Since Tom Willis wants to slap warning labels on all scientists, one of our commenters obliged by designing one you can get on a t-shirt.
It’s probably not exactly what Willis intended, but it’ll do.
What to wear…
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Warning: Do not apply scientist to ID if you want to believe it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Hahaha… love it! Will make a good gift for my students.
Sorta off topic: The History Channel just played all the extant episodes of “Evolve” (Eye, Guts, and Jaws) spanning noon in my area (NJ, USA). Nice to see them again all at one go. Though the “Evolve” shows are not perfect, they are still very very good and beat the hell out of most sciency programming.
-DU-
Let’s be honest, in the event of sun death, scientists probably won’t be able to help much.
EGADS! I LOVE IT!!! Now I really wish I was a scientist :(
Well at any rate:
WANT
I see he got my email. I haz moar traffic!
@ Reginald Selkirk,
Who do you think is going to help us escape to another solar system?
*points to self*
Re #2, watched those myself, so did my eleven year old. She was amazed and glued to the TV the whole time. She says she wants to be a marine biologist. One more scientist (I hope)! Cool shirt, btw!
From the CSA’s safari PDF: “Evolution has become the cultural mythology of the state religion… a bizarre mixture of atheism and pantheism.”
The Chemist had it right: What a fucktard!
purchased…
We need more good scientist apparel; khakis, polos, and lab coats are overrated.
I have a few, but they’re rather limited:
http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/auntie-venom-black-tshirt/50841141
http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/biology-cell-division-white-tshirt/4584240
And this bumper sticker on my jeep
http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/if-this-sticker-is-blue-youre-driving-too-fast/84583189
Hey, come on you guys! It’s us engineers that make it all work.
Good job, Chemist. It’s always best to counter a dumbass by being a smartass.
I see my little sister’s birthday present. Since she’s now the boss, she could probably get away with it under her lab coat. I think.
I’ll be wearing my PZ-inspired cracker shirt, myself: http://www.cafepress.com/pavoreax
How about; SCIENTIST: Use in case of emergencies, and liberally when religion runs amuck.
I wonder if we can get these on a t-shirt. If so, I’d buy one for my physics Professor.
Scientist-
Reusable, and Recyclable!
Who do we use in case of zombie apocalypse?
Oh c’mon; this is too indulgent…. whoever seriously thinks this way about scientists needs a good dose of Lewontin…
I meant to say whoever seriously thinks this way about scientists needs a good dose of Lewontin and Gould
Bah!
Scientists just tell you what’s happening. You need an engineer figure out how to change it, and a mechanic to actually do it.
-jcr
Chemist,
If you think chemistry is going to get anyone to another solar system, I think you need to spend some time with a physicist.
-jcr
Well, I’d think, with a few amendments of course, that this could be turned into a great pair of Joe Boxer’s or G’strings as the case may be. We would then be able to test if this statement really matters at the moment of truth. But I’m married so some other nice single men and women would have to carry out the test on my behalf. I sense a bit of fun social science in the making. Anyone interested?
In the mean time, I’ll roll down the street wearing one of these playing with my iphone and see if any fundies have a problem with me. There is a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall up the street!
I do wonder what sort of an emergency would require space exploration.
I do wonder what sort of an emergency would require space exploration.
You are kidding right? It’s not like the earth ever gets hit by anyhing from space that could do any real damage, like wipe out an entire species or anything. Nope, never happens.
Totally off-topic, but who wants to place a bet that one of the Law and Order or CSI shows next season features the murder of a mean science professor who does something on the internet that stirs up religious-types?
“Ripped from the headlines!”
Who said engineers aren’t scientists? If you use math and physics to put a man on the moon, you are a goddam scientist.
I think the vocation you were looking for was technologist. Mechanics get a little out of their comfort zone with integrated circuits, PCR machines and medical equipment.
@John C. Randolph #21
Don’t hate. I said “SCIENTIST”. Are you saying physicists aren’t scientists? Well, maybe just the string theorists. ;-)
Besides, how have we been getting into space so far? Physical rockets? I didn’t think so.
@Richard Harris and jcr,
Engineers? When did engineers start curing disease? Man am I behind. Engineers wouldn’t know a tau lepton if it took the hard hat off their head!
