Religion, to the human early societies, was not only beneficial, but necessary from the group cohesion standpoint.
Religion, to the human early societies, was not only beneficial, but necessary from the group cohesion standpoint.
Even in the Old Testament, offerings were not seen as the end all. Primary aim should be giving heed to the commandments like thou shall not kill etc.
Isaiah 1:11, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats."
1 Samuel 15:22, "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."
Ecclesiasticus 35:1, "He that keepeth the law bringeth offerings enough: he that taketh heed to the commandment offereth a peace offering."
King David also requested God to accept his lifting of his hands as a sacrifice, Psalm 141:2, "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice."
Hebrews 10:6 (New Testament), "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure."
I wonder if a lot of those conversation around obeying, are just because people were being incredibly stupid, and sacrificing during those times of need. Especially, I can imagine a king with control of enormous herds, slaughtering half of them rather than feeding his people.
I have no proof, just musings.
The good meat was normally eaten by humans after sacrifices, not wasted.
A sacrifice was normally a loss only for the owner of the animals, if after being sacrificed in a public ceremony their remains were shared with everybody in the community, instead of being sold or consumed only in the house of the owner.
(To my understanding, giving the god(s) only the "undesirable" parts of the animal is popularly associated with the Greek gods, not Abrahamic faiths.)
"thou shall not kill"
Wait... There were "civilizations" torturing kids for as long as possible to extract as much tear as possible from them before killing them to please the gods in south america when europeans discovered them.
And I can name one other religion where killing infidels and apostates is not just cool but where you're rewarded with virgins for killing infidels while committing suicide. Infidels are considered so filthy that in addition to killing them, it's recommended you enslave their wives and daughters and turn them into sex slaves. As for offerings in that same religion, we could have a talk about slicing the throat of animals as a normal ritual.
"thou shall not kill" is specific to only two big monotheistic religions.
And even in the religions were it was asked to not kill other fellow humans, well fellow humans have been killed in the name of...
If you mean the Templars and their Jerusalem crusades, it's likely that they were adhering another religion (or no religion) and using Christianity as a guise.
From the Wikipedia page for Baphomet (a famous occult symbol that is a god-like figure depicted as half man half animal; similar to ancient Egyptian gods such as Anubis), "The name first emerged in the 14th century during the Trials of the Knights Templar, when the order was accused of heresy for worshipping Baphomet as a demonic idol." This is just one of the bizarre activities that the Templars appeared to have participated in. Other witchcraft and occult ideas can be found on many of the churches that the Templars have founded including the Notre Dame. When looking through all the works of the Templars, it's just incredibly hard for to make a case that they have read or adhered to any part of the Bible. Maybe some things in letter, but definitely not in spirit. (For example, Matthew 22, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.")
I thought this level of off-the-charts anti-Muslim misinformation was going out of fashion, after enough people in the West started realizing how much of a knuckle-dragging lie-strewn psyop it all was.
What's it doing here on HN?
Nonsense, it is present in pretty much all religions, monotheistic or not.
More surprising perhaps is the removal of religion from education. Culture without a cult (other types of cult tend to fill the void, for example pledging allegiance daily to a constitution)
I have no doubt that a St Thomas Aquinas born in this age would have made for a great scientist.
Europe regressed during the middle ages, under Christian domination. It's only when the Church's grip loosened that it could finally progress again. So if anything, it seems pagan polytheism was better fitted to scientific curiosity than the strict monotheism that succeeded it, policed beliefs and silenced most original ideas for centuries.
And more unique Christian theology like the Fall of Man, which made human thinking inherently corrupted by original sin, led to the argument that this could (must) be alleviated by new rational and objective methods. To quote from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/moth.12857?...
