just one entry;
"ignorance (n.)
1200, "lack of wisdom or knowledge," from Old French ignorance (12c.), from Latin ignorantia "want of knowledge"

To ignore is an action. It appears that ignorance is at best a passion, or unawareness. But I agree that an ignorant person can indeed ignore. — tim wood

For me, what is important is if the person can perceive the necessary information or not. That is different from having the capability to perceive information and choosing to ignore it. I have checked dictionary definitions and they do not clarify that point. It is like everyone takes for granted our ability to receive knowledge.

Most of the time, I read what you all are saying, and it is over my head. I am a gifted idiot. I have a terrible time understanding what people are saying. I have college lectures produced by the Great Course company and I listen to them again and again and still do not receive the information that is given. I am not ignoring the information. I just can not understand it. It bounces off my brain like a rubber ball bounces off a wall. I know it would help if I were more intent on learning and wrote notes while listening to the lecture. It takes a lot of effort and energy to learn something, and often comprehending what you all are talking about seems totally beyond what I am capable of. You use the word "unawareness", we have to know something before we can learn more. But that is not intentionally ignoring the available information. That is the point I want to make. Along with the points I want to make about education in other threads.

Believing a holy book and not the science that is vital to the health of our nation, is an educational failure that comes with replacing liberal education (how to think) with education for technology (what to think) and leaving moral training (the ability to think) to the church.

Most simply, because beliefs can serve purposes that facts and truth do not. To my way of thinking, a person gets a pass on his or her beliefs because they're a kind of private property. Of course, as you note, the problems come when believers want to impose on others. And this not confined to religion. It's on display in a nearby thread on abortion. And politics is riddled with it.

Here's a variety of it in action.
"I'm always right"
"I believe X."
"X is therefore a fact."
"X is therefore true."
"Therefore pay me."

A powerful argument, with so much wrong with it that it is hard to refute, and the Kelly-Annes of the world thrive feeding on in it. — tim wood

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. THANK YOU :love:

But changes in usage are inexorable, usually to the side of increasing ignorance. Probably because ignorance is the easier way. — tim wood

I have to stress- the word ignorance means to ignore something. I do not think people intentionally ignore facts that mean we will survive or we won't. We will go to war, or we will not. We will allow scientific exploration of cells and ending birth defects or we will not. However, they may not have the thinking skills to do the required thinking. Learning how to think scientifically is a learned thinking ability not one that comes naturally just because we have a brain.

We can not change the way people in Afghanistan live without changing how they are taught to think. Let us be very clear about this- Our concern needs to be withhow people learn to think, not what they learn to think.

Facts cannot turn out the be false. — Banno

Determinism

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. — Oxford languages

But quantum physics has proven uncertainty. I think that is a fact that makes a previously accepted fact wrong.

What we believe here has social, religious, legal, and political ramifications. Those nations that centered on determinism were conservative and that hindered all forms of progress. I think the science and the results of the different beliefs prove we can determine our own future. However, all our decisions need to be based on the best reasoning possible because the human will has created a man-made reality and not all this is good.

But it can soon become quite complex, as when new evidence renders the proposition obsolete. Maybe a new fact comes about in which we'd have to conclude that the WWII ended in 1946 because of some technicality concerning some document arises. — Manuel

Oh no, that could not be because I was born a little over 9 months after the end of the war and my birth certificate says that year was 1946. However, I read something about when we figured out the year of Jesus's birth and the beginning of our calendar, that was 4 years off the actual date. So when we were figuring with the Mayan calendar the beginning of the new age we could not be sure of the correct date for that moment of transition. For reasons like this, I don't think we should say science is truth and assume there is no doubt that what believe is true. My very old logic book, explains we should never be too sure of what we think we know, and in fact. Unlike religious beliefs, in science, there are rules for determining facts and a belief can be changed with new information. The difference is religion is mythology and science is validated facts.

I like to address everyone who addresses me, but I might look like an egomaniac if I do that with so many replies so I am condensing. Some of you got, I am getting at the problem of religious conflicts, and the democratic belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts. We do not want religious wars and we do not want people treated badly for religious reasons, so when it comes to knowing God's truth, shouldn't we pay attention to what is a fact and what is not a fact?

My preacher nephew is glad when archeologists prove an event in the bible did happen, but he was not at all happy when a terribly bad time was revealed as a climate-caused event. I thought he would be happy about that proof, but no, he was mad because his belief system demands such things be the act of God, not nature. Okay, but he is glad when the ruins of a building prove an event in the bible happened. However, then I must point out, even though archeologists have evidence of Troy that does not prove the gods are real.

Help me on this. If we are going to make laws that affect everyone, and put people in penitentiaries to save their souls, and go to war because that is the will of God, shouldn't we have really good grounds for what we believe?

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

Yes, yes, and yes. How can anyone today believe a god walked in a garden with a man and a woman and this is the beginning of our history? If that story is accepted as factual, isn't there a problem with our thinking? Like before scientific thinking why wouldn't everyone believe that story? There was not a method for thinking that would clarify the story as a myth, not a fact. Democracy is about reasoning and that is only possible when our minds are prepared to think independently and scientifically, right?