The Biggest Hoax in History
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/thepres...
Watch my next video: Why the English hate the Dutch on Nebula
nebula.tv/vide...
Or join my Patreon / thepresentpast
Why you think Medieval People were stupid.
Sources;
Jeffrey Barton Russel - Inventing the Flat Earth. Columbus and Modern Historians (1991).
Christine Garwood - Flat Earth the History of an Infamous Idea (2008).
David Hutchings - Of Popes and Unicorns. Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World (2021).
Websites
historyforathe...
www.smithsonia...
edition.cnn.co...
research.readi...
www.washington...
Hi there, my name is Jochem Boodt. I make the show The Present Past, where I show how the present has been influenced by the past. History, but connected to the present and fun!
Every episode I show how history has influenced and made a thing, an idea or event in our present time.
I make different content. You can find me on:
TikTok: / thepresentpast
Instagram / the_presentpast
Twitter : / @thepresent_past
Logo by: / multicolor_junkie
If you have an idea for an episode please fill in this form:
www.dropbox.co...
C.S. Lewis described our tendency to think the ancients were stupid as "chronological snobbery." He was right on the money.
On the theme of medieval people not being stupid, I’ve really enjoyed Tod’s Workshop’s videos where he recreates and tests arms and armor from the past. He gives a lot of credit to them, their ingenuity, and how clever they were in their own time.
Thanks for sharing :)
@@ThePresentPast_ No worries! And thanks for the great video too, you opened my eyes to more of the history behind the ‘war’ between science vs. religion… I had some awareness, but I didn’t realise just how much of this stuff was fabricated during the enlightenment.
Also lindybeige
they do not allow comments here, even not offensive, nor vulgar, there is no Freedom of Speech, we are controlled, repressed, and tortured with Pain.
@@ThePresentPast_you seem like making stories giving no source .
Considering that most of the Earth is water and only a small percentage of that water is fizzy, in a way the Earth is flat.
If ocean acidification continues then the earth will be less flat
The earth is both flat and a globe and everyone knows it
Nice. You might wanna consider being a lawyer if you don't have a set career already
That took me a good 15 seconds of head scratching to get that. 😂
If 71% of the Earth's surface is indeed water, fizzy, fuzzy, or otherwise, then the earth is obviously flat, because water doesn't lay any other way than flat, and you can't make the globe from the remaining land. It doesn't curve enough for that.
History being misrepresented for some ideological or political purpose is a phenomenon that's been around for a while (even now). This is a pretty decent example of the potential lasting effects it has even after contemporary politics and ideology have moved on to other subjects.
I like to remember Chesterton's comment about historiography: "Babylon has only heaved half a brick at us, though it be a brick of cuneiform."
Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.
i think now the whole "conflict" between science and religion (apart from some exceptions) is focused around morality rather then scientific facts, but yes there is definitely impact to be left on cards of history from situations like this
@@Mr_Onion_RUclipsfs most of it is moral based, like is killing one innocent person to save many better than not killing one innocent person and letting the rest die, but it has opens my eyes and i am so surprised to see stuff like this
Societies are made up of humans. So naturally, their progress mimics that of individual humans. When you first start asking "why" of everything your desire for a *response now* out-races your patience for truth in its time by quite a wide margin. & while we get better at patience later, we Never Lose The Desire To Get A Response Now.
This simply is put on hold for a bit. Between about ages 8 & 16 our curiosity far out-weighs this. At age 17 your subconscious (SC) mind starts asking "do you need this Spanish you learned in grade 4?" & it starts to forget things.
& it also starts to solidify what you do keep. Freud would probably say this is where the ego _really_ comes into its own. Any thought retained becomes rooted in the SC, the only place most people retain information they don't utterly forget. But here's the thing.
The SC isn't where our logic or reason lives. It's where our most primal reactive instincts live. Now, any time you hear something that doesn't agree 100% with a notion rooted in your SC you Will React with defending Your Preconceived Notion (PN) as your Only Priority.
It will not matter if the offending information can save your child's very life or if your PN is something irrelevant like "but the Nazis were Fascists." By age 25 most people will Defend The PN over any other priority because questioning it triggers *_ALL_* their reactions including fight or flight & they can't relax until they go back to believing in the PN.
So here's the catch; Our ego also defends our perceived _group's_ PNs. This is why there can be no dialogue about politics, its role in society, how we perceive politicians as if they were 'Government Itself' & not merely *supposed to be* representatives of the ideals of it, & their decisions. Absolutely no one _wanted to_ see any scientific studies regarding the safety of what "Surrogate-Daddy" already told us what was safe.
People just wanted to show Daddy they were obeying Him. So yeah, every singular example is kind of useless. It's not even a pattern, & if it is, no one wants to see where it starts.
Because questioning it triggers the same need to reject questioning it. Everyone would rather Go Along with the group's PNs (group-think) than think. Every example is the same because the _process_ (not a pattern) is the same: "I think A, B questions A. I Am A Good Person. I would not think A unless A Was Correct. Ergo whatever questions A Must Be incorrect."
This applies to everyone 100% of the time. New ideas are rejected because they can't be a PN _and new._ Ergo they automatically trigger resistance.
Even if they save would save lives, people will mentally reject all new ideas all the time.
Jochem, you said you aren't a religious person... Well, I'm a religious person and a historian. And I must say I could not be more excited than I already am with this video. Even though I would change a thing or two (please forgive this historian's caprice!), it's definitely a gem. Also, I must note how impressive it is that historiography has changed to debunk the Conflict Thesis and it's still grappling with many people and mainstream media (maybe because we all love to see a fight, don't we?)
