Monotheism and History.

[onejayhawk]

The case can be made that the concept of a single creator/god is one of the most significant changes in history. In short, it demystifies the natural world and allows investigative thought to flourish. Couple this with Greek linear reasoning and western science results. Other impacts are the elevation of the individual, since the king cannot also be god, and the development of a systematic theology, which leads to systematic thinking.

What are your thoughts.

J

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The main reason monotheism appeared to "encourage" science was because through the clergy was the only way to get an education. Science began to advance only after throwing off the shackles of religious politics.

Places like China and Rome got by well enough without it...

 

[Xen]

The case can be made that the concept of a single creator/god is one of the most significant changes in history. In short, it demystifies the natural world and allows investigative thought to flourish. Couple this with Greek linear reasoning and western science results. Other impacts are the elevation of the individual, since the king cannot also be god, and the development of a systematic theology, which leads to systematic thinking.

What are your thoughts.

J

primarilly that the reasoning above is bogus; very few religions do any sort of "demystifying", and amoung them, its monotheistic religions that actually do more then most to pour a shroud of mystery over allc reation, hence such vehment and passionate argumentation in the past, and even to this day over such concepts as contienental drift, heliocentric theory, and ofcourse, evolution- science is wholelly based on Greek thought, and indeed, the evolution of modern sicence isnot out of the theologial thinking of medieval scholars and before but the re-emergence of Greek thought and philosphers beyond th elittle bit of aristotle and plato that had been known and loved by christian scholars for centuries, yet nearlly all of these sam philosiphers had been branded as heritics in thier own time, the famous Socrates amoung them.

 

[Hotpoint]

In short, it demystifies the natural world and allows investigative thought to flourish. Couple this with Greek linear reasoning and western science results

Monotheism (at least the Christian kind) actually had highly damaging impact on the philosophy and reason of the Hellenic/Roman world. To give two obvious examples it was the Christian Emperor Justinian who closed down Plato's Academy in 529AD (it had been established around nine-hundred years earlier in 387BC), and it was also the Christians (the most to blame being Emperor Theodosius and the bishop of Alexandria Theophilus) who destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria in 391AD.

It was the rediscovery and eventual development of pre-christian, "polytheist" philosophy and science in the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment that resulted in western science.

 

[Israelite9191]

The reasons given for monotheism helping along the advance of science are what are innacurate, not the assumption itself. Monotheism, in the form of Judaism, created the Rabbinic (Rabbi actually means 'teacher') of philosophy that acted as a connecting strain between the Muslim and Christian worlds during the Middle Ages (see Maimonedes, a Jew from Dar al-Islam who's philosophical works spread through the Jewish communities of Christendom to influence the Christians as well as the Muslims. This tradition continued on through the Renaissance and Industrial Age producing such greats as the Gaon of Vilna and others. The Christian branch of monotheism can be seen as having given one major advantagous thing to the development of science: the Church. The monasteries of particularly Ireland, Scotland, and the Byzantine Empire saved the works of the Roman Empire. These monasteries were where the literate sought refuge and recorded all they knew. Meanwhile, the main gift of the Muslim branch of monotheism to the advancement of science would be the political unity it created among the Arabs. By creatign that unity, Islam created an empire with the resources to learn about the past, and discover new secrets. The Islamic Empire can be accredited with having saved amny of the Greek works, as well as having introduced Arabic numerals to the west from India, developing algebra, furthering geometry, and making leaps and bounds in medicine, among other notable achievments in science, such as the production of Damascus Steal. Monotheism did further the advancement of science, it is only that onejathawk puts forth the wrong justification for this assumption.

 

[Xen]

while its true monastaeris in particuler areas of christendom saved the classical works, they did not preserve copius amounts of them, nor did they improve upon them, or utilize them- very literally, the only reason they were saved is because thier was nothing else to do, and if in a pinch the same texts were sacrified so thier papaer could be used for another copy of the christian bible.

