There is no evidence that 'Christian apologists' have in any way, shape or form objected to the term 'Dark Ages'. There is, however, evidence from surviving archeology, literature, and manuscripts from the time that indicate the intellectual drought simply was not how it was once portrayed.

The impact of early Christianity on science was, "...little or nothing...", according to an article written by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers of Department of History of Science, University of Wisconsin. I will quote a choice extract and link the article too, because it's interesting reading.

[Famed historian Andrew Dickson] White viewed the early centuries of the Christian era as as an unmitigated disaster for science. By his account the church fathers regarded all scientific effort as futile and required any crumbs of scientific knowledge acquired through patient observation and reasoning to yield to purile opinions extracted by dogmatic church leaders from sacred writings. Such "theological views of science," he wrote, have "without exception...forced mankind away from the truth, and have caused Christendom to stumble for centuries into abysses of error and sorrow." The coming of Christianity thus "arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for over fifteen hundred years," imposing a tyranny of ignorance and superstition that perverted and crushed true science.

It is true, of course, that few church fathers placed high value on science and that some spurned it altogether. Augustine expressed reservations about the value of natural science: "When it is asked what we ought to believe in matters of religion, the answer is not to be sought in the exploration of the nature of things, after the nature of those whom the Greeks called 'physicists.'...For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator."

One must not conclude from such remarks, however, that the church fathers totally repudiated scientific knowledge or demanded that it always conform to the dictates of scripture. The opening clause of the passage just quoted is often overlooked. Augustine is arguing only that in matters of religion there is little or nothing to be learned from the Greek physicists. In another context he argues that insofar as scientific knowledge is required, it must be taken from the pagan authors who possess it:

It frequently happens that there is some question about the earth, or the sky, or the other elements of this world, the movement, revolutions, or even the size and distance of the stars, the regular eclipses of the sun and the moon, the course of the years and seasons; the nature of the animals, vegetables and minerals, and other things of the same kind, respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from the most certain reasoning or observation. And it is highly deplorable and mischievous and a thing especially to be guarded against that he should hear a Christian speaking of such matters in accordance with Christian writings and uttering such nonsense that, knowing him to be as wide of the mark as ... east is from west, the unbeliever can scarcely restrain himself from laughing.

White and other writers on science and religion have suggested that science would have progressed more rapidly in the early centuries of the Christian era if Christianity had not inhibited its growth. Counterfactual speculations about what might have occurred had circumstances been otherwise are of questionable value. But it is worth pointing out that the study of nature held a very precarious position in ancient society; with the exception of medicine and a little astronomy, it served no practical function and generally failed to win recognition as a socially useful activity. As a result, it received little patronage from either pagan's or Christians, but depended for its existence on independent means and individual initiative. When the economic and political fortunes of the Roman Empire declined in late antiquity, people of wealth decreased in number, and the elites directed their initiative elsewhere. Moreover, changing educational and philosophical values were diverting attention from the world of nature. Inevitably the pursuit of science suffered.

Christianity did little or nothing to alter the situation. It contained more or less the same spectrum of attitudes toward natural science as did paganism. If there were differences, Christianity was perhaps a little less other- worldly than the major competing ideologies (Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and the mystery religions) and afforded slightly greater incentive for the study of nature. The church fathers used Greek scientific knowledge in their defense of the faith against heresy and in the elucidation of scripture, thereby preserving and transmitting it during the social and political turmoil of the first millennium of the Christian era. Science was thus the handmaiden of theology-a far cry from its modern status, characterized by autonomy and intellectual hegemony, but also far from the victim of Christian intolerance that White portrayed. Science was not the enemy, but a valued (if not entirely reliable) servant.​

The article is here. It is well referenced.

 

I'm absolutely certain the author has a particular point that he wishes to put across - but even ignoring the possibility of bias, one cannot dispute that the article is at least adequately referenced. I would have liked to have seen more detail in the references themselves, but one cannot have everything.

That being said, the books he references mostly do appear to not be sensationalist, at least by the title:
Books and Readers in the Early Church, Harry Y. Gamble, Yale: 1995.
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Penguin: 1993 (2nd rev).
History of Libraries in the Western World, Michael H. Harris, Scarecrow:1995.
The Mind of the Middle Ages, by F.B. Artz, Univ. of Chicago: 1980.
Atlas of Classical History, Michael Grant, Oxford: 1994.
The Rise of Christianity by W.H.C. Frend, Fortress: 1984. pp1022.
Etc.

