Influence of Xtianity

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I confess that I'm not that versed on the subject (of middle east & north Africa after Mohamed) but the little I know suggests that it wasn't all that different from what was happening at the other side of the Mediterranean. Besides, if Europe had fundamentalist Xtians at the time what would prevent them from becoming fundamentalist muslims in the absence of Xtianity?

Would Islam become a more moderate force had it being the predominant religion in Europe after a thousand+ years? That one I can't answer, but my hunch is that not all the reasons that place the muslims in the 3rd world* are all climatic**.

*Malasia being one of the apparent exceptions and the drivers of the economy are ethnic Chinese. As for Turkey the social and economic distances with Europe have prevented integration, not exactly 1st world either.
** there is a theory that contends that there is an imbalance between the population in the Arab countries and the amount of food that those arid areas can support, with that being the source of much of the social unrest in the area.

[Roland Deschain]

I shall add my voice to the throng here. I remember watching a wonderful 3-ish part series on Biblical archaeology on BBC2 last year, which was hosted by a female archaeologist and historian (her name has escaped me, but I think it was something Greek). She posited that the story of Genesis was actually meant to be an allegory on the fall of Palestine/Israel at the time of the Babylonian exile. It's about the king who ruled over what had become, essentially, a vassal state, and who became proud. He rebelled by refusing tribute, and was thrown down before the might of the Babylonian army (pride goeth before a fall).

The Cherubim who were at the entrance to the garden of Eden represented the statues at the entrance to the temple in Jerusalem, with many other parts of the allegorical story alluding to parts of the temple itself. There was a load of other stuff, too, which I can't for the life of me remember.

Considering this, if it's true, then that really throws a spanner in the works for the Creationists, and would pretty much end their influence on the teaching of evolution.
___________________________________

In relation to the radicalisation of religious groups, that will always happen when they feel that they are backed into a corner, and happens even for political affiliations. A defeat in war, an atrocity committed, or a perceived threat (violent, economic, moral, etc), gives louder voice to those calling for stronger commitment, and also gives them greater sway in their community. The threat or defeat or atrocity doesn't even need to be real, just perceived to be so. Look at the state of affairs in evangelical Christianity in the US, and in fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East. They feel that they are under attack from an enemy, which in some cases is very true to a degree, and some fight back. It is a part of our animal nature that we have had to deal with since we evolved, and probably greatly added to the odds for our ultimate survival. The issue now is that this great survival trait is working against us, as we have unprecedented control over our world, and connections to one another.
___________________________________

Let's not solely blame the Abrahamic religions for the suppression of knowledge, because it was occurring long before Christianity of Islam got their mitts on it. The heliocentric model of the solar system was not suggested first of all by Copernicus, but in the 3rd century BCE by Aristarchus of Samos. His ideas were discussed, and he had followers, but they were rejected by most as heretical (Aristotle and Ptolemy won that one). Others came up with the idea as well, such as Aryabhata and Martianus in the 5th century CE.

What happens is when someone gets the power, they do not want to lose it, and religion is such a useful tool to keep it. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, all used its power to subdue. People long ago learnt that knowledge is power, and to suppress certain knowledge is to keep the power for yourself. It has been done to certain degrees for our entire written history, and continues to this day. Even Pythagoras did this.

Knowledge and ideas can also die of their own accord, such as partially shown above, when people don't appear to take them further. Calculus was discovered/invented a number of times before Sir Isaac Newton took it in hand. The Egyptians in the 19th century BCE were moving towards it, as were the Greeks in the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE, and the Chinese in the 3rd and 5th centuries CE, yet none of them ever appeared to take it further. The ideas just appeared to not be popular. It could also be that ideas come before their time, or their application is not realised, such as the rudimentary steam engine that was invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century CE. Some ideas are just never thought of, such as the wheel being pretty much unknown in the Americas until Europeans arrived.

What makes the present day unique is that the level of advancement throughout the world is, if not level, at least slowly getting there. Whereas before you'd have a whole culture destroyed to accommodate the new one, which includes the destruction of that civilisation's knowledge, ideas are being shared instead. Again, this isn't new, but most civilisations who did this in the past have failed, such as the Greeks at their height. This brings me again to the point about radicalisation above, in that these ideas threaten the very survival of the cherished ideals of some religious groups, who in turn rebel against them.