The Islamic world during this time was an electric place, and they did indeed improve upon the classical works in many respects, or in the case of mathmatics, the area where Arab culture had the largest impact, adopted anf romed new ways, and learned to appy what had been known by the Greeks and Romans to them- and while throuhout the period Judaic scholars tended to keep up the pace they had always known, it is a fallacy to conclude that any of these factors truely improved the scientific world- it would not be until the rekidiniling of ancient Greco-Roman culture and ideals as a whole that science for sciences' sake woudl once agian be taken up, and the proper, moder methodologies once agian begin to take shape.

 

[Israelite9191]

True, but without the monotheistic traditions, the sciences would have been lost during the dark ages. And, may I remind you, the Arabs adopted just as much from the Indians as from the Greeks in terms of mathematics? The only place where they really relied on Roman works was in medicine, where Gallen ruled supreme. Now, I must admit that the monks did prefer religion to science, but for them science and religion were one and the same. Back then people viewed the two as one system, rather than two. It is true that they wrote many moer bibles than copies of Gallen's manusrcripts, but to say that the monastic sub-tradition of the monotheistic tradition made little no contributions is ridiculous. The Irish, Irish trained, and Byzantine monks in particular can be accredited with having saved the documents that would later fule the Renaissance. As for the rabinic tradition, you obviously know very little about such figures as the Gaon of Vilna and Rashi. Whiel both are most famous for Torah and Talmudic commentary, they were the heads and founders of school systems that taught not only religion, but also science and mathematics. While the contirbutions of the monotheistic tradition themselves are not the route source of our modern knowledge, they kept the scientific progress going long enough for the secular scientists of the Renaissance to pick it up.

 

[Xen]

you seem to forget that without the montoehstic traditions, the polythieistic traditions would have never died out in the first place, and have to wait seven centuries to be rediscovered.

 

[Israelite9191]

But it wasn't the polytheistic traditions that were being recovered, it was the philisophical tradititons that were being recovered. There is a reason that Socrates, though he worshiped the gods, was considered a heretic by his polytheistic brethren. The philosphers of Greece, while at first using polytheism as a gateway for thaught, later became more and more secular and almost atheist. What the Renaissance revived in the realms of science was not the polytheistic traditions of Greece, but the philisophical traditions fo Greece that would have been lost if not for the Church. If polytheism were what they were reviving, than there would have been no need for the texts to be saved, since many of the invading tribes were polytheists. The monotheistic traditions saved the old philisophical traditions of the ancient Greeks, they did not save polytheistic traditions of the Greeks.

 

[Plotinus]

primarilly that the reasoning above is bogus; very few religions do any sort of "demystifying", and amoung them, its monotheistic religions that actually do more then most to pour a shroud of mystery over allc reation, hence such vehment and passionate argumentation in the past, and even to this day over such concepts as contienental drift, heliocentric theory, and ofcourse, evolution- science is wholelly based on Greek thought, and indeed, the evolution of modern sicence isnot out of the theologial thinking of medieval scholars and before but the re-emergence of Greek thought and philosphers beyond th elittle bit of aristotle and plato that had been known and loved by christian scholars for centuries, yet nearlly all of these sam philosiphers had been branded as heritics in thier own time, the famous Socrates amoung them.

I'll defer to Xen's expertise when it comes to Roman history, but almost everything he says here is wildly untrue.

The claim that monotheistic religions "pour a shroud of mystery" to a greater extent than polytheistic ones is obviously daft. Were the clerics of Zeus or Jupiter more open to science than the medieval priests? Did they know more about the world? I think not. More important, however, is the fact that this idea that modern science came about from a rediscovery of a pagan past and the overthrowing of Christian orthodoxy is absolute rubbish. It is a Renaissance myth. Just what element of ancient pagan thought, precisely, kicked off modern science? In fact, modern science did have its roots in the Middle Ages - partly through the explosion of education that came first with the cathedral schools and then with the universities, and partly through the work of figures such as Roger Bacon. The Renaissance, with its elevation of pre-Christian paganism and its veneration of Plato and others, actually encouraged a non-scientific outlook just as much as it did a scientific one. It was all about spirituality and mysticism. Just read a bit of Paracelsus - there's not much science going on there. It's all about esoteric secrets and muttering things in Latin and Hebrew. Do you really think modern science had anything to do with Hermes Trismegistus? No - science is based on the belief that the world is *rational*, not *mystical*, and that is a belief that was fostered by Christianity, and which has far, far more to do with the Middle Ages than with the Renaissance. Figures such as Agobard of Lyons, in the early Middle Ages, and Thomas Aquinas, later on, encouraged the view that the world is basically comprehensible and can be investigated rationally. That was due not simply to monotheism but to the very doctrine of the Incarnation - after all, if the Logos (Reason) was in the world, then the world is rational.

