Well that's just wrong unless I'm misinterpreting your statement.

And this is coming from probably the most progressive, futurist user on this entire site.

I mean... y'know, the Industrial Revolution? You can't reasonably argue that the Roman Empire had anywhere near the technology of the late 1700's.

1. Dude, no. The church thought a heliocentric model was heretical and contrary to the Bible. That's why Galileo was persecuted. The church didn't have some vague anti-science or anti-technology stance.
3. Weak reference. I can't find anything substantial on Google that backs up your claim, and many sources to back up mine.
4. You take a legit example and try to make sweeping generalizations about the way the church looked at science. It's easy to realize why some in the church took a stance against Darwin, because they believed the theory conflicted with scripture. That problem was long ago resolved, and Darwin's theory was taken seriously by scientists at the time.
5. In the field of..... medicine. Not technology.
6. When I refer to peanuts... I really mean oysters.

Here's how this conversation started:





This post was edited by IceMage on Sep 30 2014 09:47pm

Technology is defined as "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry" by google, which is exactly what I was referring to.

/edit

I left a reference link about the cadavers.
Medicine is technology.


This post was edited by PixileDust on Sep 30 2014 09:48pm

Well, anti-heliocentrism in this situation was anti-science.

The roman empire had massive water and sewage systems, concrete architecture, the roman mechanical reaper for harvesting, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

And you think this is technologically equivalent to the early Industrial Revolution? I mean yeah, the Roman Empire was an impressive example of technological progress but if you're seriously comparing it to the Industrial Revolution you have a MASSIVE misunderstanding.

Considering the mechanical reaper wasn't reinvented till the early 19th century, I am saying that "We didn't even return to the level of the Roman Empire, in terms of technology, until the 1800's."

You gave a couple real examples and the rest is crap. Religion doesn't hinder technological progress, especially the sort which would result in some kind of catastrophe.

That reference link has 2 paragraphs which point to nothing.



I know, but he's making broad generalizations about the church persecuting scientists.

So one specific example of a technology, which by all means may have been prevalent prior to the Industrial Revolution and after the Roman Empire, is your ground for arguing that technology during the Roman Empire was the apex of tech until the 1800's?

No, if one is to be historically realistic, one would see that there has been a rather steady general progress of technology since the Roman Empire, albeit with a few hindrances here and there.

The mechanical reaper is one of the most important advancements in the history of mankind, but not just that, as I said before, running water did not exist until the 19th century either.

There are other advancements in that wikipedia page I posted, if you would care to read it.



Broad generalizations? Actually I gave multiple real examples, and I didn't even mention the pope burning down the library of Alexandria, because of the knowledge it contained. Books are scary after all.

A quote from that reference link that "points to nothing":



This post was edited by PixileDust on Sep 30 2014 10:14pm