I’m just kiddin’. Engineers are cool too. But you guys already have good t-shirts. One I gave to my mechanical engineer cousin to wear in front of his civil engineer uncle (my dad):
“Mechanical engineers build weapons.
Civil engineers build targets.”
@protocol,
Too self-indulgent? Yeah. What’s your point?
What I like most about scientists: After Darwin punched God in the face with his natural selection idea, tens of thousands of scientists who came after Darwin finished God off. Thanks to their hard work, there are no longer any hiding places for the magic-man-of-the-gaps.
Crash this poll alert: MSNBC has a question about using the In God We Trust motto on coinage. I trust that YOU know what to do….
Bob c @ 29 I don’t think you intended your comment to be fraught with debatable remarks, so I’ll not comment with picky explanations.
Ooooh. Brilliant. Only it needs to say “apply liberally“…
Holbach: I’ll not comment with picky explanations.
Please provide your picky explanations. I might learn something.
My point was, while there’s still a lot to learn about the lots of things, modern science has pretty much completely ruled out supernatural nonsense.
It’s not like the earth ever gets hit by anyhing from space that could do any real damage, like wipe out an entire species or anything. Don’t you think that it’d be a bit too late to try to save that species by means of space exploration if such a catastrophe was imminent?
Cute, but I think I’ll stick with giving out FOOLS! I WILL DESTROY YOU ALL! (Ask Me How!) T-Shirts. Those sometimes get people to ask you questions, and an opportunity to educate.
Engineers? When did engineers start curing disease?
Look around a modern hospital, doctors depend on a helluva lot of technology.
Don’t you think that it’d be a bit too late to try to save that species by means of space exploration if such a catastrophe was imminent?
I did not say it was imminent, space exploration is neccessary to prevent it from becoming an emergency. But if it ever does become imminent, hopefully we will have advanced our space capabilities sufficiently to use it to respond to it.
catta @ #32:
That would be absolutely perfect, but it’s nonetheless brilliant as it stands.
Annie @ #30:
Done.
Space exploration has provided us with the ability to predict orbits tens of thousands of years in advance. The more space exploration we do, the more likely it is that any dangerous object would be discovered long before said catastrophe became imminent.
TheChemist #28
You’ve never met a nuclear engineer, have you?
Of course, as soon as scientists announced any such impending Doomsday object, the conservatives would be all like “Nuh-UH the Bible says this and that, and besides that would be bad for the economy, teach the controversy blah blah blah” and the nation would just sit on its ass until the object came and wiped us all out.
Bob C @ 33 It’s all in the way you worded your comment. When you wrote that “Darwin punched god in the face”, you are giving credence to the fact that a god existed for Darwin to punch in the face, and then you wrote that “scientists finished god off”, again giving credence that this god was still alive but not finished off, because we are still dealing with this irrational idea which is still far from being finished off. Don’t you get my point? And you used a capital “g” when you wrote that word. I don’t know if you are an atheist, and even more , one of my ardent persuasion, but if you were you would not have worded your statement as you did without consideration to the matter at hand. I am not being sarcastic or offering ridicule here, but just demonstrating how I would have presented that comment. Just my opinion offered in personal manner.
Hello Holbach. I strongly agree with everything you said. God or god or sky fairy, whatever it’s called, has never existed. But I like to say Darwin killed God. There was nothing to kill of course, but the idea there’s a god was killed. Or at least the idea should have been killed. Obviously there’s still a few people who still believe the magic man nonsense.
I’m definitely an atheist, a very anti-religion atheist, an atheist who wishes he could live long enough to witness the complete eradication of all religious beliefs.
Anyway I’m a big fan of scientists. Their hard work has helped make my atheism stronger than ever.
There’s this guy who works at S-Mart… I hear he’s got a boomstick.
Got me one.
Scientist ? Sure.
But you can say the same for Engineers, technicians, financial accountants, administrators and … cleaning personal.
…only got a problem with the and/or ignorance bit.
I think I would like it better if it said “Science” instead of “Scientist”… I would feel odd displaying it because I would feel like I was trying to portray myself as if I were a scientist. I endorse science… but I’m not yet lucky enough to have actually done any research. It’s kindof misleading.