> experimental knowledge was also deemed to be the more appropriate form of knowledge for a fallen world. It was commonly argued that while human beings in a prelapsarian state may have had direct access to the essence of things owing to a natural affinity between the mind and nature, that connexion had been lost as a consequence of the Fall. Knowledge after the Fall would now have to be painstakingly gathered from observations, aggressive experimental intrusions into (a fallen) nature, conducted by numerous individuals, over extended periods of time, and yielding only makeshift and probabilistic knowledge. Francis Bacon accordingly proposed that the object of the new natural philosophy was to seek, as far as possible, to restore the original connection between the human mind and the natural world that had existed in our prelapsarian condition.82 Subsequently, Robert Hooke, the first curator of experiments at the Royal Society, wrote that on account of an innate ‘derived corruption’, human beings have a natural tendency towards error. ‘These being the dangers in the process of humane Reason’, he concluded, ‘the remedies of them all can only proceed from the real, the mechanical, the experimental Philosophy’. Experimentation was thus a palliative for original sin
iirc Judaism picked up the immortality of the soul from Hellenism in the Ptolemaic era, arguably inadvertently since they were NOT fans of Greek culture.
And Neo-Platonic influences on the early Christian church were the key to opening the door to the Renaissance 1000 years later.
Look, every religion touts itself as "the religion of science". Ultimately, I don't believe any of these cults incarnate any set of rigid philosophical principles. What Christians and other religious people believe shifts over time and space, and that's a good thing. They are slowly adapting to our modern understanding of the world, even if religious people tend to lean more on the reactionary side themselves.
But enlightenment was achieved in spite of religion. The French Revolution was very anti-religious because the Clergy was perfectly content enjoying its privileges in the feudal system, keeping peasants poor and uneducated. Only when the over-bearing Church was weakened were we able to explore radical new ideas of how the world works, and establish new scientific theories and knowledge.
1500 years of an all-powerful Catholic Church left Europe in a worst place than it was under Rome. Only since its power began to wane were we able to grow again.
That in the same paragraph as Galileo is a bit self contradicting. The church was stuck on an ancient greek model of the universe and the greeks were very much aware that the world was round, they once spend a day or two measuring it.
Or what constituted "enlightened, scientific, progressive" opinion on eugenics until WWII.
History is not a superhero comic.
I think Nietzsche is broadly right, that Christianity and enlightenment are brother-enemies. The belief that Christianity was Anti-Science and then the Enlightenment came and saved the day is a plainly falsifiable myth. From The Gay Science:
"It is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in knowledge rests—that even we knowers today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is truth, that truth is divine."
In the House of Wisdom / Baghdad, medieval scholars standardized upon the concepts of Arabic Numerals (likely from India, but the mathematicians who decided this was a good idea were in Baghdad), as well as Algebra... among many other feats of mathematics and science. Finally, the ratios of the movements of the Earth / Sun (aka: the Year and Month cycle) were prediced centuries before the Gregorian Calendar in the west. Its far more likely that Pope Gregory borrowed the math from the East to establish the Gregorian Calendar.
-----------
The Catholics are certainly responsible for a lot of science and mathematics. In particular, Catholics were keepers of literacy, books, and communication through the dark age.
But while Catholics were merely "maintaining" knowledge from the Roman era, the Muslim world was actually advancing it forward. The Western Dark Ages were coinciding with the Muslim Golden Age of science and wisdom. The benefits of which we have etched into our Western languages forever: Algebra, Admiral, Alchemy, Alcohol are all "obviously Arabic" with the signature "Al"... as well as other math concepts like Average, Azimuth.
Catholics wouldn't take over as the "world center of science" until a few centuries later, when the Mongols wreck the centers of Islamic knowledge and then the Ottomans wreck the centers of Greek/Byzantine knowledge. The refugee crisis from Constantinople led to a huge number of scientists entering the Italian City-states and led to the renaissance.
The Persian kingdoms also had another advantage: a huge amount of science advancement came in from China. The Persian scientists were learning from (translated) Greek works like Euclid while also experimenting with Gunpowder and other concepts from the far-East, while importing number systems from India. Its just where the science was happening for quite a few centuries.
------------
IIRC, it was the Ottomans who advanced into Gunpowder weapons first (unless you count the Mongols/Chinese using gunpowder siegecraft vs the Persians. But rocket-arrows aren't quite the same thing as guns... Fire Lances are weird... IMO not quite a gun yet). The metallurgy of the Muslim's "Damascus Steel" is a legend that holds even through today... demonstrating a metallurgical advantage above the European powers.
Crusaders in shining armor were mowed down by Ottoman cannons and even guns. The technological gap of the 1400s was utterly huge. Yeah Europe is about to have a golden age of its own but Europe isn't exactly the paragon of scientific values yet.