/random rambling

[Aggie]

What happens is when someone gets the power, they do not want to lose it, and religion is such a useful tool to keep it. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, all used its power to subdue. People long ago learnt that knowledge is power, and to suppress certain knowledge is to keep the power for yourself. It has been done to certain degrees for our entire written history, and continues to this day. Even Pythagoras did this.

This is why I don't blame the religious system itself (for the most part). It's humans being pig-headed bloody human that creates the religiously fueled atrocities in the world.  They'd still find a way to cock it up without religion, it just might not be as efficient.

For the record, processed food and smartphones seem to be the current version of bread and circuses.  

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Knowledge and ideas can also die of their own accord,

It has been discussed among some scholars, that the technical advances of the industrial revolution would not have been possible without the end of serfdom. Technical knowledge has appeared from time to time (the hellenic world, china) but the cost/benefit analysis was rigged against it because (slave) human labor was incredibly cheap. IOW it would seem that technical advancement is indeed dependent on social advancement.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Knowledge and ideas can also die of their own accord,

It has been discussed among some scholars, that the technical advances of the industrial revolution would not have been possible without the end of serfdom. Technical knowledge has appeared from time to time (the hellenic world, china) but the cost/benefit analysis was rigged against it because (slave) human labor was incredibly cheap. IOW it would seem that technical advancement is indeed dependent on social advancement.

There is also this to consider:  cost.

How much food do you need to produce to feed your slaves, in order to keep him fit enough for hard labor?   

Now compare that to the amount a 4 legged work animal needs to eat, using just a neck-strap? 

And it is cheaper or about the same (depending on the animal) to use slaves-- besides, you can tell them what to do easier than you can train an animal.

But.

Introduce the shoulder-collar?  The idea of a wooden yoke or horse collar?  This lets the animal press his shoulders against the collar, doing much more effective labor, for about the same food bill.

Now, economics plays a role:  it becomes cheaper to use animals than humans, if you examine the cost of food.   Even with the extra training an animal requires.

If you study the introduction of the horse(animal)-collar, with the decline of slavery, a pattern begins to emerge.

Of course, slavery sometimes returns whenever there is excessive surplus of population in an area that has little or no technology base.   There are other factors, too-- if the social situation permits not-feeding the slaves?  And there is a surplus of supply?  Then, obviously, it is cheaper to use slaves than animals.   You see this under extreme cultural situations, often where there is zealot-ideology at work. 

And finally, there has always been slaves for other than labor-- sex workers (for example).  You cannot effectively use animals for that, if there is an available supply of humans to prey on.

This is still going on, even today.

[Swatopluk]

Caesar caused a slave inflation flooding the market with an additional 1 million slaves in less than 8 years. This likely played a significant role in the transition from the republican economy (based on smaller independent farms) to the imperial (based on latifundia worked by slaves).
Tech historians consider metallurgy a deciding factor too. It took significant improvements in that area to make the coal/steam era possible. I think a lot of this improvement came from the field of artillery. Centuries of looking for better ways to build cannons yielded the knowledge about handling large amounts of liquid metal with the desired material properties. Body armor also saw a very slow process of improvement from multi-piece low quality iron to single piece selectively hardened steel (possible to produce as early as the 100 years war but far too expensive for widespread use).

[Griffin NoName]

Trouble with that sort of body armour was it was so heavy.

[Swatopluk]

But the protective value rose faster than the weight.
Later cuirasses had to be tested before sale. Customers would not buy one without the dent of the pistol shot.
Falsified certificates for cuirasses were known in the Middle Ages already though.
Some of the rather strange shapes of late medieval knight armor have been found to be highly effectice against projectiles. The latter also showed high sophistication. Arrow points were anything but mere pointy pieces of metal.

[Griffin NoName]

Falsified certificates for cuirasses were known in the Middle Ages already though.

And fake designer labels?

[Swatopluk]

In essence, yes. Armorers stamped the products of their workshops with what can be considered precursors of logos, literal trademarks. Some had such a high reputation that others copied those marks so they could sell their own inferior products at a much higher price. It has to be assumed that many a French knight at Agincourt lost his life because he unknowingly wore such an imitation. Tests have shown that the real thing was nearly 100% arrow-proof while the copies could be penetrated by longbow arrows even at long range.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Greed, corruption and graft? 

That sounds so.... human.

[Griffin NoName]

How the world doesn't change.