is the Orthodox church the cause of eastern europe's backwardness?

[bushbush]

awhile ago i saw a couple posts on this:

Correct, and the Orthodox church has also sponsored the least scientific, the least intellectually curious people in the vicinity of Europe. So nothing to be proud of here. I cannot defend the post-2nd-Lateran-Council Catholics, but before that they were equally with Protestants as the most enlightented and intelligent people in the world. There was more brain in one Jesuit school than in all of the Orthodox places of learning combined.

Or, perhaps it was the fact that the Orthodox church, as such, is unreformed and laden with a thousand years of Dark Age mysticism such as monasticism, preferred asceticism, a chosen class of clergymen, and an emphasis of authority upon minds? No? Let's blame others instead?

are these true in your opinion?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Is the Catholic Church a sign of backwardness?

Suppose I flip "backwardness" to the contrary: are modern societies completely backward?

Because I can say, part of me thinks so.

EDIT - Also Siggy's quite famous for his rather Whiggish, parochial view of the world absorbed no doubt from a couple of enthusiastic British XIX century historians. Nothing to see here.

[hellheaven1987]

EDIT - Also Siggy's quite famous for his rather Whiggish, parochial view of the world absorbed no doubt from a couple of enthusiastic British XIX century historians. Nothing to see here.

Lol, I am waiting Siggy to defend his view. Before that, I would not comment his post.

Back to topic. I have not studied Russia and East Europe (particularly Poland before 20th Century) so I cannot comment that, but recently I have read something interesting when I am doing some study about Order of St John. In "The Knights of St John in Jerusalm and Cyprus. 1050~1310", Riley-Smith mentions that Byzantium had a Grand Hospital in Constantinople, under the sponser of Emperor John Comnenus. Interesting enough, Riley-Smith writes there was a medical school for training stuff, a surgery and even a female doctor. All of the hospital was under the administration of Church. The existence of medical school and surgery suggests that Church itself was not opposed, or perhaps encouraged, the research of medical knowledge. While female doctor may suggest that there was some form of equality between both sex, without oppressed by Church (although it seems same type of attitude towards both sex were adopted by Order of St John too. Clearly, there were a number of Sister of St John and they had quite number of power regarding their own organization).

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Lol, I am waiting Siggy to defend his view. Before that, I would not comment his post.

Back to topic. I have not studied Russia and East Europe (particularly Poland before 20th Century) so I cannot comment that, but recently I have read something interesting when I am doing some study about Order of St John. In "The Knights of St John in Jerusalm and Cyprus. 1050~1310", Riley-Smith mentions that Byzantium had a Grand Hospital in Constantinople, under the sponser of Emperor John Comnenus. Interesting enough, Riley-Smith writes there was a medical school for training stuff, a surgery and even a female doctor. All of the hospital was under the administration of Church. The existence of medical school and surgery suggests that Church itself was not opposed, or perhaps encouraged, the research of medical knowledge. While female doctor may suggest that there was some form of equality between both sex, without oppressed by Church (although it seems same type of attitude towards both sex were adopted by Order of St John too. Clearly, there were a number of Sister of St John and they had quite number of power regarding their own organization).

If it were so, it would be fairly obvious. All main and ancient higher education institutions in Western Europe today were built by the Church, like Oxford or the Sorbonne.

[MaximiIian]

Is the Catholic Church a sign of backwardness?

Which has precisely what to do with the Eastern Orthodox Church and its impact on scientific knowledge in Eastern Europe?

My two bits: Sure, the RCC has been mixed with its track record regarding science, but it has changed with the ebb and flow of things and largely accepts scientific knowledge. Hell, during the Dark Ages and most of the Middle Ages, a lot of the learning and proto-science was done by churchmen. Even after that, the occasional scientific breakthrough was made by Catholic clergymen, e.g. Mendel and that Belgian guy who conceived the Big Bang theory. Though as time went on, secularism did much to separate religious limitations from scientific study.
The EOC, on the other hand, seems quite reactionary and even more conservative than the Roman Catholic Church. Which can't be very healthy for a scholarly atmosphere.

[Prodigal]

The rest of the world is backwards. The Orthodox world has managed to maintain its "forwardness."

[removeduser_487563287433]

are these true in your opinion?

No, Catholicism is just as anti-intellectual. However, Protestantism's focus on education for all obviously did play a role in allowing protestant countries becoming dominant.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

No, Catholicism is just as anti-intellectual. However, Protestantism's focus on education for all obviously did play a role in allowing protestant countries becoming dominant.