Do I think he's not biased? No. Do I think he's been rigourous? It would appear so.

 

Hey, to save me from dragging through the cut&paste jungle up there, would either, or both of you, like to summarize your relative positions. I'm kinda confused on what it is you are arguing, exactly. Thanks in advance!

 

No. That is a spectacular claim and I am waiting for your spectacular evidence.

Also, do note, you should take more time in wording your questions. Whether through intention or or inattention, these are all terribly put together. What is the "bulk," and who decides if enough was lost to make a bulk or merely a bushel?

Is this a serious question? People in general? Some people? Most people? All people?

Yes they did, but luckily they found it on their roof.

What does that even mean? Progress cannot fall back by its very nature.

If I guess at what you meant to say, no. Human "progress" is cyclical, as is nearly everything involving the damnable species. It may have waned in the middle ages, but progress was certainly made. Would it have been made faster if things had been different? Useless speculation.

Again, much? Well, exactly how much? I'm sure someone misplaced a book somewhere, and I'm sure someone else found it a thousand years later. In the cellar.

A better question is: was enough literature lost to set back humanity a thousand years as I have claimed?

No.

And an even better question is: Is it not likely that all eras struggle to maintain all the written words of past eras? Whether for reasons of war, accident, or intention? And do I therefore seem like I am merely sensationalizing a certain era in order to attack a certain people?

Yes.

Even this question is all wrong. You can't ask someone if they can answer questions for you...in the last question. This question must come first! By the time I answer this one, you already have the answer to it in my above answers. Oh dear...

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here. Were they Christian emperors by any chance? And did not pagan emperors persectue Christians? So does my rather blunt point about those in power persecuting others stand quite firmly?

 

If I understand it correctly, the dispute is over whether Christianity suppressed or preserved the learning of the ancient world after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. As is often the case in a dispute of this nature, facts can be marshaled on either side. There was organized book burning by Christians of books that were deemed un Christian. On the other hand most of our knowledge of ancient writings comes from manuscripts copied by monks in monasteries. Book burning was periodic. The copy work of monks continued for centuries.

stumbler's shortcoming, which is revealed once again here, is to become emotional and to be reluctant to concede weaker parts of his argument in order to emphasize the stronger parts. A wise general knows when ground can be defended, when it cannot be, and when an advance is likely to succeed.

 

I have found with you Doggo that if someone posts about what you say and it disagrees with it, but you cannot answer against it you totally ignore it. This has happened time and time again, people ask you questions and you do not respond.

Be careful useing Wiki links as we have been told they are not credible, even though it has been proved that they are credible,

 

Give an example of me doing that. Post the specific comment of mine, and explain how I do it.

I try to ignore the insults thrown at me by those who are incapable of rational debate, so I may ignore rhetorical questions, but go ahead anyway. Post the comment.

BRW, you rarely if ever indicate any knowledge beyond your own life. I often consider your posts to be unworthy of a response. i respond to debatable points, not school yard taunts.

 

addendum...

You emerged from the slime to ridicule me for my affection for deidre79. That affection did not impact you, nor does it, so your comments were impertinent.

 

INTELLECTUAL OUTPUT FROM THE [ARAB] MUSLIM WORLD

There are a mere 12 Million Jews in the entire world yet they have received 192 Nobel Prizes.
The Muslims number 1.4 Billion (with a very big "B")... or 117 times the number of Jews! Based upon this 117:1 Muslim-to-Jewish ratio, one might expect the Muslims to have 22,464 Nobel Laureates.
They have NINE! and one of them [Arafat] is a murderer (Allahu Akbar, indeed!)

Unless the Swedes and Norwegians start awarding Nobel Prizes for plane hijackings, pizza shop bombings, civilian bus attacks, Jihad suicides/homicides, drive-by shootings, throat-slittings, embassy attacks and other such acts of barbarisms, the embarrassing low level of contribution to the welfare of Civilization and Mankind by the [Arab] Muslim world will continue.

The Jewish People, meanwhile, will continue being the Lights Unto All Nations.
http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html

 

If you think it is 'proved' that Wiki links are credible, then I am hardly surprised that your intellectual abilities allow you to hold the belief they are credible.