Congrats on the excellent video and research!
Yeah it's just such a powerful and easy to believe idea! Glad I could be of service :)
Could I ask what is it that you did not agree with (or would change) in the video?
@@joaocraveiro4050 Thanks for your question. I appreciate your interest in discussing the video and your openness to different perspectives - in my case, I’m influenced by Intellectual and Conceptual History (Quentin Skinner and Reinhart Koselleck, if you know what I mean).
Before I list the changes I would suggest, I want to clarify that none of these undermine the main arguments of Jochem's video. In fact, these changes could further support his arguments about the Flat Earth myth and the Science vs. Religion myth (referred to as the "Permanent Conflict Thesis" from now on). As someone who has recently started creating History content for social media, I understand the need to make choices due to limitations such as retention and engagement. Please note that the topics mentioned below may deserve their own dedicated video. With that said, let's proceed:
1. The video mentions that the creators of the Permanent Conflict Thesis had personal issues which influenced their writings against religion during their time. It accurately explains how scientific interpretations of the Bible in the 18th and 19th centuries troubled them. However, it would be beneficial to include biographical information on Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, as both were Protestant individuals who argued that religion and science are inherently in conflict. While it is important to avoid overly psychologizing their work, exploring their backgrounds would provide a deeper understanding of how this myth gained traction due to institutional and social conflicts within modern trends of Christianity.
2. However, when discussing the Permanent Conflict Thesis, it is important to clarify that the existence of this myth relies on modern definitions of "religion" and "science" as separate domains within society, each representing comprehensive belief systems denoted by capital letters ("Religion" and "Science"). This conceptualization emerged as a result of confessional and apologetic texts produced within Protestantism and (or against) Catholicism in the 18th century, as well as the development of modern science as an independent field stemming from natural history and experimental philosophy in the 19th century. Consequently, it can be argued that prior to the 19th century, there was no conflict between "Religion" and "Science" because these terms, as we understand them today, did not exist (note that this does not imply the absence of conflicts between natural philosophy and Christian dogmas; it simply means it was not framed as a faith vs. reason or "Religion vs. Science" conflict).
3. The portrayal of Darwin's influence on the development of the Permanent Conflict Thesis in the video could benefit from a more nuanced perspective. Firstly, the ongoing debate about the existence of underdeveloped or fully formed human beings alongside Adam is not a new discussion, as it has been taking place since ancient Christianity, with figures like Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, and Theophilus of Antioch. Secondly, Darwin's work can be seen as part of Natural Theology, as he initially worked within this field. However, throughout his work, Darwin's conclusions ended up challenging and undermining the paradigm of Natural Theology as a framework for studying nature. The way it is said in the video regards more on how some people reacted to Darwin's ideas ("No way humans came from monkeys! This guy must be against God and the Bible!") rather than emphasizing the paradigm shift brought about by his discoveries, which for me deserved a bit more of attention.
4. The same goes for Galileo’s martyrdom myth: the conclusion is on point, however, it would help a few more sentences on how to situate his ideas relating to his peers and the broader context of the Inquisition’s procedure, since most of these additions, I believe, are more factual information.
Anyway, after writing this much, it might seem I have huge complaints. But, as I said, it might be a historian's caprice, the video is great concerning to what it is intended for. And since it's part of the historian's craft, I will list below some sources fundamental to what I wrote:
Ronald Numbers (ed.): "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (2010)
Peter Harrison: "The Territories of Science and Religion" (2015)
David N. Livingstone: "Adam's Ancestors - Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins" (2008)
Tiago V. Garros: "Ciência, Bíblia e Teologia - Darwin e o movimento evangélico" (2018)
Stephen Gaukroger: "Science and the Shaping of Modernity", 4 vols. (2009-2022)
I'm with @Joao Craveiro - I'm curious to hear your objections
@@VE0003 , Just check my previous answer
As a Christian who appreciates history being preserved, I absolutely loved your take on this!
Same here.
Where are this man's views?? This channel is so underrated, keep up the hard work!
I really enjoyed Jim Al-Khalili's series on Science and Islam in the medieval period when it first came out. I think one of his examples was an early Islamic mathematician called al-Biruni, who calculated the circumference of the earth and got an answer very close to modern estimates.
This is interesting
Georges Lemaitre was one of the people who came up with the “big bang”, which he called the primeval atom.
Yes, he was a theoretical physicist and a Catholic priest. The idea of the Church being 'against science' is hilariously ridiculous.
As a Christian with a deep respect for science, I’ve long felt that this is a VERY damaging lie/myth. And unfortunately it’s become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more people believe it, the more the wedge of distrust grows.
Saying that a person of faith can’t also be a great scientist is as nonsensical as saying that someone who loves art can’t do math.
not true at all.
Honestly we need to start Promoting Scientist Priest more and More nowadays.
Proof of how damaging this lie is how there are Christians who thought their love of science contradicted their faith that they abandoned Science.
And only until they learned of
Father Georges Lemaître, the Father of the Big Bang theory did they realize such Conflict Didn't have to exist at all.
As a Christian and student of history, this idea has always annoyed me. I’ve tried to explain to people that what they were saying was stupid. Who do you think made all the scientific discoveries in Europe then? Anyways, I appreciate your well-explained condensation of the issue. I will say too that the idea that the Christian creation story was intended to be taken literally is a fairly recent idea, at least compared to when it was written. The ancient Hebrews certainly didn’t take it that way, they didn’t do story like us. The point of that story is not to tell the literal creation of the Earth but to explain humans’ relationship to God and their purpose for being here. It is a direct challenge to the other religions that existed in that region, places like Babylon. It says humanity is made in God’s image whereas they say humanity is a slave class for the gods. In any case, even the later conflicts between science and Christianity were caused by those who did not understand the text they were reading. It is perfectly viable to believe in God and evolution. I know you mentioned this with the Catholics accepting evolution at the end but I thought it was necessary anyways.
