The new atheists and The war on History

[Epimethean]

In ancient Rome Greek was the language of intellectuals, as French would be later for Russians, and there was no need for translations of classical works from Greek in to Latin, therefore the Greek tests become unusable, from the moment of the disappearance of that intellectual elite that was able to understand them

Not quite. The Arabic adoption of Greek works was a major preservative and a catalyst for translations. This in addition to translators of Greek into Latin such as those of Andronicus, who translated the Odyssey and most of the major extant dramatic canon from Greek into Latin. And we would be remiss to fail to mention the syncretic work of Plautus and Terence. Certainly, for the vulgar throng, the Greek was and became even more inaccessible, but this was not a roadblock to the transmission of the great ideas by and for the great thinkers.

[5thHorseman]

I propose that religious historians are more likely to be at war with History for these reasons;

Atheists have no need to change the past to suit their needs and as we do not believe the mumbojumbo, have no reason to be subjective against Christian/Jewish/Islamic/Hindu etc history.
Christians reputation has constantly suffered because of scandals, crusades etc, that portray them in a bad light.
The religious have a natural subjectiveness that means they will defend their faith and spin their history, we, atheists, have nothing to defend except a lack of belief, boohoo.

[VyckRo]

Happy New Year, let's continue

Hello to our newest xtian loon.

"... only in Christianity, modern medicine has emerged."

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Roma...index.html

Doctors don't take the Hippocratic Oath to snub jeebus: Christians had fuck all for medicine before the Greeks and Romans.

This reminds me of a story told by the Anthropologist Clifford Geertz about an Englishman in India that, “having been told the world rested on a
platform which state on the back of an elephant which rested in turn on the back of a turtle, asked . . . what did the turtle rest on? Another turtle. And that turtle? ‘Ah, Sahib, after that it is turtles all the way down.”

This example is often quote to explain the evolution of science, because all our modern knowledge are based on earlier knowledge and experiences, no one denies that. But I refer to medicine as "modern medicine" whit the hospital as an institution, with doctors and nurses professional trained, that relied on medical texts.
If I wanted to talk about the origins of medicine, I would descended up to the Sumerians, or even to some shamanistic tribal practices.
but taking into account that I spoke of "modern medicine" let's see what I do not meant: I have not meant temples were citizens went to die in a more honorable place, or physician trained to serve on the battlefield for Military use. Either of these would horrified any modern doctor whit ther practices. Even if we find some interesting thing as the use of volcanic rock to stop the bleeding ( method apparently used by the military physicians) or one or two exceptions as the famous Galen of Pergamon that does not mean that modern medicine appeared.
A flower does not mean spring!
However where did modern medicine appeared?
In the Byzantine Empire,
Here we have for the first time, the concern to build public institutions to serve all citizens, institutions: for newborns ( Brephotropheia ) for orphans, especially whose parents have died in wars ( orphanotropheia ), for elderly and disabled ( geronykomeia ) for the sick ( nosokomeia ), from the VI century "xenon" acquires the meaning of Hospital. The Byzantine hospitals had a whole hierarchy as the Chief Doctor (archiatroi), Nurses (hypourgoi), Orderlies (hyperetai).
- abbot Theodosius (529) indicate:for example "Each according to his needs "
This staff, according to some historians, were trained at the famous University of Constantinople

It is recognized that the current concept of hospital and yes, modern medicine have developed during Justinian and Theodora, at this time we have specialized institutions as hospitals, orphanages, supported by the state, church or charity associations ( philoponiai),
And these doctors were working according to published medical texts

However the modern terms "Hospital" appeared in the West, around the Hospitaller Order, and here we have the famous "Islamic problem".
Since the militant atheists, are at war with Christian culture and civilization, they trying to promote for years, that Europe stood 1,000 years in barbarism until knowledge were "brought back from Islam". Often it is quoted that Christianity would have prohibited autopsies, autopsies that "in Islam" had been "widely practiced".
Let us remember the problem with the turtle, this Arab ( arab and not Islamic) medicine on what was standing?

a quote seems relevant here
"These hospitals were a concrete expression of the Islamic indebtedness to Byzantine medical theory and therapeutics, for Islamic rulers clearly adopted the Byzantine institution of the hospital, and Islamic doctors clearly relied on Byzantine medical texts,"
op. cit. Insanity in Byzantine and Islamic Medicine by Michael Dols

For this discussion does not matter if the hospital, and modern medicine appeared in the East or West ( if we consider the name "hospital" ) but yes institutionalized medicine appeared in Christianity

several doctors Byzantine
Paul of Aegina
Alexander of Tralles
Aëtius of Amida
Rufos din Efes


short bibliography.
L`uomo bizantino By Guglielmo Cavallo
A History of Medicine: Byzantine and Islamic medicine by Plinio Prioresch
The birth of the hospital in the Byzantine Empire by Timothy S. Miller
The orphans of Byzantium: child welfare in the Christian empire by Timothy S. Miller

---

In ancient Rome Greek was the language of intellectuals, as French would be later for Russians, and there was no need for translations of classical works from Greek in to Latin, therefore the Greek tests become unusable, from the moment of the disappearance of that intellectual elite that was able to understand them

Not quite. The Arabic adoption of Greek works was a major preservative and a catalyst for translations. This in addition to translators of Greek into Latin such as those of Andronicus, who translated the Odyssey and most of the major extant dramatic canon from Greek into Latin. And we would be remiss to fail to mention the syncretic work of Plautus and Terence. Certainly, for the vulgar throng, the Greek was and became even more inaccessible, but this was not a roadblock to the transmission of the great ideas by and for the great thinkers.