I wonder how any research would be done without the tools, instruments, and equipment that are developped by engineers and made by technicians.
What I wrote in #48 can be applied to most scientific research nowadays. Maybe not string theory, but I think that’s the basic problem with string theory. It doesn’t know yet what kind of instruments it needs to verify it.
Science, engineering, technology, cleaning staff…. we need them all to form a civilisation. We need a civilisation to be able to support any meaningful level of science. Sheesh, we even need marketing people if we want a functioning capitalist economy, painful though it is to admit.
Now if we could get our technology to Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture) levels then we wouldn’t have a scarcity economy and we wouldn’t have to suffer the inanities of capitalism. Then we really could kill all the lawyers/marketers/salesdroids/account-exectutives
Yes, but they still have some time to work on it…
By then anyway, colonizing other more livable planets in the galaxy will long have become mandatory. And you will need scientists for that.
As well as Engineers, technicians, financial accountants, administrators and … cleaning personal.
BobC @ 42 Good reply, and nice to know we are of a mind against religion and all for science. An apt quote from a good friend of our hero Charles Darwin: “Science is simply common sense at its best – that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
Thomas H Huxley
You mean to stimulate growth and consumption ? I really doubt a civilization that continues with this model until the end of the century will get to see the next one.
Timothy Wood, #47
“Science” as opposed to “Scientist” are now available for our non-scientist friends. This is the URL (Take heed because it’s different, thanks to Cafepress wonkiness).
JoJo #39 How about an ex submarine officer who work on the power plant? He was our company’s trainer for a while. I suspect he did know a tau lepton, but he didn’t know much chemistry other than water treatment. But then, I have only a superficial knowledge of generating power safely from an atomic reactor. Engineers make the world run, but they need some help from scientist at the edges of their knowledge.
BobC Quick follow up: Read your posts at “Bingo Every Time”. Good stuff there, and neglected it by scrolling to quickly. I am convinced, and do offer more!
And don’t forget telephone sanitizers…
#136
IAWTC
The Chemist in #28:
When they laid out the first sewers.
Aw shit, I just said something nice about engineers. New hats all ’round, I guess.
The word “reusable” is the one that makes me smile.
tim #50,
Iain Banks did mention, in an interview with Wired about the Culture :
“It doesn’t exist and I don’t delude myself that it does. It’s just my take on it. I’m not convinced that humanity is capable of becoming the Culture because I think people in the Culture are just too nice – altering their genetic inheritance to make themselves relatively sane and rational and not the genocidal, murdering bastards that we seem to be half the time.”
I do wonder what sort of an emergency would require space exploration.
A third term of GWB would do it..
Correct me if I am wrong but methinks PZ and others mis-state exactly what Willis’s position is. I read both of news newsletters and, IIRC neither referes to scientists. His proposals cover anyone and everyone accepting the theory of evolution. That is the vast majority of the population worldwide, not just scientists.
Willis is clearly several sandwiches short of a picnic, and utterly paranoid, so may not recognise the difference.
Roger Stanyard British Centre for Science Education.
How about this as an alternate:
SCIENTIST
Use at your own risk for the following applications:
Developing and using nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; developing and using more effective machine guns; finding new ways to strip the earth of its resources; and conducting experiments on humans that they find to be expendable.
I think that does just as well, don’t you?
#64, There’s a note for Roger Stanyard too at the end of this.
Now don’t be dense. Those are engineers. See, now don’t say I don’t give you guys credit.
(In case you didn’t notice, this is a light ribbing not meant to be taken seriously. No reply is needed to pound into my head the importance and role of engineers in society. Sheesh, you guys are so sensitive!)
Now seriously Sam, don’t be dense. Scientists don’t kill people, people kill people. What I mean by that is that the various political and social interactions of humanity ensure conflict. Scientists are people too, and unfortunately tend to participate.
Scientists may have invented machine guns, but you have to remember that they also aided in the population expansion that aggravated the conflict, and ensured that there were packed cities to bomb and multitudes of soldiers to kill. You have to take the bad with the good. Scientists didn’t invade Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler did, and he would have done this with or without crappy guns.
