This is more of a discussion and "what if?" thread than a debate, however, I am aware that my statements may upset some people and it could turn into more of a debate type thing, so I'm preemptively putting it here.

I'm reading a book called The Genius of China by Robert Temple, which is based upon a much larger, much more academic work by Joseph Needham called Science and Civilisation in China. It is a book (the one I'm reading... Needham's is a few volumes long) on China's contributions to science, art, etc over the centuries. Very interesting... I recommend it.

Getting to the point, though, one of the entries is on quantitative cartography, drawing a map in a grid so as to make it more accurate. The Chinese were so adept at this that some of their maps had no land drawings, just the grid and the tags for locations and whatnot (known as Mongolian Cartography). Pretty cool, huh?

Well, there's a part at the end of the article comparing the European map-making of the times. I shall quote!

After the time of Ptolemy (c. 120-170 AD), Western map-making degenerated under the influence of religion to a point scarcely credible. For instance, a well-known Western world map from a manuscript of 1150 is so pathetically inaccurate that it hardly even rates the description of 'map'.

Now, this makes me sad on several levels and it makes me wonder what the world would be like if the oppression of Christianity hadn't been so widespread during the Dark Ages (these days politically correctly referred to as the Middle Ages).

During the Dark Ages, art evolution hit a standstill, and all of it had to be religious in nature. Education and medicine would have been halted if it wasn't for the Muslims in Spain (Spain, who decided to throw them out or kill them not too long later).

From a social evolution standpoint, wouldn't it them be better to assume that Europe could have done without such strong Christian influence? Or is the Christianity worth the short stunting of growth in the Dark Ages? Do you think that the West would have advanced at a greater speed without it, or did it really not matter all that much?

(*sigh* Sorry this is kinda blah. Headache... but I hope it is able to start a good discussion. ^^)

To be fair, Christianity did some pretty decent things during the Dark Ages. For instance, while many in Europe were abandoning writing, reading, learning, and books, monasteries preserved many of the lovely illuminated manuscripts we still have today and made sure at least a few monks could read and write.

I think it's impossible to truly know whether or not the world would have been a better place then without Christianity. It did give some people hope, and who's to say that Europe wouldn't have been just as bad off if it hadn't been ruled by Christianity? After all, the Muslims had not just a religion but a culture far different from that of European Christians, and that, perhaps more than their religion, is what allowed them to prosper. Also, baths. So, I'm really not sure.

As an aside, "Dark Ages" isn't the "politically correct" term for the Middle Ages. It's just not accurate. Some historians limit it to the Early Middle Ages, but most disapprove of the term altogether because it is misleading and suggests no advancements at all were made and it was just several centuries of ignorance and disease, which is not the case.

I meant it the other way around, that Middle Ages was more "politically correct." (From my history professor, who I remember saying something along the lines of 'we don't call it the Dark Ages anymore.')

And I'm not trying to imply that perhaps the old Europe would have been better off without Christianity itself, just that perhaps the system that was set up (which involved much ignorance and corruption as it went on) was more of a cancer than not.

Also, scholar monks were and are awesome. If nothing else, some of them opted to give up the Book of Kells, which still baffled people today. ^_^

I dunno... it just maked me wonder when I read this stuff on how early China had some stuff, and knowing that certain rather important things such as the study and practice of medicine were carried through that time period by the Muslims, what the world would be like if early Christianity hadn't been so oppressive. Could there have been more room for prosperity for Europe if non-religious ideas had not been stiffled?

I like pondering what-ifs, though this one is a bit hard to imagine. Christianity is so much a part of our culture that it's damn near impossible to imagine live without its influence.

Originally Posted by Sen Lee

From a social evolution standpoint

Which theory of Social Evolution would you be using as a lens? Herbert Spencer's? Sir Edward Burnett Tylor's? As such theories were dismantled utterly by the works of Franz Boas, Paul Radin and A.L Kroeber etc. Or perhaps you are applying social evolution in the sense of its re-emergence in the 1950s, by the likes of Leslie White. Which still suffers many of the fallacies of earlier Social Evolution theories.

Originally Posted by Sen Lee

Do you think that the West would have advanced at a greater speed without it, or did it really not matter all that much?

I am also curious to know what you are qualifying as being "advanced". Although I no doubt imagine this will be addressed in your response to what you mean by Social Evolution.