Although it may be possible to believe in God and evolution, I don't believe it's possible to reconcile Genesis with modern ideas and speculation about the origin of life and darwinian speciation unless you really go through serious mental gymnastics and eisigesis. For one, the Bible itself is a historical account which starts from the very beginning. It presents events as happening in a linear order with specific time intervals in between. For example, if you deny that Adam and Eve were really the first humans and ate from the tree in the Garden of Eden, you'd logically have to deny the concept of sin and a fallen world which would then remove the need for Jesus and therefore the entire religion becomes pointless and you can't really claim to be a Christian at that point. It just turns into a whole domino effect. It's not at all a recent idea that the creation story was meant to be taken literally. This doesn't mean every sentence of the Bible is literal obviously, but logically speaking, certain things MUST be taken literally for the rest of it to be coherent. If you look at the Creationist paradigm, it is logically internally consistent and in my opinion more plausible than modern ideas of deep time. Does the creationist paradigm leave some questions unanswered? Sure, just like the evolutionist paradigm does but gaps in knowledge can be filled with the scientific method as a tool.
@@kidus_1010 I appreciate your response. The thing I disagree with is that I have to believe that Adam and Eve were truly the first humans to believe in sin. Surely I can say that the story is true in all its meaning, just not its literal details. The story tells of the constant Israelite struggle with God. Even in paradise, they will say that they know best. If the story were meant to be taken literally, why do none of the Israelites at any point in the Bible curse Adam or Eve’s name. Why don’t they say, “if only they didn’t eat that fruit, we’d be in paradise.” Adam is only mentioned a few more times in the Bible and Eve is never mentioned again. The idea that the creation story was meant to be taken literally is new, though. We know it’s knew because that’s not how they did story. The questions they had were not how was the Earth literally created, but were why I am here? What is my purpose? Who am I? Who is God? What is our relationship? The sort of scientific analysis of this book today is not at all what it was intended for. There are certainly parts of the Bible to be taken literally, like the Gospels, but the Genesis creation story is not one of them.
Because I grew up around Christians who argued that genesis is meant to be taken literally and my attempts to discover how it was originally interpreted seem to have mixed results I want to ask if you have any sources where I can read about this topic as I am curious about whether the genesis account for creation was taken literally by early Christians and Jews. In my experience, the sources I found on this issue involve the views of modern scholars with minimal to no references to scholars from the past.
@@Anti-CommunistCommunitarian I have read a number of books and articles about this but unless you’re currently a university student you probably won’t have access to them, for free at least. However, a past teacher of mine made a fairly comprehensive 10 part series on this very subject. He actually taught an entire class on Genesis, as well as other biblical classes, which went into much more detail than any video series can. But, if you’re interested, here’s the link to episode one. ruclips.net/video/_nqrZJ14uQs/видео.html
@@westcoastflyers144 Thank you!
As someone who ends up being an Dark Ages apologist. I will be sharing your video constantly
I mean dark ages objectively was a time of civilizational decline. Was it THAT bad as some people tend to believe? Definitely not
@@oleole4340 exactly
@@oleole4340 i see it more of a time of civilisational stagnation. The decline in my opinion happened around the early centuries AD, as Rome fell into disrepair.
@@johnseppethe2nd2 I think it also very much depends on your perspective. For a lot of people the decline of Roman Empire was positive news. Cities (even far into modern times) were huge death traps. With a life expectancy at birth in the Roman Empire of about 25. Which then greatly improved. But I heard it in a podcast so don't quote me on the exact number.
doesn’t that also kind of depend on the geographic region you are looking at? I learned in school (maybe that’s wrong too, lol) that most of Central/northern/eastern Europe 500 AD was not nearly at the civilizational level as 1500 AD.
We're not smarter than medieval people, but we have more giants whose shoulders we can stand on, including medieval ones.
Neil degrase Tyson's brain just short circuited
3:32 Uh... there absolutely was (and there still is) a University of Salamanca. It was the most prestigious university in Spain at the time of Columbus
It always seems to go back to the Victorians with historical misinformation! This was a terrific lesson as well as showcase of how history is always repeating itself.
Part of me wonders if the Victorians were not trying to cover for themselves in some way. Christianity has, through the Catholic church, opposed things like slavery and imperialism at times (and of course at other times either accepted it or encouraged it). I wonder if the Victorian era push to see religion as backward was not in part influenced by their desire to cast the church as a relic that need not be heeded?
@@MeEntertainmentJo_876It also has to do with the fact that the British abhorred the Catholic Church until these days.
And the Napoleons too, if you watched the video
it always infuriates me when people talk about to stupidty of people in history we are not smarter, we only have more knowledge
controlled opposition
As a scientist and Christian I thank you for this well explained video. Will refer people to it whenever this discussion arises (which is quite often).
On medieval artworks of Christ He sometimes holds a globe in His hand
People like Washington Irwing are the reason Leopold von Ranke didn't exactly like writers and artists.
Thank you for this video. There are so many "enlightened" people who refuse to acknowledge that religion and science were once tied together.
Thank you for this, excellent. Humans of Antiquity and the Medieval era were really just as smart as we are today. They just didn't have the tools that we do, modern scientific instrumentation and notation, the massive libraries of knowledge right at our fingertips, etc. We have those things, and yet still look at us. We'd better not start casting stones or this glass house is going to come down on our heads.
