I would agree with Dr Richard Carrier along with other scholars, that the Classical civilization was almost at the cusp of a scientific revolution or already gotten to that stage and were progressing more slowly than the Western Europeans did in the 17th and 18th centuries. An industrial revolution would have followed naturally from a scientific revolution. Because for example; the Romans would have had a lot of uses for steam engines (mining for instance).
However a combination of both a 50 year civil war, followed by an economic depression and the rise of superstitions such as Christianity (although there were other forms) resulted in the decline of science in the Greco-Roman world. This decline along with the loss of so much scientific work written back then, which was helped by Early Christians disinterested in science.
Western Europeans in my opinion needed to wean themselves off the total dependence on the Bible and the Church for answers to questions they might have, in order for science to re-develop in Europe and for the scientific revolution to occur. People like Thomas Aquinas helped to do this process by advocating that reason overruled divine revelation (in fact the New Testament actually argues the former).
However a combination of both a 50 year civil war, followed by an economic depression and the rise of superstitions such as Christianity (although there were other forms) resulted in the decline of science in the Greco-Roman world. This decline along with the loss of so much scientific work written back then, which was helped by Early Christians disinterested in science.
Western Europeans in my opinion needed to wean themselves off the total dependence on the Bible and the Church for answers to questions they might have, in order for science to re-develop in Europe and for the scientific revolution to occur. People like Thomas Aquinas helped to do this process by advocating that reason overruled divine revelation (in fact the New Testament actually argues the former).
undefined
