A Question For Our Historians

The problem you will run into, BLT, lies with the word science. You are also being (unintentionally, i do not doubt) rather too vague for a specific reply. Deity-based explanations of what? Scientific explanations of what?

Science as we understand the term was practiced in a very rudimentary fashion by the Greeks of the Classical Age of their culture. It lacked any precedential body of evidence to get it off the ground, so that intelligent Greeks who wondered about their universe had to start from square one. Nevertheless, they were able to make many very cogent observations. They did not have, however, the ethos of modern scientific investigation--the concepts of replicability and falsificaiton. Replicability means that if i do an experiment and obtain certain results, and you do the experiment in exactly the same manner, and attain the same results, the theory upon which an explanation of the results is based has just been given that much more credence. Falsification is a process whereby the predictive aspect of a theory is tested. If a theory posits A, and an experiment, or prolonged, controlled observation reveals B, then the theory has been falsified. That doesn't mean it is entirely wrong, simply that it will need to be revised.

Science in the sense of applying principles such as that is of very recent date, and there can therefore be no meaningful answer to your question, in that the sequence of events which you describe has never occurred.

History suffers from being the possession of everyone, but understood as a useful tool of investigation by very few people. Most people have very little historical knowledge, and often put what little they have to ideological purposes, demonstrating the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. History also suffers from having silly things said about it which the public solemnly accepts. One is that history is written by the victors. It would take a good few long paragraphs to go into that contention, and why it is false, so i'll let that go. I will observe that the author of that aphorism was Napoleon, and if the aphorism were true, he would not enjoy the reputation he has today, because he lost, and the victors were not inclined to look upon him favorably. I am using that simply as an example of the nonsense people hold as gospel truth about what history is and what it means.

Another common belief is that history repeats itself. In that human nature is more or less a constant, it has recurring similar effects on society. This gives a false impression of cyclical events. But a comparison of the United States and the Roman Empire--a popular bit of bullshit offering marvelous opportunities for propagandizing--for example, suffers from the radical differences of society and polity which separate the two. Things have changed, irrevocably, in drastically substantial ways since 754 BCE when Rome was founded.

So, although i understand the genesis of your question, i suggest to you that someone has a partisan agenda in advancing the notion that this is occurring. Anyone who suggests to you that this has happened in the past will be offering to sell you an historical Brooklyn Bridge.

Positivism, the philosophical framework for science is unique to modern western civilization, so the short answer to the question is no. Brandon claims a degree in physics so he should know that. He should also know that what is going on out in Kansas in both a travesty and an embarrassment.

Someone referred to you as BLT in another thread, and then offered an embarrassed apology, saying he must have done it because he was hungry and had sandwiches in mind.

I find your screen name to be an absurdity, and have avoided using it. When i saw that, however, i was greatly amused.

Therefore, i will refer to you as BLT for the rest of your unnatural life, you bad Bear, you.

The Roman Empire does come to mind. It started to fall apart at about the same time that most of its provinces had embraced Christianity. Constantine's conversion, on his deathbed, was the first stroke of the death knell.

I would point out however, that he died in his new capital, Constantinople, which did not fall to the Osmali Turks for more than 1200 years after his death.

Official Christianity was a symptom, not the cause, of Rome's decline. Likewise so is the current contra tempt in Kansas. In both case it was/is a response to the bewilderment at a world that has changed beyond understanding. It is/was an attempt to dictate an official "right think" that will, these deluded fools think, return the world to the way it was before.

Although i am not prepared, at this moment at any rate, to subscribe to what Acq has just proffered as an explanation--that is a more cogent use of history to explain the present than the claptrap which is usually advanced. History is useful when one can see the similarities, without ignoring the differences.

Very true, Set. And it's probably fair to say that his conversion was largely symbolic from the point of view of the Church. The fact is that the population of Rome -- certainly including the bulk of the legionnaires -- had already embraced Christianity in one form or another (any number of "heresies" still flying around at this time until the Bishop of Rome could feel strong enough to ruthlessly suppress them). Perhaps my use of Constatine's conversion was ill-chosen. The fact remains that a major civilization, which had pretty much begun to regard the Pantheon as no more than a mythic entertainment, now embraced a Near Eastern cult out of Judea and succumbed to the nature-worshipping, animistic 'barbarians' out of the north.

Well, MA, the Goths sacked Rome, and both the Goths and Vandals subscribed to what came to be known as the Arian heresy. Without wishing to be rude, i can't say that i consider christianity to have been a significant factor in the decline of Roman administration in the West. My view is that the root cause was economic. I would suggest that your thesis rests upon no more than a conjunction of events. However, i do not bill myself as an historian, but rather a student of history, which means i have a great deal to learn. I'm way ahead of the pack in general, but for me, the finish line is not even in sight.

No offense taken, Set. In fact, I'm just trying to answer the question of whether or not there are any precedents for a state turning back to a theistic model and, subsequently, perishing. Rome seemed to illustrate this model. I agree with you that the main causes of the decline and fall were economic. And so will future historians see the demise of this country if and when it happens. Still, the Bear's question is intriguing. Future historians may find the causes economic, but is this return to a primitive religion a contributory factor? And was it so with Rome? I don't know the answer. Do you?

No, MA, i don't. I would suggest that perhaps we are discussing symptoms, and not the disease.

The Pythagoreans are an example of the imposition of religious piety on their society. Pythagoras did yoeman's work in mathematics, and then conceived of mathmatics as a religious mystery. He laid out a set of orders and prohibitions for his students/followers, such as no eating of beans (? . . . don't ask me, i just report), no one could touch a white rooster, all sorts of the silly claptrap of religious fanaticism. He held that the mathematical discoveries he had made were of a sacred nature, and not to be shared with the hoipoloi--and his followers after his death intentionally worked for an imposition of the former pieties of Greek pantheism as an antidote to the danger of widespread, intelligent questioning of the nature of things. I don't really want to get into the details of that entire episode, and it lends itself to easily to the partisan inspired type of rant which customarily abuses the historical record. In this case, the rant would come from the left. Left or right, i grow heartily sick and tired of people presenting a simplistic and warped account of history as though it were truth, which justified their extremist opinions.

Man, just when Brandon had me convinced I was a traitorous whiner, you guys come around and discuss my sincere question intelligently.

You're throwing off my chi..

Perhaps he mentiones it, because he really thinks it sucks; he is using the right of free speech; I support him.
Regards.
Xavier