I went to Catholic school for three years and I once asked one of the priests about science and Darwin's theory of evolution and he said to me "The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally."
Did that includes all the miracles that Jesus perform and his bold statement like "Nobody comes to the Father but through me"?
He's right...
@scottmoon4721 it's a hyperbole. Yes, the miracles of Jesus are to be taken, not so much literally, but as true, historical occurrences.
He should know, they created the bible. Catholic means universal in Latin. So what is universal, hmmmm, oh yeah, the Sun, and all the solar worship. Every culture had a different name for the sun. In Egypt it was Amun Ra. yes that is where "amen" gets its origin, and "coincidentally "Ra" is the the word "evil" in Hebrew( see Strongs definition and concordance), Why would the sun be evil you might ask? Because the Israelites were slaves and morning "mourning" was when they did the majority of the work. Its all cosmology, sun worship, moon worship (the Israelite religion). That is why they had to turn away from sin, Syn/Sin/Suen is an ancient Mesopotamian name for the moon, Sun-Syn Ying-Yang. Moses with the golden calf was in Taurus the bull, Abraham (AbRAM as he was formerly known) the ram signifies Aries, and Jesus the fisher of men represents Pieces, and when he tells the disciples to find the man carrying water in the house is signifying the coming age of Pieces. The new testament is sun/son worship. Every miracle Jesus/Je suis ( "I Am" in French) did the sun does everyday, appear in the eastern clouds, turns sky/water blue to red, heals sick, causes you to see, walks on water, is dead for 3 days on the southern crux (latin for cross dec 22-25 winter solstice) then rises again till "pass over" of the equator until it hits its northern most point at the summer solstice. So your priest might of been thinking about all of that, or maybe its all just coincidence.
Did you consider the miracle of the fishes and the loaves may have just been getting people to share?
That would truly be a miracle.
Thanks for the shout out!
Thanks for teaching me AE!
"Very often, the Way that history is treated, it says more about our time than the actual history" - very Historian of you. Love it.
To talk a bit more about Galileo, his work was originally suppressed by the Church - I've heard it said that it was so they could harmonize interpretation of scripture with observable fact, but that may just be apologism - but the hammer of persecution only really came down when he published a book that painted the Church's view as utterly moronic and something only a dunderhead would believe.
Great video.
All Heliocentric books were banned as heresy, including those by Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo until 1820 because they contradicted the Holy Scriptures.
Politics also had a hand on the matter more than theology. Taking a dig at a nepo-baby, Medici-backed Pope, in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, did not do Galileo any favors. But he wasn't persecuted. He lived into old age under house arrest, continuing his work debunking Aristotlian physics until he went blind.
His primary offence was saying that the Church had interpreted the Bible wrong and they had to conform to his new interpretation. Once he insulted the Pope, it was the last straw. The Church has the absolute authority to interpret the Bible and you can't just stride into Rome and tell them what to do.
The funniest part is that he couldn't prove his theory and his main hypothesis was wrong. After Kepler came along and could actually prove it, everybody accepted it easily.
(he was right)
@@lordadmira3 Yup, and without gravity explaining why the solar system even holds together the theory raised more questions than it solved. The prior view was that there is some special property that makes object falls to Earth's centre, around which the world is ordered. While flimsy on modern scientific standards, it was at least philosophically neat, sth heliocentricism lacked.
I am so glad this video was made! I hate that people still think this. It's what I was even taught in school before I learned it was false
The worst consequence of this is how Colombus is praised for thinking the earth was round when everyone else thought it was flat, when instead columbus was just a guy with faulty calculations who was convinced he was right to the point where he risked his and his crew's lives
Yess!
If he hadn't found another continent on the way, they wouldn't have made it even half way to the destination!!
He was way off by like 70-80%
@@thotslayer9914 Depends, what for?
0:45 wow that is crazy. Just hours ago I was just struggling with this same myth, it is hard to correctly put into perspective the impact The Church had on Science. Especially being how modern focus seems to be on the times it got things wrong, despite how it was pretty much the sole driver of Science in the West. Maybe I should send them this video now instead lol
It is disappointing that even Europeans believe Irving's foolish lie. For some reason they do not realize it is the Middle Ages that gave birth to the time of Renaissance.
"Because of the stupid."
Thank you for proving a point sir.
