Pet History Peeves

[Masada]

How is that strange? A lot of scientists both Muslim and Christian have thought that science was valuable chiefly because it helped one to understand God. Newton didn't just decide to investigate gravity because profit motive/noble prize/tangible benefits!

It's so strange to me to see somebody somebody talking about how Muslims have contributed so much to modern science, and then spin right around and talk about how a deity totally created the world and everything in it, and that this book we have totally tells an accurate story of it.

Here's a pet peeve of mine. Thinking that Christians and/or Muslims are incapable of reconciling science with faith. Christians aren't all Young Earth Creationists and Muslim views on creation are... complex.

Another pet peeve, Biblical Literalism of the kind popularized by American Evangelicals is a modern creation and does not at all gel well with what Christians generally or historically believe(d).

Also, prosperity theology needs to die on a fire.

 

[Plotinus]

How is that strange? A lot of scientists both Muslim and Christian have thought that science was valuable chiefly because it helped one to understand God. Newton didn't just decide to investigate gravity because profit motive/noble prize/tangible benefits!

Quite. Much of the pioneering science done in the seventeenth century by the Royal Society types was done specifically because they thought it was a pious enterprise that would help humanity understand God. In fact it had an eschatological dimension too. Some thought that science was a means of recovering the perfect understanding that Adam had had before the Fall, and that the scientific enterprise was therefore actually part of the history of salvation and part of the means of restoring the fallen world.

Obviously this is insane from the point of view of most of us today, but it shows that there's no inherent contradiction in believing traditional religion and at the same time being devoutly religious. Even later major scientific figures, e.g. Michael Faraday, had much the same approach.

Another pet peeve, Biblical Literalism of the kind popularized by American Evangelicals is a modern creation and does not at all gel well with what Christians generally or historically believe(d).

Also, prosperity theology needs to die on a fire.

Quite right. I was present at a meeting a little while ago of devout right-wingers who wanted to set up an institute to popularise the idea that Christianity is a fundamentally Thatcherite religion and that spiritual and material prosperity go hand in hand. I'm not quite sure what Basil of Caesarea or Francis of Assisi would make of that.

Actually that's not quite right. I am sure what they'd make of it.

 

[Arakhor]

Quite right. I was present at a meeting a little while ago of devout right-wingers who wanted to set up an institute to popularise the idea that Christianity is a fundamentally Thatcherite religion and that spiritual and material prosperity go hand in hand.

Is that something to do with the frequent trope that the more religious you are, the more convinced you are that everyone else is wrong?

 

[H4run]

Yep, totally with you. Muslim's have certainly contributed a lot to the modern world far beyond preserving and translating Greek knowledge.

I'm happy to see you are with me

Oh man, not to be mean, but you devoutly religious types crack me up. That's an openness that's sort of rare here, since most of the more dogmatic Christians like to dress up their belief systems as 'traditional values', and it just strikes me as so incredibly silly.

It's so strange to me to see somebody somebody talking about how Muslims have contributed so much to modern science, and then spin right around and talk about how a deity totally created the world and everything in it, and that this book we have totally tells an accurate story of it.

How is that strange? A lot of scientists both Muslim and Christian have thought that science was valuable chiefly because it helped one to understand God. Newton didn't just decide to investigate gravity because profit motive/noble prize/tangible benefits!

Agree with Masada, and before Islam the traditional Arab peoples were careless about learning to read, let alone on learning sciences and other intellectual discourse.

Take for example, in whole Quraish tribe, and note Quraish is the most noble tribes according to them, only less than 10 peoples able to read. But after Islam it is religious obligatory for all the muslim to be able to read. Reading the Quran, hadith (like gospel in Christianity), shirah (biography) are part of act of worship.

Even the prisoner of war who able to read will be instantly release if they able to teach 10 muslim how to read, after Islam the literacy level change instantly. Even the first verses of the Quran is an order for the muslim to read, Iqro.

The tradition of reading "Arabic" is continue in Islamic world as something important even until today. In South east Asia, there is a small Island name Madura, you will find mostly peoples in that Island illiterate on reading Latin, but mostly all of them can read Arabic.

And exactly as Masada said, we believe intellectual is the key to contemplate on God existence. From seeing the creations one understand The Creators, from seeing and observing how organize the universe one know and understand The Organizer.

The activity like thinking or taffakur, and inner contemplation or muhasabah, it even part of worship.