The "modern" scientific worldview arose from a combination of factors. The spirit of enquiry as exemplified by Aristotle was one of those factors, but the belief in the rationality of the world as fostered in the Middle Ages was another, and the more rigorous education of the Middle Ages was another still. To identify the modern scientific worldview with ancient paganism (and, even stranger, polytheism) is as simplistic as it is peculiar.

Obviously, neither monotheism nor Greek philosophy is necessary for science, since, as Corsair pointed out, China got on well with neither. There, Confucianism provided the holistic worldview which encouraged a belief in the world as rational, and the experiments of the alchemists yielded results such as gunpowder (as well as an awful lot of premature death, given their strangely dogged belief in the life-extending properties of arsenic and mercury).

But I would agree with onejayhawk's assessment about the typical effects of monotheism. Remember - the much-vaunted results of Greek philosophy and critical thinking were more associated with incipient monotheism than with traditional polytheism. Remember how Xenophanes criticised traditional polytheism, partly because it was obvious that each nation created its own gods in its own image, and partly because polytheism had no explanatory power. Monotheism represented an improvement over polytheism because God was now not just an object of worship or supplication, but also a quasi-scientific explanation for the way things were. You can clearly see this above all in Aristotle. That's a step on the road towards science. Whatever use the Renaissance scientists may have made of Greek insights, they did not reverse that particular step.

I think Israelite9191 is quite right to point this out. Don't confuse Greek philosophy with Greek polytheism - they are quite unconnected and in many ways antithetical. As you pointed out yourself, Xen, the Greek philosophers were not mainstream characters, as the fate of Socrates demonstrates.

while its true monastaeris in particuler areas of christendom saved the classical works, they did not preserve copius amounts of them, nor did they improve upon them, or utilize them- very literally, the only reason they were saved is because thier was nothing else to do, and if in a pinch the same texts were sacrified so thier papaer could be used for another copy of the christian bible.

Again, this is just peculiar. Of course they saved lots of them. To admit that they preserved them but only did so because they had nothing better to do is obviously ridiculous - they had plenty of other things they could have done! Between AD 750 and 900, there are 7,000 *surviving* manuscripts from Francia alone. That means that we possess a manuscript today for every week of that 150-year period, and given that these are rather delicate things (despite what Xen says, paper was not used yet at this stage) and many, many more would have perished since, that's quite a lot. (Compare it to only 500 surviving manuscripts from the preceding 250 years.) And this was just the Carolingian renaissance: the volume of stuff from the "high" Middle Ages, including students' notes and annotations, is just overwhelming.

It's also worth pointing out that the only reason why the Muslims had all those classical works during the Middle Ages was because Christian scholars, such as Hunain ben Ishaq, personal physician to the caliph in the ninth century, had preserved, copied, and translated them.

Monotheism (at least the Christian kind) actually had highly damaging impact on the philosophy and reason of the Hellenic/Roman world. To give two obvious examples it was the Christian Emperor Justinian who closed down Plato's Academy in 529AD (it had been established around nine-hundred years earlier in 387BC), and it was also the Christians (the most to blame being Emperor Theodosius and the bishop of Alexandria Theophilus) who destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria in 391AD.

In fact, there is no particular reason to suppose that Theophilus of Alexandria had anything to do with the destruction of the Great Library. This is a charge unknown in antiquity - Gibbon was the first person to suggest it.