I will tell you again: Wikipedia is a falsifiable source. It is not peer reviewed; it is not updated and maintained by scholars or even, in some cases, the literate.

The references can provide a useful starting to point in an investigation. But citing text from Wikipedia is as useless as citing any other non-scholarly site on the internet. It is, by its very method of construction and maintenance, unreliable.

 

For the umpteenth time D.L., YOU were NOT ridiculed for you affections of Deirdre, BUT for your TOTAL lack of understanding as to WHY Deidre was BANNED....

 

deidre79 was banned arbitrarily. She was not violating the Rules. Even ShakeZula seems to have had reservations about what happened to her.

 

It has been repeatedly stated that The Bell Curve hypothesis is NOT fact..There has been posts to refute your continued stance and total belief in the books findings, YET NOT ONCE have you stated that YOU could be WRONG...

WHO is throwing insults around, if you think that disagreeing with you is insulting you, then you should step away from the computer and get a life...

Personally any comment that we make is about subjects that we UNDERSTAND and have an INTEREST in.. So f-ing what if we do not seem to be as intelligent as you, considering the vast majority of threads on this forum have absolutely NO bearing on our life..

Perhaps you really should set some time aside each day and start to get out into the real world, then you will understand that the world DOES NOT revolve around your infantile and stupid attempts to make yourself look more intelligent than you are...

 

Shake may have had reservations and might have disagreed with the actions taken by Nophest, BUT that does not change the fact that Nophest BANNED Deidre for FALSELY claiming that the MODS were BIASED..

Suggest you buy some BIGGER reading glasses, IT is stated very clearly by Nophest that IF Deirdre could PROVE what she was claiming then the offending MOD would be banned. BUT as Deidre COULD NOT provide ANY f-ing proof to back up her claim, then Nophest had to carry out his threat...

 

So speaks a person who can't get off his fat lazy ass to check a source, just because it is NOT on the internet...

Suggest you do EXACTLY what you tell others to, that is to INDEPENDENTLY cross-reference and check the listed sources that are shown at the bottom of every Wikipedia page...

I would much prefer to believe a point of debate that has been referenced from a credible PRINTED book, than ANYTHING you post...

I guess YOU DID NOT read the link, and the copied/pasted section that I had posted earlier...

 

Except the sources I posted were, in fact, largely from printed books. I even transcribed some it them.

And when I am faced with a gap in my knowledge, the first thing I do is go to Wiki, find the subject, and immediately look at the available references at the bottom. If the references are not available, then my next port of call is Google Books which, as I am abundantly sure you are aware, contains copies of a great many books.

The point is still that information quoted from Wikipedia is fundamentally unreliable. This does not mean the source is unreliable.

But by all means! Telephone an academic and prove me wrong.

 

Saying that the basic thesis of The Bell Curve is "not fact," does not mean that it is not true. I have proven the basic thesis beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. I have documented that identical twins raised apart are more similar in IQ scores than non related children raised by the same parents. I have documented that the biological children of affluent, well educated black parents tend to score lower on SAT tests than the biological children of poor, and poorly educated white parents.

I have pointed out how No Child Left Behind has left most black children behind. I have pointed out how, with one of the most expensive public school systems in the United States, Washington, DC gets the lowest test scores in the United States. I have explained why.

I will not even say that those who pretend to disagree with me are willfully ignorant, because they know that what I say is true. That is because it is obviously true.

You say that I ignore arguments. What arguments? Where is the evidence that the races are biologically equivalent? Where in the world do blacks behave and perform as well as whites? No where. When in history did blacks perform and behave as well as whites? Never.

I will admit that I am wrong when you prove that blacks get the same scores, on the average, on mental aptitude tests as whites, and when you prove that their crime rates are the same as those of whites. It would also help if you could point out how much better things have gotten in sub Saharan Africa since the end of European colonialism.

 

Tell you what, YOU are in the position that ANY idiot, who is uncertain of what he is saying, likes to be in..That is using the OLD and worn out phrase of "Show me anything that proves me wrong.."


Considering that The Bell Curve IS NOT factual, and MANY references have been made that would dispute it's findings. It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to find ABSOLUTE proof to refute ANY of your points, as ALL your points are solely theory and hypothosises..

You can NOT prove or dis-prove anything that is JUST a theory..