@Roger Stanyard,
It’s not so much a mischaracterization as it is exaggeration of the argument. When you criticize evolution, you criticize science in general. Now I’m a scientist (or one in training if you prefer), so it was natural for me to create something that was admittedly a little self-centered. This is why it referred to a “scientist” rather than evolution or science in general. I made the distinction in my own blog post. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, I have since made a more generalized version of the shirt.
Chemist #65, nice attempt at a dodge! Well done indeed. Let’s look more closely, shall we?
“Now seriously Sam, don’t be dense. Scientists don’t kill people, people kill people.”
So which way do you want it? Is it the case that flawed people do bad things even when the identity group to which they profess allegiance calls for them not to do those bad things, or that the identity group in general can be tagged with evil when members of that identity group do bad things? One way or the other, please.
“What I mean by that is that the various political and social interactions of humanity ensure conflict. Scientists are people too, and unfortunately tend to participate.”
And yet, we are told, scientists are Rational. They use Reason. It is those religious wackos, without Reason, remember, who kill and maim.
“Scientists may have invented machine guns,”
And why would they invent machine guns? What measure of effectiveness entered into the calculation to invent them? Did they find it more in accordance with the dictates of Reason that people should be able to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible?
“but you have to remember that they also aided in the population expansion that aggravated the conflict, and ensured that there were packed cities to bomb and multitudes of soldiers to kill. You have to take the bad with the good.”
Except on this site, of course…
“Scientists didn’t invade Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler did, and he would have done this with or without crappy guns.”
Would he have been able to do so? It seems to me that the scientists who developed the tanks, the titanium armor, the types of weapons, certainly were complicit in the invasion that you mentioned.
And the experiments on humans who are otherwise useless?
http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/medical_history/bad_blood/
This clearly was done in the name of Science, and, presumably, Reason. Just look at all of the information on syphilis that we gained! Heck, it was just a few poor black sharecroppers near the end of their lives, they’re pretty much useless anyway, weren’t they? We’re Scientists, we follow no dictates but Reason.
Again, Chemist, nice try at a dodge.
That reminds me of an incident I had with a plumber several years ago. He had arrived to fix something and saw that I have a lot of biology and botany books. He paused at them, then turned to me glaring and spat out, “I hope you’re not a scientist!” I wanted my plumbing fixed, so I just laughed politely and said, “No, but you’re welcome to read any of the books there if you’re interested.” This was in an urban area in Texas.
@The Chemist – Years back in high school, my chemisty teacher used to have a tee shirt that read ‘chemists have solutions’. I think he had the bumper sticker as well.
P
Surprised this pugnacious, head-butting group hasn’t already come up with this (or did I just miss it?):
Scientist: Apply Directly to the Forehead!
I work in IT, training engineers to use the software I support. We call our various software tools “Enterprise Solutions.” I frequently break the ice and raise a chuckle in my classes by asking the engineered chemicals people what sort of solvent we use.
Brilliant! I love it!
Sam,
What are you doing posting on the internet, and using a computer? Don’t you know these things were developed by evil scientists? Now this has been pointed out to you, if you post a response to this, we’ll all know what a hypocrite you are!
Sam I feel the same way.
All that food safety, water safety, medicine, communication, transportation, entertainment, textiles, and a myriad of other modern conveniences sure are evil deeds by evil people.
I know I curse science every day.
Nick #72–
How very clever of you! Charming.
For those who can think with more than one track, here’s the thing. Science, the study of the material world, has provided us with tremendous benefits (and the Church has supported this study with gusto, for those who are willing to remove their anti-Christian ideological blinders and prejudices for a moment or two).
It can also lead us to destruction on a previously inconceivable level–as Theodor Adorno said, progress is most accurately seen as progress from the sling to the atom bomb; as Chemist #65 noted with rare honesty here, “Scientists are people too, and unfortunately tend to participate.” The ideal to which the good Prof. Myers and so many of his acolytes here aspire, the freeing of Reason and Science from the shackles of Religion, leads ultimately to Hiroshima and to Tuskegee.
So, let’s try another poster, shall we?
SCIENTISTS:
WHEN ONLY COMPLETE ANNIHILATION WILL DO
How does that work for you?
Which church?