I am not a historian, but an history enthusiast. But as Roman Catholic it infuriates me the amount of myths around Catholic Church, usually spread by Protestants and Atheists around 18th-19th centuries in smear campaign that just stuck. Don't get me wrong, there are many things that Catholic Church should be criticized for, especially lacklustre fight with sexual abuse, era of saeculum obscurum (904-964), corruption of late 15th and early 16th century, wobbly position on slavery (even though in the long term Catholic Church was crucial in limiting scope of slavery), Avignon Papacy, abuses of indulgences, and would spend whole day trying to name them all. But if you ask somebody to name something bad from Catholic history you would likely hear something like:
- being anti-science - total BS, Catholic Church was the most pro-science institution in human history, during the Middle Ages almost all of achievement in European science where thanks to Catholic Church,
- trials of Galileo Galilei - had nothing to do with his science achievements, but insulting the Pope (who gave Galileo the job, shielded him from other clerics and payed him for scientific work) and publishing his works (in which he insulted aforementioned pope) even though he was ask to not to do it until it will be validated that his theories are true; punishment? home arrest, order to pray more and lifetime pension from Catholic Church; Galileo affair was mostly a PR disaster on Catholic Church side
- burning people o stakes - it happened sometimes, but it was quite rare in Catholic Church, compering especially to some Protestant branches,
- witch trials - almost non-existent in Catholic Church, once again popular pastime among Protestants,
- Holy Inquisition - if anything, you could expect the Spanish Inquisition, because they gave a 30 day notice; great achievement in judiciary, restricted torture and gave people right to counsel; if you could choose to be judge by secular court or by Holy Inquisition you would beg to be judged by Holy Inquisition, because in secular court there were usually to option: you admit to committing the crime or you would be tortured to death; also Holy Inquisition did not have to execute any punishment, they could only recommend a verdict to be done by secular authorities; and you would have to really try to get a death sentence from Holy Inquisition; people who actually died due to Inquisition sentence? between 3,000 and 10,000 during the span of 250 years worldwide (on average 12-40 people yearly worldwide);
- Crusades to Holy Land: yes, there where a lot of madman taking part in them by they where not endorsed by the Church, but they started as defensive necessity not some kind early form of colonization, of course some Crusades had tragic consequences (ekhm, 4th Crusade), not because they where plan this way, but because local rulers started to exploit them for more power (ekhm, Venice), not because Church planned to wreak havoc
Can't wait to see the flood gates to flat earther warriors open in the comments section
Love these debunking videos
sometimes a conspiracy theory is really enterntaining, i would like to recomend a show from terra called "inside job" its really worth to watch ( sorry for bad english i am from mars )
As a citizen of planet Earth, i forgive you for your bad english.
How's the weather doing over there
@@alemdevp2048 raining rocks as always
That’s though
I too am from mars, though I am currently on vacation on mercury. It’s really hot and impossible to breathe here, but the rocky landscape is worth it! 😊
It’s kind of absurd how many modern misconceptions can be traced back to some novel(s) written in the 1800s
Great video! Very glad to see you tackling these major historical misconceptions! Important stuff
Isaac Newton calculated the earth was only a few thousand years old
As a fellow Catholic and a history enjoyer, I must say this video was really helpful and educational, and I am so glad more and more people are learning about the misconceptions people had regarding the Catholic Church, Galileo, and the "Dark Ages."
Thank you for making this video. As a medievalist this is a myth I all too often stumble across it and have to debunk.
I can’t remember if it was Irving or Hawthorne, who made the myth of Paul Revere. It’s creepy how many fictional, historical books, are still believed as fact.
Like John Smith writing about Pocahontas.
Fantastic video! Incredibly informative and well crafted. Never stop doing what you do!
I'll try a bit more :)
Absolutely fantastic video, as a history student from the Netherlands I really love your videos, hope you enjoy making them as much as I enjoy watching them ☺
The thought that Columbus thought the world was flat can be debunked with the most basic of common sense. To get to the silk road, ships would travel East. Columbus wanted to go West predicting that not having to go around Africa would be a faster route. If he thought the world was flat, this would be impossible as there would be only one direction by which to reach the Indian sub-continent.
This Irving guy is also the reason the NBA team from New York is called the Knicks and the reason they wear orange white and blue.
This is a very good video! I have found the idea of an eternal conflict between science and religion unconvincing for a while now and this video condenses some of my thoughts very nicely while also adding things I hadn't even considered before. Keep up the good work!
So sad to see your video beeing shadow banned by youtube just because flat earth is still such a controversial theme in 2023 :/
Well, there was a School of Salamanca as a place of learning since 1218 and later developed into a proper university by the time Ferdinand II of Aragon came to power, so maybe Columbus did hop on over there for help in calculating the journey with mathematicians.
But the School of Salamanca was very much in support of Columbus. The hard part was convincing sponsors to help fund the voyage. Sailing somewhat blindly without certainty of how long it would take to get to East or South Asia and how much supplies and food would be needed is not exactly going to make rich people feel very confident on making a profit off of you.
The School/University of Salamanca was the premier center of developing laws concerning the rights of Indeginous peoples, insisting that no person is born a slave and that no persecution is to befall on them. But kings want empires and conquistadors want money. So these advances towards human rights fell on deaf ears.
Thank you for this video! Finally someone who did decent research on the middle so-called “dark” ages and the Catholic Church in that time.
For anyone who watched the coronation on May 6th you would've noticed he was given an orb the technical term for this is an Orbis Cruciger and it is meant to symbolise Christ over the Earth and were used as far back as the Eighth Century during the coronation of Charlemagne so this pretty much proves people in medieval Europe knew the Earth was round.
Until that day comes when an astronaut from the ISS can take one of those high-powered telescopes and zoom in on the bottom of the ball and show me that it is possible to watch a waterfall flow upside-down...I will continue to believe that only cartoons exist in space.
Gallileo may not have had much influence on the devellopment of heliocentrism, but he had a enormous influence on the devellopment of the telescope and the scientific method.
Even today, there is no real conflict... read Alvin Plantinga's "where the conflict really lies". It has always been a philosophical issue: naturalistic materialism with all the views that say there is more that matters than matter.
great video, I just discovered your channel and it seems your videos are another way on looking at history (the more truthful way) compared to the majority of history channels on RUclips, thanks for exposing the lies taught to us in school.
I mean imagine if people in 26th century thinks we believe the Earth was flat for the exactly same reasons...
...plus Flat Earth Society.
The Present Past, thank you for shedding the truth. As a Catholic, I oftend receive disdain that my Church is an obstacle of science and I tried to debunk it. Now this video is a good piece of evidence to my claims. Thank you.