As it was already stated, the findings of The Bell Curve, accurate or not, HAVE absolutely NO bearing on my life. So you are wasting your time trying to convince me that YOU are right in your assumptions..

The problem is that YOU have taken a book that has NOT proven what it states, and YOU are so convinced that it is right, because the books claims agree with your racist views..

DID you read about the people that I posted earlier..

1 of them was born in Harlem, and she has got a position of high responsibilty above WHITE people....

According to your precious Bell Curve theory, this should never happen...

 

Are you on drugs or something, because you are stating that IF Wiki uses a particular source to provide information, THEN that
information source is UNRELIABLE solely because it has come from Wikipedia...

But the SAME source of information miraculously becomes RELIABLE if found on GOOGLE...

Just explain how the SAME source of information can be viewed as UNRELIABLE and RELIABLE, depending on which website it was found on..

 

After spending a very interesting day reading and researching yesterday I see and freely admit that something I believed to be well documented world history is actually very much in dispute with at least two opposing views. One being that the rise of Christianity and the burning and confiscation of books wiped out 1,000 years of human knowledge and caused the "Dark Ages." And the other view is that there was no such thing as the "Dark Ages" and the loss of whatever knowledge was destroyed was caused by invading barbarians not Christians.

Now I must admit that the most credible sources I found contend the latter. However, I saw nothing that confirms it was not the Christians who burned the books and libraries and so I remain with those who believe there is very strong evidence that actually the Christians did plunge the western world into a regression that last nearly 1,000 years by wiping out nearly all existing advances in science, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, and even mechanics. And I will even go so far as to agree there is at least some credibility to the theory that had this loss of accumulated knowledge not occurred humans might have landed on the moon in 900 AD. Although I also admit that's more of a verbal illustration than anything scientifically provable.

And here's what I'm basing my reasoning on. First, and foremost I think its obvious that for about 2010 years there have been Christian apologists. The first, of course, being the ancient Christian historians many of which we were referred to yesterday. I find it doubtful that those few ancient Christian historians whose writing survived would record events that make Christians look bad. Likewise I think the Catholic Church would and did purge any references to historical events that made them look bad. And Christianity remains the dominate religion in the west to this day and strongly supported. So I think the record is biased in that regard.

Second, I find Professor Downs is correct when he points to the advancements taking place in Alexandria prior to the rise of Christianity and the destruction of the library. For example Heron, the great inventor of Alexandria did build a jet like steam engine, and Aristarchos was proposing that the earth was not the center of the universe but instead revolved around the sun as early as 230 BC. It took more than 1,000 years to repeat those accomplishments and one might see how if progress had not been stopped and lost we would be 1,000 years ahead of where we are now. Also lost was the formula for making cement, aqueducts, and sewers to name a few.

http://www.smith.edu/hsc/museum/ancient_inventions/steamengine2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

If we compare that with the inventions of what others call the Middle Ages I come up with a whole ten of them and with the exception of the printing press they don't look all that important nor ingenious. In fact most were improvements on things already invented and in use.

http://listverse.com/2007/09/22/top-10-inventions-of-the-middle-ages/

Third, I think its easy to see the pattern of Chritians being anti science with a propensity to burn all kinds of things including Jews during the Plague and accused witches even later. Galileo was jailed for proving the earth revolved around the sun and even Rene Descartes risked jail for his writings.

Also Christians first in the form of Catholic Missionaries and later in the form of US Christians have a clear history of wiping out other people's past knowledge and culture. As an example:

http://www.examiner.com/ancient-maya-in-national/the-maya-book-burning-event-of-july-12-1652

Also Native Americans had most of their collective knowledge wiped out when they were gathered up as Children and sent away Missionary and boarding schools. And the loss of knowledge was so complete that after a few generations many Native Americans didn't even know how to be parents anymore.

So I freely admit that my initial statement that it was the Christians that wiped out 1,000 years of accumulated knowledge and plunged Europe into the "Dark Ages is highly debatable and far from being well documented. But I think enough evidence remains to consider it a very distinct possibility until better information comes along.

And with that I think I'm done with this topic. Its been fun and interesting I admit and a topic I'm sure I will visit again just for my own education, knowledge, and research. But I've actually invested more time than I should have as it is now and see no benefit in continuing to argue the point now.