Yes all those scientists involved and the policy makers and the military were atheists.
Sam,
I’m not sure Giordano Bruno would have agreed with you about the Church’s support for science. Odd that it’s the most religious of scientifically advanced countries that gave us both Hiroshima and Tuskegee, isn’t it? Suggests to me that while science does indeed need to be subject to moral considerations, both in its means and its ends, religion isn’t the best source for those considerations. So, too, does the record of Christianity – two millennia of killing, torturing and silencing non-Christians, not to mention each other. Christians started this as soon as they had the power to do so, and continued as long as they retained that power. The record of most other religions is not much better. Incidentally, why do you capitalise the initial letters of “science”, “reason”, and “religion”? Is it sheer ignorance, or is there some deep significance I’m missing?
Nick #76–
RE: Giordano Bruno. Do a tad more research; he was executed for theological heresies, not for his scientific studies or conclusions. Still awful to contemplate, but at least get your attacks on the Church correct.
Ditto for the “two millennia of killing, torturing, and silencing non-Christians.” A bit more supporting evidence than wide generalizations generally helps.
More responses later.
RE: Giordano Bruno. Do a tad more research; he was executed for theological heresies, not for his scientific studies or conclusions. – Sam
Crap. One of the main charges against him was a belief in the plurality of worlds. It was his refusal to recant this that led to his death.
Ditto for the “two millennia of killing, torturing, and silencing non-Christians.”
Well, starting with the oppression of pagans, Jews, and rival Christian sects in the later Roman Empire; we proceed through through the Crusades (both in the Near East and in Europe) and other medieval persecutions of Jews, Muslims and “heretics”; the witch-burnings, the religious wars of the Reformation and counter-Reformation; the enslavement of millions of native Americans and Africans, often justified on religious grounds, plus forced conversions and the destruction of indigenous cultures through most of the world in the colonial era; the savage “white terror” of the French Revolutionary period – which killed far more than the revolutionary terror preceding it; the essential Christian support for fascism and Nazism in the twentieth century, without which its atrocities against the Jews and others would have been impossible; and coming right up to date, events such as the central role of the Dutch Reformed Church in apartheid, the mutual butchery between Catholics and Protestants in N. Ireland and between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims in the Balkans, and Christian-Muslim clashes in places such as Nigeria, Lebanon and the Philippines. Will that do for a start?
Nick, please bring your scholarship up to date. Bruno was found guilty of heresy on theological grounds (including dipping heavily into magic), not on scientific grounds. He was then remanded to the secular authorities, who decided on the death penalty.
There are lots of ways to go after the Church, even on scientific grounds. Make use of the correct ones, not the faulty ones.
As for your historical “evidence”–wow, that is some remarkable mud-slinging! A small bit of it sticks, but not much more than that. With regard to the Jews, frequently (but not always) guilty as charged. The Church clearly has had a checkered record (by which I mean some good and some bad) with regard to the Jews, to its shame. To its credit, that has changed dramatically in the past century (contra the atheistic regimes of the past century).
The Crusades? Primarily a defensive war against a rapidly spreading and very strong invasive force that had, shall we say, a less advanced view of human rights than even the Christians at the time. Do you really think that the cause of Science would be advanced if Europe were under the control of one or several Muslim empires? The whole idea of science and the scientific method came out of that precisely Christian Europe whence the concept of the university emerged–not in spite of, but because of, its Christian foundations.
As for the medieval period? Certainly, there were many tens of thousands of executions for various heresies, and though these executions were carried out primarily by the secular authorities (concerned for social order), most certainly were with the Church’s approval. It was a brutal period, and many in the Church did not rise above their time, though in many cases (judicial procedures particularly) the Church also served to dull that brutality. It offends our modern sensibilities (at least, most moderns, anyway), but it was in keeping with the time.
Ah yes, colonialism. Why not turn the tables a bit? Secular authorities sought to expand their power and wealth, and called upon the latest in technological and scientific advances to further their cause to murder and enslave as many as possible. Sounds like scientists were quite willingly complicit in this, just as much as were Christians.
And the peaceful citizens of the New World? You’ve got to be kidding me. They barely stopped carrying out wars among themselves to combat the invading European plunderers.