I'm of Indian descent on my father's side and India and China knew the world was round over 2,000 years ago. Pythagoras stole a lot of knowledge from India. Mathematics in particular.
I really hope this doesnt come off wrong. Your english is amazing and you speak many more languages than me.. But circumference is pronounced (at least in the USA) as sir-come-frence... like with three syllables.. see I don't even know how to write it in a way that makes sense.. but I wanted to let you know because my parents first language isn't english and they want me to tell them these things. Either way, LOVE your videos man! Theyre super cool and get me interested in things i would have never expected i d care about! Keep up the great work!
FLAT EARTH
Medieval Christians: "To understand God we must understand the world."
Saint Augustine to medieval flat earthers: "Believe the scientists about the shape of the earth (sphere), the sky can still be a dome when the earth is round and the Bible only specified the shape of the sky, not the earth."
(19th century: a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest froms the Big Bang theory)
Yeah, the church hindered science...
I think its more nuanced than, 'the church hinders science' or 'the church is a haven for scientific thought' i think that Christians are too broad of a demographic to label in the first place and it more often than not comes down to how they were taught to view their faith and their political ideas, I mean, Nicola Tesla was a Christian, but so are there Christians today outright reject scientific ideas that should be almost thought of as fact
This came up in a philosophy class that I took recently. The quality of information and it's presentation here are fantastic. Subbed!
People also need to remember that it wasn't the Catholic Church that condemned Darwin. It was the church of Darwin's baptism: the Anglican Church.
A good video that debunks the notion of religion being totally opposed to science. These days it seems to be some Christen fundamentalists (mainly based in the USA), who are opposed to science and especially evolution, and some dogmatic scientists who believe all religious believers are totally stupid. I think that St Thomas Aquinas, said that if there is dispute between your faith and what reason tells you, you should follow your reason. On the flat earth idea, it is interesting that an idea, that was debunked and not generally accepted for 2000 years, seems to be making a comeback. A Flat Earth society has existed since the 1800's but was always a fringe belief, but with the development of the internet, and things such as RUclips, their message can now be sent out to a world-wide audience, some of whom come to believe it. A triumph of wilful ignorance over reason.
Great video as always.
The youtuber Knowing Better also has a great video debunking many people’s perceptions of Christopher Columbus (explaining that he knew the Earth wasn’t flat etc.). KB also has a great video above the Titanic and how James Cameron lied about various facts which have mislead many people since 1997, e.g. the Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats because the Deck would look “Too cluttered”…..
Nice, havent seen those videos!
Sad how these Men effectively managed to rewrite History to suit the Narrative of their time with Disastrous Consequences. Creating a Conflict thesis that was a Self fulfilling Prophecy.
So much of our misunderstanding of history comes from 18th-19th century British and American propaganda, it was the worst era for “historians.”
Dude, Britain and America were one of the few societies that even recorded history. I’m Indian, and Indian civilization mainly recorded poems and stories about gods, they didn’t record real people as much as Europe, Britain, and later America.
The better question is, why do modern people still harbor the same resentment towards religion from 200 years ago?
Because religion infects everything.
@@Mark-Stone Is that why hatred for religion is so great even history can be rewritten?
@@Fakeslimshady That comment is an example of how religion infects everything. In your haste to be a martyr, you forgot to actually learn anything.
For millennia, the church was the dominant institution and controlled the advancement of science, for better or worse. Leaders often feared radical changes, which caused the stifling of Galileo.
Fundamentalism, a newer phenomenon, is inherently opposed to science.
More specifically it was the scholars who supported the geocentricism of Aristotle/Ptolemy over all other models of celestial bodies that gave Copernicus (a Catholic priest) and Galileo the most flack over their theories on heliocentricism. Copernicus was actually quite favored by the Church and a Bishop recommended that Copernicus publish anonymously to protect his reputation among the scholars.
The Galileo affair was really a political war between him and the powerful oligarchs, including Pope Urban VIII and the Medici family. The recanting episode was just a means to an end. His house arrest did not stop Galileo from conducting experiments.
The Church later used Copernican calculations to create the more astronomically accurate Gregorian calendar in the 1500s. It was a strange twist in events when the accusations against the Church for being anti-Scripture by the Protestant Reformers, who were very much anti-heliocentricism, that got Copernicus on the Catholic Church's list of forbidden books. It appears that someone thought the move would be damage control. Despite the ban, Catholic universities continued teaching Copernicus' research.
Echt mooi gemaakt hoor deze videos. Prachtige editing.
The
Modern view of astronomy originated from catholic priests ..
like my dad said "even if they believed the earth was flat, sailors still seen the stars moving from top to bottom"
In the Bible it does imply and hint a round earth, heck it even mentions the explanation of the universe in Psalms when it reads that God spreads spreads out the heavens like a curtain. It's pretty cool stuff!
I appreciate that the Alex Jones clip you chose was him spitting facts.
How do creationists imagine God created the Earth? If not evolution for the species and physical relationships for them and everything else, what more amazing process do they imagine He used?
Genetics. What we see in genetics on what happens in DNA after a couple reproduces is a loss of information in each offspring. Therefore, it is impossible that a simple cell with a “simple” (still ridiculously complex) genetic code, produce an more complex offspring through natural selection. What we see is INvolution, which means our ancestors had better genetics than we had and so did the animals. With this, the story of creation in genesis starts making a lot more sense.
@@juanranger4214 You have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about
This is a work of art, how have you only got 24k views!!???
Amazing video!
17:25 that hits the nail on the head imo. I feel like a lot of people want to view the past as this unenlightened, dark and cruel time as to make them feel better about their knowledge and intelligence today.