I understand....!!!

Odyssey and most of the major extant dramatic canon from Greek

And with that, you may have explained how Dante Alighieri & Snorri Sturluson, still possessed some knowledge of Greek mythology ... so? how that influenced.modern science?

the Greek was and became even more inaccessible, but this was not a roadblock to the transmission of the great ideas by and for the great thinkers.

How many "great thinkers" who knew Greek can you list in west after the fall of Western Roman Empire and up to the looting of Constantinople by the so-called "crusaders"? outside some clergymen, and outside the guys mentioned to me ... obvious?

The Arabic adoption of Greek works was a major preservative and a catalyst for translations

You have an extra point, in my eyes because you said "the Arabic", and not "the Muslims" (taking into account the period to which we refer).

PS.
therefore, you try to attack the thesis of the disappearance of Greek culture from the West ?
thesis described by me above, and widely recognized at the moment?

[Epimethean]

My assault on your thesis was by means of showing that major elements of Greek culture (shall we add Plato, Aristotle and the Presocratics, etc. by the likes of Boethius) were translated into Latin. The dying back you are describing comes later, during the Middle Ages, when learning of most every sort dies in the west, so I am not certain why you chose to articulate a thesis which suggests that Greek ideas died in particular, when truly, Greco-Roman ideas (along with those of many other cultures) died. There was a fear of knowledge during that time, and it took rather odd sets such as the Scotti Peregrini and others of their kind to keep the ideas alive until the Renaissance.

[VyckRo]

My assault on your thesis was by means of showing that major elements of Greek culture (shall we add Plato, Aristotle and the Presocratics, etc. by the likes of Boethius) were translated into Latin. The dying back you are describing comes later, during the Middle Ages, when learning of most every sort dies in the west, so I am not certain why you chose to articulate a thesis which suggests that Greek ideas died in particular, when truly, Greco-Roman ideas (along with those of many other cultures) died. There was a fear of knowledge during that time, and it took rather odd sets such as the Scotti Peregrini and others of their kind to keep the ideas alive until the Renaissance.

The main problem with Anicius Boëthius, is that it is very hard to decide if he belongs to the late antique, or instead to the Middle Ages. And that if we take the year of the fall of Rome 476, as the date for the beginning of the Middle Age. Because, against popular belief, the beginning and end of Middle Age, is not chiseled in stone, and historians are still discussing these issues. For example historian Henri Pirenne, argue that, the social structure of the empire survive another two centuries.( barbarian kings of the VI and VII century use Roman methods,and even arrogates to themselves titls inherited from the Empire, sea and land connections with Byzantium and Asia are still available, therefore, he concludes that the fall of Western Europe in barbarism,happens with the VIII century).
Then we should discuss the impact of his writings, on European society, during the Middle Ages (after that impact is no longer relevant, because translations have become available from multiple sources)
His most famous work for the Middle Ages was Consolation of Philosophy,and I have not deny that. But when I said, that for the west, only four works were known,I considered their degree of distribution. Likewise his other works, have known almost no distribution, until around the 14th century, and that means we hardly can include them in the Middle Age. This evident if we consider the date the fall of Constantinople (1453) as the end for the Middle Ages and not the Luther's reform. (1517)

Let's talk a little bit about numbers ...
From about 55,000 ancient Greek texts in existence today, approximately 40,000 were transmitted to the West thanks to the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, we have even translations from Oriental languages in to Greek. An example would be "The book of Sybtipas or, The story of the king, his son, and the seven wise men. known in the West as "The book of Sindibād; or, The story of the king, his son, the damsel, and the seven vazīrs", which according to some authors, would be a lost Hellenistic work on the Cyrus the Great, lost in the late antique, that would have survived in the Middle East, and India, and rediscovered by Melitene in the XI century in syriac.

---

I'm so glad we have a load of competent historians among our membership.

I've been gone for a while
Where are they?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you're going to claim anything that man labored on whilst christianity was a power as "coming out of christianity" I can list a few dozen nastier things you probably wouldn't want to accept the blame for (on behaf of christianity). So maybe you shouldn't make such an infantile argument? Modern medicine came from man's long standing quest for knowledge and a longer life. Both of with are anathema to the christian faith.

[VyckRo]

If you're going to claim anything that man labored on whilst christianity was a power as "coming out of christianity" I can list a few dozen nastier things you probably wouldn't want to accept the blame for (on behaf of christianity). So maybe you shouldn't make such an infantile argument? Modern medicine came from man's long standing quest for knowledge and a longer life. Both of with are anathema to the christian faith.

I do not make statements, I present the facts.

1).
Fact
The Christian European civilization, is the dominant model in the world.

2)
Fact
The Chinese have discovered the compass, paper, printing, and gunpowder
Fact
All those listed above, have not contributed anything to the success of their civilization ( were barbarians when they met with Europeans)

3).
Fact
Islam has been in contact with knowledge from India, China, Greece, and had access to all world knowledge of the time.
however....where that brought tham?

4).
Sumerians, Egyptians, Astec, Maia, all had amazing knowledge in the areas as astronomy, medicine, mathematics yet... modern science, and the dominant model in the world, happened to occur in Christianity?
that it must be a coincidence, it must because it must

becaus you as atheist you are not ready to accept another version
so it must.

[Shell B]

An orthodox dude claiming atheists can't accept another version. Classic.

[Cyberman]

On the principle that one picture is worth a thousand words:

---

---

[KichigaiNeko]

Pathetic really but hey ...it's his delusion after all