And now, let us turn our historical gazes to the 20th century, shall we? “Essential Christian support for facism and Nazism”? And you count yourself a scientist, devoted to facts? Please, read the most elementary of histories of the period. Hitler specifically repudiated Christianity and any other form of religion beyond the worship of the State, and went on to kill 6 million Jews, together with a good number of gypsies, Christians, gays, and other malcontents. Soviet Union, what 20 million killed? Shall we go on?
Oh, and, yes, the scientific glories of Tuskegee.
So, let’s continue with the slogans.
SCIENTISTS:
YOUR BEST SOLUTION FOR ELIMINATING AS MANY ENEMIES AS POSSIBLE!
Nick #76
“Suggests to me that while science does indeed need to be subject to moral considerations, both in its means and its ends, religion isn’t the best source for those considerations.”
And what would you suggest is? Reason alone?
Sam @ #75:
Yeah, I’ll take that. It’ll go nicely with the “Fools, I will destroy you all!” one that abb3w mentioned at #35, the “Certifiable Mad Genius” shirt that PZ had up a couple of months ago.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate!
Well what would you suggest Sam? Scientists can only be scientists after passing a religion test?
If so which religion?
From the Pharyngula quote collection:
— Richard “Boogeyman” Dawkins
I love the shirt, but I’d feel bad wearing it as I am a non-scientist who just really likes science. Is there any chance of getting a modified version of this shirt for those of us who regret our college majors and can’t yet afford to go back and right our wrong? Something that’s just in strong support of all science does for us would work, I suppose.
You’re confusing it with the Reconquista. (At best.)
Details, please.
Who knows what it would be like by now? At the time of the crusades, the Christian empires were way behind the Muslim empires in terms of science (…and hygiene and whatnot).
Do you know how old the al-Azhar university of Cairo is?
Tu quoque.
Depends on how strict your definition of Christianity is. Fun quotes:
Strange. I was sure I had closed that blockquote.
Anyway:
Communism is unusual among religions in not believing in an afterlife (except for Kim Jong-il), but apart from that it’s fairly normal. Infallible scriptures written by infallible prophets; supernatural forces (“historical inevitabilities” like the “inevitable progress” of society from a “hunter-gatherer society” through a “slaveholder society”, “feudalism”, “capitalism”, and “socialism” to “communism”); death to infidels; death to heretics, schisms galore; miracles (though those are mostly restricted to Maoism); paradise on Earth in the usually near but always indefinite future; what have I missed?
O RLY?
The Church did consider scientific ideas and theories to be in the realm of theology.
Say, what’s one of the charges against Bruno?
“Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.”
Sam,
On Bruno, in the 16th century theology, science and magic were not yet distinct fields, so your argument is fundamentally flawed – even a century later, Newton dabbled in all three.
The Crusades? Primarily a defensive war against a rapidly spreading and very strong invasive force that had, shall we say, a less advanced view of human rights than even the Christians at the time. Do you really think that the cause of Science would be advanced if Europe were under the control of one or several Muslim empires? Christian Europe whence the concept of the university emerged–not in spite of, but because of, its Christian foundations.
What a parcel of tosh. The first Crusade can be seen as a response to the battle of Manzikert, true, but it was without doubt an imperialistic venture, aimed at establishing Catholic states in areas never before under Catholic rule – the Byzantine emperor was far from happy with this. It involved massacres of Jews on the way, and of most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The fourth Crusade, you may recall, turned into the conquest of the Byzantine Empire. Crusading was not, of course, confined to fighting Muslims. There were also blood-soaked Crusades against pagans in northern Europe, and against the Cathars in France.
Islam, while also violent and imperialistic, was considerably more tolerant, and more scientifically advanced than any part of Christendom. You might like to look up Al-Azhar University (founded 972, before any in Europe), and ibn al-Haytham (965-c.1039), often referred to as “the first scientist” for his polymathic studies, and formulation of scientific method. You might also like to consider words such as “algebra”, “algorithm”, “alkali”, “Aldebaran” and “alchemy”, and look up their etymology. It’s no accident that key technical advances underlying European science, such as paper and clear glass, came from the Islamic world, as did transmission of much of the ancient world’s knowledge (Christian zealots, unfortunately, had destroyed the greatest store of such knowledge, the library at Alexandria).