The closure of the Academy is constantly misunderstood. Justinian closed it not because it offered education but because it was pagan. Its closure didn't mark the end of philosophy in Byzantium - philosophy was just exclusively Christian from then on. If anyone thinks that this meant nothing but barbarous repetitions of prescribed formulae and no creative thought, they should read Leontius of Byzantium and see what they think then.

It was the rediscovery and eventual development of pre-christian, "polytheist" philosophy and science in the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment that resulted in western science.

Well, again, just not true. No-one ever seems to be able to offer any substantiation for claims such as this. What "polytheist" or indeed "pagan" views did Galileo, Kepler, et al have that made them such good scientists? Weren't they all Christians? And how, precisely, did paganism or polytheism play an important role in the Enlightenment?

Again, I'm afraid that this "cyclical" understanding of history, where the Middle Ages are denigrated as a period of stagnation, the classical era is venerated, and the modern period understood as the latter being "rediscovered" so that everyone could escape the tyranny of the church, is a Renaissance myth that was revitalised in the nineteenth century (when ludicrous fictions such as the claim that the medievals thought the world flat were invented). But it's just a myth.

 

[Xen]

1)you seem to be lumping the the entire renaissance into one huge "thing"; while the works of Rodgy Bacon, or Thomas Aquinas are all well and fine, they miss out on the actual trigger of the renaissance either being to early to matter to anyone for any practical matters not in a vestment, or afterwards when the primary impulse was no longer needed, and flame of ancient thought had already been reborn, and the era leaving the rebirth, and entering the age of enlightment when europe had already put all that nifty greco-roman though to good use, and had then began to improve upon it, showing that the re-birth was over. Rather the renaissance itself, and particuraly its birth have a very pagan falvor to them in the south of europe, and area i have found you dimissiive of in the past, but one you need to consider, particuraly in the cotext of how the renaissance itself was born, and the interactions between soem of its major figure heads, such as the Medicis of florence, and the artistsand scientists they patronized, and the church- Indeed, one may need look no further then Savonarola to see that more then a few in the church took a very nasty view indeed to what was going on in Florence in merelly the real of art where *gasp* non christian subjects were being dipicted for the first time in centuries- and like wise, we can see the vehment attempts to stamp out heliocentric theory during this period as a very serious attempt to snuff out science- the way christianity, and nearlly all monothistic religions have worked is that they can be great patrons of both art and science as long as everything that is a result of those peruits agrees whole-heartedlly with the greater dogma- religious universities were relitivlly free of the greater restraints of the church as they were fairlly closed communities; these arnt hundreds of students after all, at least not until later on, but very small classrooms of students well aquinted with one another, and open for even heretical discussions with thie rmasters over particular points- add ot the fact that more then a few werent exactley religious but were in it for the education, and you dont have a huge case for pointing out the pillar of science monothoistic religions have been over the centuires, rather you have the opposite, how the secretive trust of teachers and pupils led to the concept of academic freedom, and freedom of discussion in the classroom, despite what objections the outside world might have to it (of course, that seems to be going down the tube these days, but thats beside the point).

The points brought up on the interpratation of god and the rationalty of the universe and of god are valid, but out of context; these theories were not universal in thier day, and looking upon the situation, seems they have indeed lost a great deal of groun dover the centuries in terms of religious followers looking to those theories as due explinations of the world around them and accepting those rational explinations for natural phenomena and god, but I think its arguable that a great deal of the most profound chirstian scholarship throughout the period had little to nothing to do with classical thought at all; I havent read much of Aquinas, but what I have dosent seem very based on anysort of classical ideal, and indeed, I belive he set out an anti-statement to the words of st.Augustines city of god. Yet despite the christian theological concepts of the era, one cannot deny that beginning in the renaissance, and gorwing throughot the period and culminateing in the enlightment, a growing "anti religious" faction was taking the reigns of science to view it in an objective manner- a manner more fosterd by ancient polythieistic thought then that of the christian era of theology, and throught the period we see a growing "anti-science" based view from the perspective of religion, leading us to our present situation where people wish to see science and religion plainlly at odds with one another, and not for the first time in history it might be added.