Which is again untrue. Catholic countries were far stronger than Protestant countries way up to the XIX century, when religion was set aside in international politics; France, Austria, Russia, the most powerful land powers of the time were non-Protestant.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Which is again untrue. Catholic countries were far stronger than Protestant countries way up to the XIX century, when religion was set aside in international politics; France, Austria, Russia, the most powerful land powers of the time were non-Protestant.

And all fell behind massively when the world became more technologically reliant upon the advent of the industrial revolution. Britain had a higher proportion of its population educated.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

And all fell behind massively when the world became more technologically reliant upon the advent of the industrial revolution. Britain had a higher proportion of its population educated.

No. France had a higher literacy rate and more urban population than Britain in the XVIII century; in the XIX century it had the most "forward thinking" institutions in the globe, the most prestigious academia and also one of the highest rates of literacy in the world.

You're not really an adept to Weber, are you?

You think Austria was powerful in the 19th century?

Yes. Statesmen of the period and historians can argue that for me.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No. France had a higher literacy rate and more urban population than Britain in the XVIII century; in the XIX century it had the most "forward thinking" institutions in the globe, the most prestigious academia and also one of the highest rates of literacy in the world.

And technologically lagged behind. You can't claim Catholicism is a force for intellectualism, it's possibly the most anti-intellectual, developmentally retarded organisations ever to have existed. Britain benefited massively from taking in protestant refugees from violent Catholic oppression in France and elsewhere.

[Fiyenyaa]

No. France had a higher literacy rate and more urban population than Britain in the XVIII century; in the XIX century it had the most "forward thinking" institutions in the globe, the most prestigious academia and also one of the highest rates of literacy in the world.

You're not really an adept to Weber, are you?

I guess France was a Catholic Theocracy at the time? Oh, hold on - it was one of the pioneers of Secularism.

Yes. Statesmen of the period and historians can argue that for me.

Right. Apart from the fact that it was a house of cards.
I understand that I'm being hyperbolic, but it was hardly a true power in any other sense than militarily.

[Fiyenyaa]

Which is again untrue. Catholic countries were far stronger than Protestant countries way up to the XIX century, when religion was set aside in international politics; France, Austria, Russia, the most powerful land powers of the time were non-Protestant.

You think Austria was powerful in the 19th century?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I guess France was a Catholic Theocracy at the time? Oh, hold on - it was one of the pioneers of Secularism.

This is irrelevant. Ferrets54 made a statement which is frankly, something that he prolly took off the book of some other Whig historian or Anglo-Saxon-centric history.

French institutions of education predate the Enlightenment. France had an Academy of Sciences specialized in Classical studies ever since the XVI century, and the tendency towards more higher learning increased in the XVII. If anything, the French rate of literacy in 1788 was higher than the British, bordering on 50%. That, on a principio non-secularized state; funny thing is that this same state also trained minds like Napoleon and was the cultural center of the civilized world. This flies in the face of pro-Protestant historiography.

The absence or not of industrial growth can be explained to far other influences than mere.... "Education".

Right. Apart from the fact that it was a house of cards.

Right, a "house of cards". Which withstood several Napoleonic invasions and humiliations and was only defeated by Germany, not in virtue of its power, but by virtue of its own diplomatic isolation.

So easy to summarize concepts you vaguely know about.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The absence or not of industrial growth can be explained to far other influences than mere.... "Education".

Like the catholics violently forcing France's protestant population to flee to Britain, along with their material wealth and expertise? Seriously, answer, are you saying Catholicism is not an anti-intellectual force?

[bushbush]

one thing i have to say is that the "church" (being catholic or orthordox) is not an unchanging entity over the ages. It has changed its position on many issues over the ages. So it might have been an obstacle of progress in the past, it changed later on. Catholic church was both an obstacle early on and later a patron of renaissance and enlightenment to some extent.

[hellheaven1987]

one thing i have to say is that the "church" (being catholic or orthordox) is not an unchanging entity over the ages. It has changed its position on many issues over the ages. So it might have been an obstacle of progress in the past, it changed later on. Catholic church was both an obstacle early on and later a patron of renaissance and enlightenment to some extent.

Hardly. In fact, it would probably more correct to say that without Catholic Church, West Europe would be much less developed today, especially consider Church was the one that brought up the literature level of Frankish Empire and preserved many and only account during Middle Age.

Either way, I just don't see how Church discouraged scientific improvment - rather, it should be more correctly to say that Church encouraged scientific improvement that would strength Church existence.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The Arabs, who did it a darn sight better, too.