 

[mayor]

History being twisted/malformed for nationalistic purposes. (twisting/malforming it for humorous nationalistic purposes on the other hand)

Here's a pet peeve of mine. Thinking that Christians and/or Muslims are incapable of reconciling science with faith. Christians aren't all Young Earth Creationists and Muslim views on creation are... complex..

and this: the idea that "true" science only came to be after a certain amount of secularization...


oh and Dutch people horribly messing up Dutch history. I can live with people messing up history, not everyone can be an historian/interested in history, but, for the love of God, people should know the history of their own country

 

[Plotinus]

Is that something to do with the frequent trope that the more religious you are, the more convinced you are that everyone else is wrong?

I'm not convinced by that. I think non-religious people are just as prone to this. It's human nature.

 

[classical_hero]

How is that strange? A lot of scientists both Muslim and Christian have thought that science was valuable chiefly because it helped one to understand God. Newton didn't just decide to investigate gravity because profit motive/noble prize/tangible benefits!


Here's a pet peeve of mine. Thinking that Christians and/or Muslims are incapable of reconciling science with faith. Christians aren't all Young Earth Creationists and Muslim views on creation are... complex.

Another pet peeve, Biblical Literalism of the kind popularized by American Evangelicals is a modern creation and does not at all gel well with what Christians generally or historically believe(d).

Also, prosperity theology needs to die on a fire.

You mean the same literalism that helped science to flourish?

http://isaacnewton.ca/media/Reply_to_Tom_Harpur-Feb_26.pdf

Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.

The fact that literalism, not of the hyper literalism that we are accused of, which only the stupid actually believe, is the underpinning of modern science is normally shocking to those who have taught that to mock Bible believers. that is a myth that should die along with the last sentence.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ok you got me confused on that last one. If the average confederate wasn't fighting for his home that what was he fighting for. Do you really think that every soldier who fights ever always agrees with the central authority or holds the same values? Not every German solider in WWII fought for Nazi imperialistic idealism. Not every solder today in the U.S. military joined up for big deal nationalistic principles or to fright terror. Despite what all the ads say, studies by the military itself have shown that most people in the military today joined for a little thing called a steady paycheck, family tradition, or to pay off college.

Now I'm not saying that none of the Southern fighting men during the war were fighting for the preservation of antebellum norms, because many indeed were. However many others' reasons to fight did include fighting for ones home/neighbors or some very vague sense of Southern Nationalism (which was actually stronger after the war than before, this is actually one of my favorite topics about the ACW atm). Letters written at the start and during the war enumerate this. (I don't like to include writings from after the war due to what was just said in the last parenthesis) John Singleton Mosby is an example of this as he clearly accepted that the war was started over slavery, and while he opposed the institution he felt a sense of "Virginia nationalism" that compelled him to fight. A.P. Hill was in the same boat. My point is that there is no one reason that people go off to shoot at each other and that you shouldn't just write off one reason because it doesn't fit in your narrative.

BTW, I have no problem with your first two points.

Allow me to clarify since you took the time to make perfectly good points.

The problem in my mind is when all southern soldiers are presented as only fighting to save their homes or that the fact that some of them were legitimizes the CSA or even made the CSA a good thing that fought for noble and great reasons. Lots and lots of that goes on here.

So basically my grief is the endless romanticization of the CSA and the unending mental gymnspastics involved in trying to glorify and justify it's existence.

 

[Plotinus]

The fact that literalism, not of the hyper literalism that we are accused of, which only the stupid actually believe, is the underpinning of modern science is normally shocking to those who have taught that to mock Bible believers.

Don't confuse historical influence with theoretical underpinning. Yes, certain Christian beliefs influenced the rise of modern science, in rather complex ways. It doesn't follow that these beliefs "underpin" modern science.

By analogy, if I watch Sesame Street as a child and become so entranced with its "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" message that I grow up to become a nutritionist, I can certainly say that Sesame Street had a causal role on my career outcomes, but I can't exactly say that Sesame Street underpins the science of nutrition. Moreover, if, as an adult, I continue to get my nutritional advice primarily from Sesame Street, something's gone seriously wrong somewhere.