Where did I say the citizens of the New World were peaceful? You might at least try to avoid such blatant misattributions. The whole colonial period, as you well know, was justified in religious terms, as bringing salvation to the benighted heathen.
Oh, and the old “Hitler repudiated Christianity” lie. That has been refuted a dozen times on this blog in the last few months alone. Hitler himself, while a baptised Catholic, was not a conventional Christian, but he justified his hatred of the Jews in Christian terms in Mein Kampf, and spoke repeatedly of doing the work of God or “Providence”. He never, to my knowledge, publically repudiated either Christianity or Catholicism. The Vatican signed Concordats with both Mussolini and Hitler, Hitler’s puppet ruler of Slovakia was a Catholic priest, Catholic priests in Sapin overwhelmingly sided with Franco’s fascists, Germany and its allies remained overwhelmingly Christian throughout his rule, and only a handful actively opposed the holocaust. Many Christians in Germany, Austria and the countries Hitler conquered joined in it enthusiastically.
You ask where, if not from religion, moral considerations to guide science should come from. From open, democratic debate in secular settings. Of course religious believers of every kind have every right to take an equal part in these debates with non-believers, but religious bodies and their representatives should be given no special privileges in them, as they are now. It is no accident that the rise of both democracy and modern science coincide with the decline of the power of religious authorities.
Good grief, are you really so ignorant of the fact that the Crusaders slaughtered Jews and Orthodox Christians, and turned Jerusalem into a lake of blood, and boasted of their butchery?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
David Marjanovic #85–
Hmmm, let’s see…where to begin?
The Crusades? Primarily a defensive war
You’re confusing it with the Reconquista. (At best.)
Did you ever stop to wonder why the Muslims were in control of Persia, the Byzantine Empire, and Jerusalem by the late 7th century, and North Africa, Spain, and large parts of France by the early 8th century? Were they invited in with open arms, the people of the time eagerly asking for Muslim assistance in matters of hygiene? Or were they conquered by a very powerful and fast-moving Army which had as its goal the spread by any means necessary of Islam?
Do you really think that the cause of Science would be advanced if Europe were under the control of one or several Muslim empires?
Who knows what it would be like by now? At the time of the crusades, the Christian empires were way behind the Muslim empires in terms of science (…and hygiene and whatnot).
The whole idea of science and the scientific method came out of that precisely Christian Europe whence the concept of the university emerged
Do you know how old the al-Azhar university of Cairo is?
Ever wondered why the Scientific Revolution emerged from Europe rather than from North Africa, the Middle East, or Asia?
Hitler specifically repudiated Christianity
Depends on how strict your definition of Christianity is.
Funny thing, that’s not quite how the Christians in Germany at the time saw things. Try explaining that one to the Catholic schools students and the Catholic Trades Union members in Germany in the late 1930s, or to Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Maximilian Kolbe. Then look up the word “Kirchenkampf.” Indeed, the investigators for the Nuremburg Trials titled one of their documents “The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” with the following description of the 97-page document: “This study describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi purposes, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe.”
http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Nuremberg_3/Vol_X_18_03_02.pdf (makes for fascinating reading)
An odd approach for such an ardent proponent of Christianity as you described, wouldn’t you say?
I posted this a few months ago in another context. Seems apropos:
Michael Mann offers this analysis of Nazi religious voting constituencies in his 2004 comparative study Fascists (I have replaced actual references with “[reference]”), pages 186-8:
Note: “Evangelical” does not have the same meaning as contemporary US Evengelicals. It refers to one of the major German Protestant denominations at the time.
To the best of my knowledge, I’ve not yet received a response to the question I asked a few weeks ago and then again more recently:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_get_email_20.php#comment-1014280
Perhaps Sam has one.
Sam,
You just can’t help yourself lying, can you? I did not say Hitler was an “ardent proponent of Christianity”. I’m aware of the Nuremberg trial document, largely a sop to the churches. It does not change the fact that the Vatican was quite happy to make a concordat with Hitler, or that very many Catholic and Protestant clergy were enthusiastic Nazis. Since the great majority of Germans were Christians, and Hitler did not have to fake clear victories in his plebiscites, most German Christians undoubtedly supported him as long as he remained successful. While Bonhoeffer was an honourable exception, the founder of his own church was the author of a charming text entitled “On the Jews and their Lies”. Nazism drew heavily on the long and dishonourable tradition of Christian anti-semitism, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, and all your squirming can’t conceal that ugly fact.