People were not dumb in the Middle Ages, they simply didn’t have the same education, accessibility to knowledge and global awareness that we do nowadays. I even think that we nowadays are more or less the same when it comes to our capacity of thinking and learning. People in the past were much more knowledgeable when it comes to things like agriculture, foraging for food and creating most of the things you need to survive for themselves (eg clothes, household goods etc).
In a way we have changed the knowledge which was vital for survival then for knowledge that is not of essential use as we are not reliant on this knowledge for our survival and grow up very sheltered from the environment.
as a Christian, I knew plenty of Christians who go to my church and are scientists and my wife even teaches science. And I grew up loving science. So I don't think that science and free inquiry is opposed to my faith. In fact, it is spurred on by my faith. If God created all things, then I can expect to find wonder after wonder in the universe in an ordered pattern that makes sense.
I recognize just like anyone else that I have biases and assumptions that affect how I view the world and science, but I can do science nonetheless. Also, I recognize that science is not the only way to ascertain truth. Nor is it the ultimate way to find truth. It is simply a way to do so.
im really glad you understand christianity better than most. It is more nuanced and there are many interpretations. And there are different methods, literal, moral, allegorical that impact how the church has viewed things.
thank you for understanding the Bible isn't about science . . . lol.
that is anachronistic
I grew up in a christian home that treated the Bible as if it was science. I didn't learn until later that there are other views.
I thought the Polish monk Copernicus proved the earth was round before Christopher Columbus got underway.
Just found your channel. Great job on these videos. Cant wait to binge watch them!
I did consider saying "how about Galileo, or Bruno, or... etc." but decided to hold until I saw it all.
You are correct, of course, that the Church (and in the Middle Ages, the Church meant the Catholic church) was actually a hub of knowledge. There are however 2 points to remember.
1. Science is not just the discovery or invention of new things, but the search for the new things. This curiosity was strongly quenched in that period. Church was a hub of knowledge but of acceptable knowledge. The rest might not be acceptable.
2. Science is in large part the scientific thinking and method. Galileo was more important in his philosophical work to establish a scientific method than by arguing for heliocentrism (Copernicus was more relevant there). Hippocrates already practiced an early form of scientific method by practicing observation. This was also proposed by Aristotle (even if many conclusions were wrong). And this was the reason why Aristotle was strongly rejected around that time. It took the work of islamic scholars, not just in translating but also in interpreting and commenting and expanding greek, indian or persian texts, for Europeans to pay attention. And here I was glad you mentioned them, as well as St. Thomas of Aquinas, who probably did more to bring the Catholic Church out of a silo thinking than anyone else (and relied heavily on Aristotle).
In the end, yes, there wasn't a war of religion against science, but religion has put the brakes for centuries on human knowledge, to the point that thinkers needed to find ways to frame their ideas so they would not conflict with religious thinking. They weren't always enemies, but the cohabitation wasn't exactly easy.
12:03 You pronounce circumference differently
I am Dutch too, it is a weird word haha
Hi! Great video, big fan. I noticed a few inaccuracies in your captions that differed from what you said, just wanted to point them out.
Very nice video, thank you very much. But in a tiny point I object. In minute 11 you reproduce another myth: That evolution/darwinism is "organism reacting to competition in their environment". Survival of the fittest is not survival of the strongest or most successful in competition. To be fit means to fit in, to match an environment. Fitness CAN mean being the stronger in a competition but in ecosystems we observe a lot of non competetive behavior like in symbiosis, flocks, herds, swarms etc. Interpreting "survival of the fittest" in a competitive, "survival of the strongest" way is a myth that proponents of social darwinism use to justify their worldview a "natural".
Even the man that first proposed the Big Bang theory was a priest
If we evolved from apes we would have more chit fights in our history. Epic chit fights.
I would love a video that explored more of how Christianity and science interacted thru the last 2000 years. Here you explored how our current assumption came to be, and that they are shaky at best, but I have no clue what to replace the assumptions with.
For example, after explaining where our misconception of a belief in a flat earth came from, and stating that they are false you don't explain what's true. We just have to take your word that there wasn't any truth in what they wrote, gave me a bit Johnny Harris vibes.
I would assume that it's both true that Christianity supported and limited science. Based on the rate of inovation it seems like more of the latter, but i do not know.
Would you explore this more in another video or are you finished with this topic for now?
Read Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albertus Magnus. Albertus Magnus is called the father of chemistry for noting that cooling things slows processes down and heating things makes processes faster.
Aquinas was famous for quoting the bible : "Good designed the earth according to measures and weights". Aquinas argued that measuring and weighting the earth would help humans to understand god.
Both lived around 1200 A.D. and are the fathers of "church science".
The flat earth society belongs to the government not an individual.
1:51 Based.
Wowo, amazing video! I'd love to see a similar one talking about gender roles, and how Victorian times really solidified how we understand gender today.
We would be a lot further in our evolution of the human race if religion and science worked together.
There is actually a documentary on Curiosity called Deep Time History and in a short scene when talking about how ore deposits and spices drove human immigration when they touch upon Columbus and his famous voyage to the Americas they mention the whole medieval people for the most part did already know the Earth was a sphere, though it would not have been uncommon to run into people that didn't know it was a sphere in strange positions of power depending on their formal education, but the majority of people with even basic formal educations would know and have been taught about a spherical Earth. The scene is actually kind of hilarious because the actor being Columbus slowly draws a circle in the air, then the actor that is supposed to be the sponsor he was pitching to draws the circle in the air back, and the actor playing Columbus nods in confirmation but looks REALLY annoyed with the potential patron.