Also, Masada is quite right to say that the kind of biblical literalism and fundamentalist insistence upon biblical inerrancy found among many American (and other) evangelical Christians is a modern development. Earlier ages of Christians did take the Bible more or less literally, and thought it true in every respect, but they did not do so in the context of rejecting science and secular knowledge. That's what's different about modern fundamentalism. A thousand years ago, Christians didn't have to choose between the Bible's version of events and that shown by secular knowledge; the closest to this they came was arguing about whether it was possible to disprove Aristotle's contention that the world had no beginning, or whether one simply had to make do with believing it to be false. And, yes, in early modern times a naive, literalist, infallibilist approach to the Bible was part of the mindset that influenced people to develop modern science. At these times one could believe these things without separating oneself from mainstream secular and rational knowledge about the world. Today, one cannot. And those who do believe these things today are, in so doing, adopting a mindset that's quite at odds with that of most earlier Christians, even where the contents of their beliefs may seem very similar.

 

[Yeekim]

He had an annoying manner of resenting more capable people who surrounded him.

That doesn't sound especially damning, tbh. More like something 90% of people are at least occasionally guilty of...

 

[Louis XXIV]

3) The recurring myth that the U.S. was some major villain in the Mexican-American War who bullied their poor defenseless southern neighbor into a war that they didn't want and that the couldn't win (wrong on all accounts). Also the idea that the war was started on a lie, if anything Polk was a master at calling out his adversaries moves.

This may be worth another thread because I tend to disagree with the sentiment there, so I'd like to here more.

6. Any argument to the effect that Michael Jordan was not the greatest player in the history of the NBA.

Sorry, Wilt Chamberlain was the best player ever

Anyway, the one that bugs me a lot is anyone that mentions Feudalism or especially Feudal System (I don't mind Feudal so much) without any attempt to explain what they mean. Bonus points if it's used to mean something backwards or inflexible.

 

[Serutan]

6. Any argument to the effect that Michael Jordan was not the greatest player in the history of the NBA.

Two words : Bill Russell

Re the Lost Cause: I'll just say that for me the most heartwarming story of the American Civil War is Sherman's march through South Carolina. The arrogant asshats
deserved every burned plantation they got.

Another one: That the 'butcher' myth about U.S. Grant persists. Refuted by noting
that the average Civil War general suffered 15% casualties in his battles. Grant's figure was 16%. R.E. Lee's was 21%.

 

[Tee Kay]

Framing everything in terms of "The West and The Rest"

 

[Phrossack]

Re the Lost Cause: I'll just say that for me the most heartwarming story of the American Civil War is Sherman's march through South Carolina. The arrogant asshats
deserved every burned plantation they got.

Another one: That the 'butcher' myth about U.S. Grant persists. Refuted by noting
that the average Civil War general suffered 15% casualties in his battles. Grant's figure was 16%. R.E. Lee's was 21%.

Agreed and agreed.

Pet peeve: When Middle Eastern stuff of the middle ages is all labeled "Islamic". For example, people talk about "Islamic" swords and armor vs. European. Ick.

 

[Dachs]

Sorry, Wilt Chamberlain was the best player ever

Wilt wasn't even the best center ever.

Two words : Bill Russell

Almost. Loses points for being a Celtic and playing in the weak-ass sixties. Second-best.

Another one: That the 'butcher' myth about U.S. Grant persists. Refuted by noting
that the average Civil War general suffered 15% casualties in his battles. Grant's figure was 16%. R.E. Lee's was 21%.

I remember that Grant vs. Lee thread. I think we argued in it about some stuff regarding the nuts and bolts of the Overland Campaign, but basically agreed on the fundamental nature of Lee the Butcher.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I remember that Grant vs. Lee thread. I think we argued in it about some stuff regarding the nuts and bolts of the Overland Campaign, but basically agreed on the fundamental nature of Lee the Butcher.

That's not true, Lee was more of a overly excited and slightly excessive (and redundant) meat processor...

...and couldn't hold a candle to Joe Johnston.

 

[Lord Baal]

That's not true, Lee was more of a overly excited and slightly excessive (and redundant) meat processor...

...and couldn't hold a candle to Joe Johnston.

6% above the norm is "slightly excessive?"

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

How do you guys feel about ascribing inventions and ideas to only one person at one place and one time?

 

[Tee Kay]

How do you guys feel about ascribing inventions and ideas to only one person at one place and one time?

Bad history, but allowable for dramatic/comedic effect; particularly disagreeable when used to push an ideological agenda/score political points.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Al Gore invented the internet guyz.