as for the manuscripts, I apologize for not being more exact, I meant in the tiem between the 5th and 8th centuries- not exactley high points in terms of scholarship by any degree, and not in the least is this not due to the spiritual taking full prescidence over the secerular in terms fo worldlly importance to the common person. And by paper, you know perfectlly well that I used the word as a substitue for vellum or I suppose Papyrus or whatever other local material suitable for writing that may have been had

 

[Israelite9191]

Ah yes, ignoring everything west of Istanbul and south Gibralter, and throwing in a few references to the Byzantines constitutes a full picture of history in my book. Don't you just love it when people forget that there is such a thing as Dar al-Islam, India, and China? I know that this particular discussion does not really apply to India and China that much, but it most certainly applies to Dar al-Islam. It also applies to the Jewish communities of the disapora mind you. You know, I also find it refreshing when people completely ignore the Irish Golden Age. It would really be helpful if all the people here would manage to keep themselves from having an overly Euro/Christo-centric view for the duration of your reading and posting in this thread. It would really be quite a hoot.

 

[Xen]

it would be quite a hoot, but its a hoot that dosent have a huge impact; simply put the crusades didnt have a large impact on refounding greco-roman science and culter, NOR did Byzantium- it was the spansih reconquista, in the very west of the west as europe goes, that was the real eye opener for europeans of the era; Jewish communites outside Italy largelly kept to themselves through backwards local ordinances forcing jewish populations to do, resulting in the disticntve traditon of learning and scholarchip in Jewish communities of the period, but not exatly the greatest of impacts on anyone outside the jewish community, and obviouslly enough, werent exatley making any more sicentific breakthrought during the period then christian scholars were either.

the name of the game in this particuler thread is not keeping what had been known by the classical greeks and Romans, but improving on what thye knew, and if monotheistim helped or hindered that- it seems plain to me that the great feats of classical knowledge arose because of a far less constraining structure of religion, one where you couldnt be ex-communicated, and didnt have to worry, generally about being killed fo having belifes different from those in the mainstream- and likewise, the exact opposite is true of the far more structured and orginized monotheistic religions, as regardless of individuals thoughts and ratolinzations, if someone higher then you dislikes what you are saying, thier isnt a great deal you can do to make them not shut you up.

 

[Plotinus]

1)you seem to be lumping the the entire renaissance into one huge "thing"; while the works of Rodgy Bacon, or Thomas Aquinas are all well and fine, they miss out on the actual trigger of the renaissance either being to early to matter to anyone for any practical matters not in a vestment, or afterwards when the primary impulse was no longer needed, and flame of ancient thought had already been reborn, and the era leaving the rebirth, and entering the age of enlightment when europe had already put all that nifty greco-roman though to good use, and had then began to improve upon it, showing that the re-birth was over.

But my point was precisely that Aquinas and Bacon seem to have more in common with science as we understand it than the Renaissance sages did, and yet they were both medieval (I don't know which of them you think came after the Renaissance, but they were both well before it!). Science didn't come about when people pushed all the medieval stuff to one side and rediscovered the genius of antiquity. Its roots were, in part, and perhaps to a large degree, in the Middle Ages themselves.

Indeed, one may need look no further then Savonarola to see that more then a few in the church took a very nasty view indeed to what was going on in Florence in merelly the real of art where *gasp* non christian subjects were being dipicted for the first time in centuries- and like wise, we can see the vehment attempts to stamp out heliocentric theory during this period as a very serious attempt to snuff out science- the way christianity, and nearlly all monothistic religions have worked is that they can be great patrons of both art and science as long as everything that is a result of those peruits agrees whole-heartedlly with the greater dogma-

But Savonarola was hardly a representative of the Catholic Church! He was a fanatic who was condemned by Rome and ultimately executed. You can't point to him as a "typical" religious person of the time!

Similarly, the church did not attempt to "stamp out" heliocentric theory, let alone "snuff out" science. Galileo was condemned not for his heliocentric views but for teaching them as if they were proven fact, contrary to a Papal injunction to which he had agreed (he was allowed to discuss different theories). In fact, the church during this period believed that no astronomical theory could be definitive, but they could only offer models of how to understand the universe. This is precisely what modern scientists believe. Galileo believed that his theories could be proven beyond doubt (by his theory of the tides, which was actually wrong) - it was this that the church objected to, as well as his claims to be able to interpret Scripture and his going back on his word to the Pope.