I am also no supporter of Islam, or its conquests: I am an atheist, opposed to all religion – and particularly the bloody and intolerant Abrahamic religions. The Islamic conquests do absolutely nothing to excuse the bloody, and often genocidal Crusades. I see you have nothing to say about the Catholic persecution of pagans and Albigensians – so I must assume you approve of it. One might also mention Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, Bogomils and Hussites among Christian groups persecuted by the Catholics and Orthodox in pre-Reformation times.
Ever wondered why the Scientific Revolution emerged from Europe rather than from North Africa, the Middle East, or Asia?
Yes indeed, and unlike you I’ve actually got a sufficiently broad view of history to say something sensible about it. Up until the 12th-13th century, Europe was behind both Islam and China in its scientific and technical development, although the best days of Islam had already passed, with the Seljuk invasions of the 11th century (the same people as defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert), and the Almoravid conquest of Muslim Spain around the same time. Both these groups of recent converts despised the city-living sophisticates they conquered. In the 13th century the Mongols smashed what remained of Islamic civilisation east of Egypt and also Sung (or Song) China, which was by far the most advanced civilisation of the time. Had this not happened, there is every likelihood the scientific and industrial revolutions would have happened in China. More broadly, much of Eurasia, plus North Africa, had been part of a network of technologically advancing, economically intensifying and in many cases literate civilisations since at least the first millennium BC – when iron-working technology was able to spread from the near East to as far apart as Japan, Britain and near edge of sub-Saharan Africa within a few centuries. The Eurocentric myth that the world outside western Europe was passively waiting to be conquered or developed has had its day.
Western Europe reached the threshold of modernity first primarily due to the fortuitous death of Ogdei Khan in 1241, when the Mongols had smashed their way into Hungary and Poland, and were poised to invade Italy and Germany. When Ogdei died, they withdrew to be nearer the centre of Mongol power at Karakorum, and soon thereafter the unity of their empire ended, and they never returned (gunpowder, invented in China but first used for effective weapons in Europe, ensured that theirs was the last great nomad empire). Western Europe also benefited from being a peninsula composed of smaller peninsulas, encouraging, naval technology, multilateral trade in goods and ideas, and political pluralism, making it hard for any central authority – such as the Catholic Church – to suppress inconvenient ideas. The scientific revolution of the 17th century and onwards was itself partly made possible by the burst of both wealth and new products and ideas brought about by the early phases of colonialism.
All I know about the Mongols I got from reading Jack Weatherford, but I seem to recall that he suggests that it was actually the Mongols themselves who first came up with the idea of combining Chinese firework powder and European iron bell-casting techniques to create cannon in the first place.
Although, in checking other sources, I note that this is contested:
http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.2/br_may.html
And Professor May does seem tolerably well informed on the subject:
&emps; http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~tmmay/
Owlmirror@95,
I wrote my last comment without reconsulting my main source, Arnold Pacey’s 1990 Technology in World Civilisation, which is definite that the first gunpowder weapons (rockets, fire-lances, and bombs thrown by trebuchets) were Chinese, while the first guns proper (with metal barrels) were probably developed by Chinese technicians under Mongol rule by 1288. The Mongols employed Chinese gunpowder weapons and experts in the siege of Baghdad in 1258. The first European illustration of a gun dates from 1326/7, after which their development was rapid.
I should also note I got Ogdei’s death date wrong: it was 1242. The invasion of Hungary and Poland began in 1241.
Pacey also notes the importance of the Christian capture of Toledo in 1085. This gave Europeans access to “Islamic technical books, to information about Indian medicine and Hindu numerals, and to Arabic versions of Greek mathematical works.” Adelard of Bath, and Gerard of Cremona – who lived at Toledo from around 1150 to 1187 and employed a team of Jewish interpreters alongside Latin scribes – were prominent in translating Arabic works into Latin.