Interesting, but flawed. Most knowledge of Classical Greece came directly through Byzantium and Byzantine refugees; we can state for sure that prominent Renaissance philosophers were taught Greek by them and that there was no history of Classical Greek studies prior to that, except as to what was available in Latin.

As of Rome, were it not for the Church, there wouldn't be probably a single extent Latin source alive.

Everybody else?

No. The Protestant Church sponsored a lot less works of art and science; suffice to say that afterwards, due to the fact it was mostly a powerless institution and almost completely controlled by the state, it did not have the life or initiative to do so. Most great scientists in the Protestant world grew outside of it for all their practical efforts, which is nice in the case of a Newton, who could be afforded from his own pocket to have higher education, own land and be a member of Parliament, but not so for the people who relied on Church charity to stay alive. In England, the end of Catholic institutions put the cities and the country in a massive poverty spiral, which was countered by more and more coercive laws during the Elizabethan period.

I dunno about you but I think the western world could have done without those "revolutuionary events".

Right, so you're saying that revolutionary events are of no importance. Great for someone who seems completely clueless of them.

Whoa whoa whoa, you saying Catholics didn't slaughter natives on a massive scale? They did, and they continue to do so with their lies about the effectiveness of condoms.

Slavery of natives in Hispanic countries was forbidden by the law. As such, the very rare instances where this happened are certainly not a "Catholic-driven" thing like you would make us know. Miscegenation was stronger because it was actively encouraged, whereas traditionally Protestant colonies like South Africa or the United States were always fiercely racist and segregationist, especially towards indians.

There, without a coincidence, also happened the fiercest human driven massacres and relocations you can think of. The WASP man is only so because his forefathers did a damn good job at preventing him from being "stained" with native influences and native blood.

They murdered and inprisoned intellectuals who challenged dogma.

You sound like a broken record bringing in schoolbook catchwords into serious historical debate. Seriously, what have you contributed here?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Interesting, but flawed. Most knowledge of Classical Greece came directly through Byzantium and Byzantine refugees; we can state for sure that prominent Renaissance philosophers were taught Greek by them and that there was no history of Classical Greek studies prior to that, except as to what was available in Latin.

Incorrect. Most of it came from when Christians captured Toledo and its universities some 400 years before the fall of Constantinople. This included the reintroduction of Aristotle, among other things.

As of Rome, were it not for the Church, there wouldn't be probably a single extent Latin source alive.

Which is clearly nonsense. Knowledge of Latin was not lost in any part of the former Empire.

No. The Protestant Church sponsored a lot less works of art and science; suffice to say that afterwards, due to the fact it was mostly a powerless institution and almost completely controlled by the state, it did not have the life or initiative to do so. Most great scientists in the Protestant world grew outside of it for all their practical efforts, which is nice in the case of a Newton, who could be afforded from his own pocket to have higher education, own land and be a member of Parliament, but not so for the people who relied on Church charity to stay alive. In England, the end of Catholic institutions put the cities and the country in a massive poverty spiral, which was countered by more and more coercive laws during the Elizabethan period.

Incorrect again, Catholics were tolerated under Elizabeth I so long as they were loyal to Elizabeth I. By contrast Mary I burned hundreds of protestants to death. Only after Catholics attempted to murder James I was a heavy tax put on Catholics.

I have no idea what you think you are talking about with regards to Newton; his religious beliefs would have had him damned as a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Right, so you're saying that revolutionary events are of no importance. Great for someone who seems completely clueless of them.

Except I didn't say that at all. Just that having them as examples for the Catholic Church as advancing humanity intellectually is a bit like having the holocaust as an example for Hitler being nice to Jews.

It doesn't sound like you have a clue what you are talking about.

[Carpathian Wolf]

There is nothing in the Orthodox Church that is really considered "anti intellectual" because the Orthodox Church does not pretend to involve itself in the realm of science. Faith isn't about science, it's about faith. The reason the frankish church in the west and the protestant off spring to some extent, seem anti intellectual is because they try to explain the infinite through the finite. The knowledge for example in the west that created the Renaissance had never ceased to exist. To an extent the east was in a perpetual Renaissance. Lastly the only thing that is "backward" about eastern europe or "Orthodox countries" is the development due to communism. Before that it was Turkish and Mongol invasion as well as having to deal with western attacks such as the Polish Kingdom, the Hungarian Kingdom and the "Holy Roman Empire." Even so the Orthodox countries have had people who invented the jet plane, and modern cybernetics.

I don't see why we simply don't look at the original thread concerning this discussion in which this is all out lined unless this is another troll thread which I think is what the intended purpose is.