The idea that the church sought to clamp down on science during this period is absolute rubbish. Robert Bellarmine, who dealt with Galileo, was himself a professor of astronomy!

Scientists during this period - as indeed during most periods - were not persecuted by the church for any scientific views. How many examples can you think of?

As I said before, if you really think that science during this period came about through a re-appropriation of polytheism, give some examples. All the great scientists in Europe I can think of from the Renaissance, or indeed any time up to the later Enlightenment, were Christians. Indeed, since Newton himself was an Arian and rejected the Trinity, it could be argued that the greatest scientist of all was *more* monotheist than the tradition in which he was brought up!

The points brought up on the interpratation of god and the rationalty of the universe and of god are valid, but out of context; these theories were not universal in thier day, and looking upon the situation, seems they have indeed lost a great deal of groun dover the centuries in terms of religious followers looking to those theories as due explinations of the world around them and accepting those rational explinations for natural phenomena and god,

That may be so, but don't you accept that it was this approach which helped to stimulate enquiry in the first place? And you don't think that polytheism did so *more*, do you?

but I think its arguable that a great deal of the most profound chirstian scholarship throughout the period had little to nothing to do with classical thought at all; I havent read much of Aquinas, but what I have dosent seem very based on anysort of classical ideal, and indeed, I belive he set out an anti-statement to the words of st.Augustines city of god.

Well, I'd be interested to know why you think Aquinas is opposed to Augustine, but that's really neither here nor there. Neither does it make much difference to this discussion whether you think Aquinas and co were greatly inspired by classical thought or not (although I hardly think one could seriously doubt it). The point is their work was there, and it was an important element in the (later) creation of what we think of as the scientific method.

Yet despite the christian theological concepts of the era, one cannot deny that beginning in the renaissance, and gorwing throughot the period and culminateing in the enlightment, a growing "anti religious" faction was taking the reigns of science to view it in an objective manner- a manner more fosterd by ancient polythieistic thought then that of the christian era of theology, and throught the period we see a growing "anti-science" based view from the perspective of religion, leading us to our present situation where people wish to see science and religion plainlly at odds with one another, and not for the first time in history it might be added.

That's completely wrong. A nineteenth-century myth that was created as ammunition in the (American) wars about evolution. Where is this evidence for an "anti-religious" faction in the Renaissance? Which scientists, in particular, are you talking about? They were *all* religious! Kepler spent half his time musing on the Music of the Spheres and how it could be reconciled with elliptical orbits. And this went well up to Newton, who regarded his work as providing a detailed argument for the existence of God. The notion of a perennial war between science and religion was invented in the nineteenth century, and while it may have proven fairly accurate (in some quarters - again, mostly in America) since then, you can't use it to interpret the past. People bandy these claims about without offering any real evidence for them, apart from a misunderstood interpretation of the Galileo affair.

Besides, isn't it inconsistent to say that these scientists were all so great because they weren't religious, whilst also saying that they were inspired by polytheism? I still say that if they were inspired by anything from antiquity (which they certainly were, of course) it wasn't polytheism, and I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[EdwardTking]

Ancient philosophy went exactly nowhere.

Monotheism was significant in that it enabled serious
contemplation about the nature of God to be undertaken
and one interpretation, the concept of a rational
God, paved the way for scientific laws to be postulated.

 

[Hotpoint]

Ancient philosophy went exactly nowhere.

How much have you actually read? Because that statement would indicate next to none.

Monotheism was significant in that it enabled serious
contemplation about the nature of God to be undertaken
and one interpretation, the concept of a rational
God, paved the way for scientific laws to be postulated.

Many of the great Monotheist philosophers based their work on the foundation left by the Ancients. St Thomas Aquinas for example based much of his work on Aristotle (who is the true father of the scientific method by the way).

 

[EdwardTking]

How much have you actually read? Because that statement would indicate next to none.