I was not referring to any theory in particular, but going at it from the point of view that various things, such as art and science, were stunted by the Christian system at the time. As I said, science in China was flying, as it were, from the last few centuries of BCE, and medicine and academia were carried primarily by the Muslims in Europe at the time.

*thought that was clear enough from context* Sorry if it wasn't.

On a slightly unrelated note, it makes me sad that Europeans never quite managed to figure out something better than the throat-and-girth harness they were using for centuries to strangle their work horses. (Another thing the Chinese developed, better harnasses.)

I'm not sure whether things would have developed so differently if it wasn't for Church keeping down everything that had to do with science, education, art and philosophy (unless it was Christian in nature) for the first 700-800 years of the Middle Ages. If not Christian Church, someone else might have taken the chance to get the upper hand. Times weren't easy after the fall of the roman empire, so whoever wanted to bathe in power had a good chance of uniting the people under the banner of something that brought them hope, in this case a godly father figure.

And whoever would have done it would likely have utilised the same methods for keeping people down. If you want people to follow your every command, just keep them illiterate and uneducated.

But I just wanted to throw in that it's not Christianity that did all that, but rather a Church that deliberately went against the teachings of their own religion. Christianity itself can't be blamed for that.

That is true... Chaos tends to lend a very helping hand to people who wish to gain power and abuse those beneath them. And I do know what the draw of Christianity was at the time... live was miserable for a good majority of the people and the idea of heaven gave them something to look forward to.

And I apologize for using Christianity as a synonym for the Church (which is the parent of Catholicism... hmm...). You're right. Christianity isn't really the problem. It was a problem with the higher up clergy of the Church, especially the Pope (which ever one, there were several like this) who got too used to padding his pockets and gaining power over things that a church leader shouldn't really have leadership over, such as the armies.

Interesting topic...

I'm going to go with Christianity stunted the advancement of society as a whole in the West, especially in Europe where it's hold was strongest.

On Phil's comment regarding monastery's, I disagree. Think of it in modern terms:
A decree from the government is now in effect that says schoolchildren may only copy from this document (insert singular idea here) and nothing else. Would you consider that to be a preservation of writing and reading? Would it be decent of the government to do? The monk's were, for the most part, restricted to making copies of the Bible and other holy texts. Free thought was stifled by religious intervention until the beginning of the Renaissance.

Edit: I made a slight clarification to my last paragraph...

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS HASN'T BEEN POSTED YET!

(I am not claiming this graph to be evidence or an accurate depiction of how Christianity has affected scientific advancement, or in any other way, shape, or form as true or factual)

@Sen Lee: I think most Christians (real Christians, not the fanatics and extremists) understand that it's not meant to be rude, but I just wanted to point it out since you made it clear that you didn't want to insult anyone.

@Keyori: somewhere around the 13th Century people started to defy the limitations put on them, so there should be quite a surge at the end of the black part - this surge not being there proves that this is not based on any facts but is only meant as a way to spread anti-religious propaganda.

I'm pretty sure she wasn't claiming that since she said it in the disclaimer underneath...

Way to shoot down the only fun-poking I've had in this forum Nalah ;P

I think there's a lot of awful things that have happened in the name of Christianity, but just as much good done by Christians (but not necessarily in the name of Christianity--Mother Teresa for instance).

Originally Posted by Shtona

I'm pretty sure she wasn't claiming that since she said it in the disclaimer underneath...

I can read perfectly well, thanks.

But I do have the right to reply to a picture posted in this thread, right?

Originally Posted by Keyori

Way to shoot down the only fun-poking I've had in this forum Nalah ;P

I think there's a lot of awful things that have happened in the name of Christianity, but just as much good done by Christians (but not necessarily in the name of Christianity--Mother Teresa for instance).

And I had a lot of fun doing so, nyahahaha~! ;)

Yes, there have actually been quite a lot of true Christians out there - and thanks god (whichever one(s)!) there still are. Very few of the fanatics realise that demonising science and other religions was never part of their own religion (it actually goes against everything that Jesus taught) and that those who they call traitors are in fact the ones that are following much more of a "true" path of Christianity.

And I have the right to reply to your post...no harm done.