I think that people in middle ages were just saying what they had to to not be marked as heretics. Sailors had to know that Earth is not flat. Most of average people in middle ages barely knew what is the sea, they never saw it (if they didn't live near sea ofcourse) so asking them if earth is flat or not is pointless, they didn't know what is sea or what is eath, they never visited even capital city in their country, they barely went more far than like 20 km in their lives.
As a Czech, I have to say that all religions are bullshit artificaly created to control sheeps and I have right to say that becuase we have freedom of speech, I don't care if someone is offended by that.
Great story choice bro. I’ve never seen a video on this topic and it’s very refreshing to see .
Die animatie in hoofdstuk 1 dat het boekje op tafel open slaat. Kwijlen.
Very important topic. To understand todays struggle with fundamentalism better, we need to see it as a symptom of our time, instead of blaming it on the past. Fundementalist and some extreme conservatives are nostalgic for a time that never existed.
Karin Armstrong makes a point that fundamentalism might be a reaction to modernity and the violence that goes with it, as enlightenment thinking has often been forced upon people through violence, but i digress.
I really loved your video especially this one. I knew that the catholic Church far from being against science actualy was the very cradel of modern scientific revolution. She was the mother who set up the the environment in the home that would then enable the launching of the modern scientific revolution but setting up various unversities including som eof the oldest in Europe (possbly even the world) such as in Bologna, Paris etc. etc. Above all Catholic Church always respected bothe "Faith" i.e. devinely revealed religious Truths as well as Reason which God has given to human beings to infer about the universe through observations and rations deductions. I am glad you exposed this pernicious myth and lie about the supposed "conflict" between Catholic Religion and Science!!!
Good stuff! I've attempted to broach this with a few "Christian" friends of mine to no avail, which I think along with apparent attitudes more broadly illuminates the underlying material reasons that shape and cultivate such mythology in justifying a particular class rule.
Specifically, I would say this dovetails with the so-called "great schism" (~13:50), Constantine being like "you know what, I'm Christian actually!" in order to quell the near constant Christian uprisings against the Roman empire rather than this contemporary idea that conveniently completely strips it of its core revolutionary political valence, defanging its liberative appeal to instead tailor its messages toward one of further subjugation. Infamously this is eventually instrumentalized towards the crusades to -conquer- "reunify" the breakaway eastern Roman empire. With the material breakdown of imperial control from Rome, we see more regional subjugation during those "middle times" still latching on to that cultural justifying logic and thus unsurprisingly resulting in the eventual synthesis of the "divine right of kings" to justify the emergent fiefdoms of feudal social relations until war/conflict/climate (ie _material_ conditions) that emerge from those contradictions rupture that order to allow for the rise of the bourgeois rule - this false dichotomy between "science" and "religion" offering a central justification of their own positions at the commanding heights of society to this day obviously by obfuscating class power through a distinctly secular lexicon while still functioning to entrench/maintain/preserve class rule, the divine right of "the market".
No surprise then that we see liberal politicians today offering a similarly familiar lip-service to leftist principles while in their actual action/policy merely furthering the material interests of their ruling capitalist class patrons _necessarily at the expense_ of those principles, that being rooted in the material interests of their working class constituents. This iterative step towards class-conscious revolutionary action catalyzed by the Jesus movement lives on in "liberation theology", unsurprisingly only pervasive/embraced in regions subjected to imperialist domination like the so-called "global south" as this offers a directly experienced parallel/mirror to the times of Roman imperial subjugation with centuries of colonialism that extends to this very day - consolidated at this point into an overarching international financial system imposed by the US via the World Bank/IMF and covertly through blunt force military machinations such as Operation Condor (a direct evolution from its precursor Monroe Doctrine).
This also gives an explanation as to how/why the "west" has attempted to instrumentalize Islam into a contemporary Manichean threat opposed to our conveniently unstated "values", implicitly appealing to that notion of "science v. religion" in justifying wars in the "middle-east" (aka West Asia; "middle east" relative to the British imperial core, a small example of the cultural hegemonic power creating the categories we understand the world within) to this very day with the glorified settler-colonial military base known as Israel. An attempt to essentially replay the crusades. In other words, one might say god didn't die but rather faked his own death, got plastic surgery and a new identity to establish the useful illusion of progress over linear time as mentioned - that society has transcended the arbitrary subjugation of class rule justified in his name (which is actually Nietzsche's point also in spite of his declaration of god's death being assumed to be the literal and complete conclusion, but I clearly digress lol...).
_“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_ - some guy (Marx to not be pointlessly facetious lol)
well there was a definite drop in quality in the arts, technology as well as persistent epidemics and long periods of instability and wars that threatened the entire European (and not only) civilization, not to mention the drop in temperature, so it certainly wasn't the brightest of the periods in history
Great video!!!
Enjoying your videos/channel , really interesting stuff. Subscribed 👍
The need to believe that oneself as an individual is 'important' and preferably 'superior' has to do with the human style of competitive breeding strategies coupled with the need to avoid thinking about our own mortality (if we do we often become very upset, psychology calls that an 'existential crisis'). We also have to cooperate so that 'importance' and 'superiority' is also assigned to the group we belong to. These assumptions often jar with reality, hence the development of 'absurdist philosophy' (which is built on a foundation of stoicism, non of this is new but absudists have written better comedy songs IMHO). The sad thing is that, in order to support and maintain our rather necessary delusional paranoia we often harm others even though that contravenes the dictats of all the religious founders that I am aware of (but needs must when the devil drives, as they say).