Enough. Romans knew that ancient Greek abstractions went
nowhere and built an empire on engineering and organisation.

Many of the great Monotheist philosophers based their work on the foundation left by the Ancients. St Thomas Aquinas for example based much of his work on Aristotle (who is the true father of the scientific method by the way).

Nothing much really happened until the concept of rational God encountered experimental mechanism. Otherwise, possibly excepting China, where Confucian may have had an impact, history was independent of philosophy.

 

[Hotpoint]

Enough. Romans knew that ancient Greek abstractions went nowhere and built an empire on engineering and organisation.

Roman technology was built on Greek abstractions in fields such as mathematics.

Nothing much really happened until the concept of rational God encountered experimental mechanism. Otherwise, possibly excepting China, where Confucian may have had an impact, history was independent of philosophy.

Not all Greek thought was philosophy although it was Greek philosophy that led to Greek mathematics and science. I assume you don't think that Archimedes, Pythagoras or Euclid had no impact?

 

[Israelite9191]

it would be quite a hoot, but its a hoot that dosent have a huge impact; simply put the crusades didnt have a large impact on refounding greco-roman science and culter, NOR did Byzantium- it was the spansih reconquista, in the very west of the west as europe goes, that was the real eye opener for europeans of the era; Jewish communites outside Italy largelly kept to themselves through backwards local ordinances forcing jewish populations to do, resulting in the disticntve traditon of learning and scholarchip in Jewish communities of the period, but not exatly the greatest of impacts on anyone outside the jewish community, and obviouslly enough, werent exatley making any more sicentific breakthrought during the period then christian scholars were either.

the name of the game in this particuler thread is not keeping what had been known by the classical greeks and Romans, but improving on what thye knew, and if monotheistim helped or hindered that- it seems plain to me that the great feats of classical knowledge arose because of a far less constraining structure of religion, one where you couldnt be ex-communicated, and didnt have to worry, generally about being killed fo having belifes different from those in the mainstream- and likewise, the exact opposite is true of the far more structured and orginized monotheistic religions, as regardless of individuals thoughts and ratolinzations, if someone higher then you dislikes what you are saying, thier isnt a great deal you can do to make them not shut you up.

When do I mention the Crusades? As for the Reconquista being an eye opener for Europe, you are most certainly right, and you prove my point on several levels. The Reconquista brought the Catholic Church and the monastic orders of said church into contact with the advancements of the Muslim and Jewish thinkers of Cordova. Maimonedes, who's philosophy was one bright spot on the Dark Ages of Western Europe, lived among the Cordovans and his ideas were spread to the rest of Europe first through disemination into Jewish communities and secondily through the contact of the Reconquista.

Now, as for Jews being locked up entirely outside of Italy, you are blatantly ignoring the Jewish communities of the MONOTHEISTIC Muslim Caliphates, the Jews of the Byzantine empire, and the Jews of Poland later on. Please, do a little more research on the topic, frankly, I think all Gentiles really should.

Now, what I was trying to point out before is the fact that rather than this being a discussion about ALL monotheistic societies, as in Dar al-Islam, Christendom, and the Jewish Diaspora, you have turned it into a Euro-centric conversation about Christendom, and only Western Christendom at that. Muslims and Jews are just as much monotheistic as Christians, more so in fact shen you consider they don't have that whole "trinity" thing going on. To ignore them is beyond Euro-centric. I mean, you even state in your post that the Jewish communities had a unique heritage of learning traceable to the rabinic traditions. I mean, you want evidence for the effect of monotheism, look at the freekin, Muslim Empire! The mathematicians and physicians of the Caliphates made leaps and bounds that would never have been achievable without the political unity and educational atmosphere created by Islam.

 

[Verbose]

I totally agree with Plotinus.

We COULD have had a bunch of Church Fathers in charge who when confronted with the ancient philosophy concluded: "Burn the ruddy lot!" For them the Gospel was as all the literature a Christian needed, and his relationship with his Redeemer the only thing worth contemplating.

We DID get a bunch of Church Fathers in charge who said: "Hold on a minute, this philosophy thingy actually has real merit for Christians as well".