Originally Posted by Shtona

On Phil's comment regarding monastery's, I disagree. Think of it in modern terms:
A decree from the government is now in effect that says schoolchildren may only copy from this document (insert singular idea here) and nothing else. Would you consider that to be a preservation of writing and reading? Would it be decent of the government to do? The monk's were, for the most part, restricted to making copies of the Bible and other holy texts. Free thought was stifled by religious intervention until the beginning of the Renaissance.

So, letting written language disappear from Europe entirely would have been better?

@ Shtona: I have to agree with Philomel on this one. For one thing, you can't really take the situation they had in the past and super impose it on a modern setting. Secondly, monastaries were pretty much the only places that formal education took place, and all monks and priests were literate. If my memory doesn't fail me, pretty much everyone else at that time was not, excepting maybe a few members of the aristocracy. Third, they didn't just copy the Bible. We have manuscripts of not just religious texts, but also historical accounts and music.

As for the original question, I would point out that without the Church during the Middle Ages, music as we know it today would be very different. Have any of you ever seen a sheet of music? You can thank the monastery musicians for that. The system of musical notation used today was developed almost completely by the Church trained musicians. We can trace tonal harmony all the way back to Gregorian chant.

I'm a music major, and I spent a semester of my life looking at how the Church helped develope the principles of my craft. I know that the Church was corrupt and certianly hypocritical, but I can't help but be grateful to it for giving me the basis of my notational system and harmony.

Actually, I'm not sure that all clergymen were literate. The monks were, yes, but the local priests and such weren't necessarily. They were trained in Church service and teaching, but due to the difficulty and length of time it took to transcribe books back then, most of them didn't even have a complete copy of the Bible.

I pointed that out to someone once and they countered with the training bit, but I feel inclined to mention that generally people's memories aren't quite that good.

Well, if they could read at least the little bit of the Bible they had compared to most of their congregation they were quite literate. However, I concede that I shouldn't have said all of them were. But my main point stays the same: the Church was the center of formal education during that era. Even after the Middle Ages ended, Church run schools were still one of the best ways to obtain an education.

It is true that the Church's monestaries did keep up literacy among their monks and whatnot, but their limitations on the material were very strict. The people who were learned at all was a also a very limited group, and the Church was pretty pleased with that. So one has to wonder if the monks' literacy and their constant penning of books was really enough of a contribution when you put it up against other contributions of the times.

During their time only a few could really learn because of the expensiveness and exclusivity of education.

It was either you were elite or from the clergy that you could ever hope to hold a book in your lifetime.

If you were any less, you'd simply be taking from the scraps or random spoken word.

After all, books were handwritten and all. : / And it had to be precise. Little to no erasures at that. Impeccable penmanship was a must.

Fun little fact. Here in our country, the Benedictines teach a particular style of incursive writing to their students we dub 'Benedictine' style of penmanship. xD It's very long and elegant, kind of pudgy but yeah. I think the style still persists to an extent right now.

I'm not Benedictine though. I'm from a Jesuit school. Our handwritings? Long, edged and very elegant.

When I saw some application forms in handwritten form by a Jesuit student, I could see SOME similarities in the handwriting.

But I'm curious, why are we focusing just on the Medieval? xD

Didn't the religion have an impact even beyond that into the rest of history too?

Say like in the instance of more recent wars? The Medieval's stunt of the advancements wasn't just thanks to religion, it was a major driving force but it was also wars and pestilence.

...IDK about you guys but I really found those Holy Wars to repossess the Holy Grail and other treasures a lie. Like the cake. It was more like a cover up to conquer the Arab/Muslim world at that time in retaliation to their earlier expansion.

>_> IT'S A LIE.

And that was an utter waste of resources IMO.

I was focusing on that time period because that period (between the fall of the Roman empire and before the rise of the Renaissance) was when the Church's grasp on pretty much everything was strongest, meaning that was when they had the most ability to squash advancement... or, at least, refrain from helping it along.

I don't think Christianity in itself is bad. it supports some good ideals that I think everyone should follow (respect your fellow man and treat everyone with compassion). I just feel that the way they implement certain. The fact that they don't support protected sex (at least for the most part), they don't support abortion. Those are ideals that are outdated. Because back when Christianity was established, there weren't that many people, so having people have children and create more christians was important. But now, the planet has too many people on it already, and I think the different Christian religions have enough members in order to keep themsels supported.