Why Did We See The Industrial Revolution And Technological Revolution In The Last 150 Years?

On Christian contributions to science: (Wikipedia)
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[5] Galileo,[6] Kepler,[7] Newton[1] and Boyle.[8]
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[9] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[10] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[10] 62% in Medicine,[10] 54% in Economics[10] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[10]

It is only in the past century that scientists have been infamously outspoken atheists. To say Christians had little or nothing to do with science would fly in the face of reality.
 
On medicine:
Medicine was another great area of Christian innovation. Sickness was regarded as a condition ordained by Fate in the Hindu and Buddhist religions: the sick were not to be disturbed. The Muslims thought that a sick man was impure, and should not be touched. In primitive areas, witch doctors wore devil masks, shook rattles and danced. Sometimes they achieved cures with roots and herbs; sometimes (as today) they provided poisons to unhappy wives or to ambitious rivals. Death and life were alike to witch doctors.
Only in the Christian cultures, during the ages of faith, did dedicated individuals devote themselves to tending the sick. Hospitals are a Christian invention; they did not exist before Christianity Their very name is Christian in origin. The dedication of Christians to the sick laid the foundations of modern medicine, benefited everyone in the world and are seldom, if ever, mentioned in histories or schools.

Just because there were some backward thinking, outspoken, headline grabbing, uninformed Christian people throughout history, does not nor should not overshadow the remarkable advances free people, the development of Christianity, had on medicine and all other human endeavors.
 
On medicine:
Medicine was another great area of Christian innovation. Sickness was regarded as a condition ordained by Fate in the Hindu and Buddhist religions: the sick were not to be disturbed. The Muslims thought that a sick man was impure, and should not be touched. In primitive areas, witch doctors wore devil masks, shook rattles and danced. Sometimes they achieved cures with roots and herbs; sometimes (as today) they provided poisons to unhappy wives or to ambitious rivals. Death and life were alike to witch doctors.
Only in the Christian cultures, during the ages of faith, did dedicated individuals devote themselves to tending the sick. Hospitals are a Christian invention; they did not exist before Christianity Their very name is Christian in origin. The dedication of Christians to the sick laid the foundations of modern medicine, benefited everyone in the world and are seldom, if ever, mentioned in histories or schools.

Just because there were some backward thinking, outspoken, headline grabbing, uninformed Christian people throughout history, does not nor should not overshadow the remarkable advances free people, the development of Christianity, had on medicine and all other human endeavors.


Where do you get this stuff?

In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing.

Hence a hospital, before Christendom. The word came from latin around the 14th century, but the concept is far older than that word.

Specialised places for the treatment of the ill.

Most medicine used in the Middle Ages came from the Muslims during the crusades. Triage was one of their ideas that the Knights of Malta used to great effect.

I simply cannot see how you come up with this balderdash.
 
Where do you get this stuff?

In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing.

Hence a hospital, before Christendom. The word came from latin around the 14th century, but the concept is far older than that word.

Specialised places for the treatment of the ill.

Most medicine used in the Middle Ages came from the Muslims during the crusades. Triage was one of their ideas that the Knights of Malta used to great effect.

I simply cannot see how you come up with this balderdash.
Wikipedia- History of Hospitals
The declaration of Christianity as an accepted religion in the Roman Empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. Following First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun. Among the earliest were those built by the physician Saint Sampson in Constantinople and by Basil, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Turkey. Called the "Basilias", the latter resembled a city and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[12] There was a separate section for lepers.[13] Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[14]-James Edward McClellan and Harold Dorn, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p.99,101.
Not hard to find if you look for it.
 
And....from Britannica.com
It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from 331 ce when Roman emperor Constantine I (Constantine the Great), having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to the members of the community, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church.

It is not necessarily important who invented a concept. What is important is what have you done with this invention or innovation. Inventing the wheel was great and all, using it for a purpose is better, and inventing locomotives using that wheel "technology" creates something truly exceptional.
 
Amen.

Philippians 4:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

A great scripture indeed
 
Thank you Big Moose

May I add that I also enjoy your postings
Great Fiction, thank you also. Previously, you had made reference to "Lockean persuaded Christian". This sent me off to find out who Locke was. This lead me to run across Thomas Hobbes, who I found very interesting, in that, I found an almost kindred philosophy with him. I would like ask if you would kindly give any insights you may have on the similarities and differences Locke and Hobbes had.
 
Great Fiction, thank you also. Previously, you had made reference to "Lockean persuaded Christian". This sent me off to find out who Locke was. This lead me to run across Thomas Hobbes, who I found very interesting, in that, I found an almost kindred philosophy with him. I would like ask if you would kindly give any insights you may have on the similarities and differences Locke and Hobbes had.

Its my pleasure

John Locke and Thomas Hobbs both were contrasting contributers regarding natural law, and idealogical social contracts (Social Contract Theory). Hobbs preceded Locke in the seventeenth century and was a proponent of “State Sovereignty (Book - Leviathan),” whereas Locke a little later that century was a proponent of “Individual Sovereignty (Books - Two Treatises on Government).”

Hobbs did not believe that “Rights” should come from “Natural Law in the State of Nature” because people were too feeble to make good judgements, and believed that Government should be the mechanism to maintain, and grant “Rights” though civil law. Hobbs saw “Natural Law” in the “State of Nature” to be dangerous and should be avoided, as it was brutish, poor, solitary and short; in modern terminology it was likely to end in lawless-anarchy. Hobbs did however believe you had a right to survive within to confines of the “Sovereign State”, but did not have a right to rebel or revolt.

Locke believed “Natural Rights” should come from “Natural Law in the State of Nature” and believed that the premise for these “Natural Rights” were “Life, Liberty and Property.” Locke believed that the “State of Nature” was less dangerous and advocated that civil intervention was to “only protect individual sovereignty regarding Life, Liberty and Property.” Locke believed that the individual is an “owner of their own selves”. Locke also believed that if government was unethical to harm “Natural Rights” that society can revolt and overturn it.

The U.S. is one of the few if not the only nation that has a social contract (in its beginning) that was written in the Lockean tradition where the Bill of Rights and roles would “restrict” what government “shall not” have the power to do regarding the sovereign individual or the Union States. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Madison among other founders were heavily influenced by John Locke and Natural Rights Theory. Yet U.S. constitutional beginnings did have some compromises from the ethical position of Natural Rights Theory.

If you ponder constitutions around the world you will notice either a Hobbsean or Lockean influence. If “rights” are administered by the State then its likely to be “Hobbsean” in nature. If “rights” are protected by restrictions to the State, then its likely to be “Lockean” in nature. Restrictions of the State are far superior to benevolence from the State, as restriction moves sovereignty to the individual.

Since Natural Rights Theory is an “ethical” theory regarding “ life, liberty and property” especially the self-ownership of one's own body, its reasonable to consider that Locke was not only a social contract theorist, but he was also a ethicist; skilled in differentiating “ethical sovereignty.” Scripture was his premise for the theory, but today you also have secular Natural Rights Theorist such as Murray Rothbard that build the same fortified position from mans primordial birth.
 
On medicine:
The Muslims thought that a sick man was impure, and should not be touched.

I live in California. The Chevron oil company began here, and my grandfather worked in a Chevron at a research lab at an oil field. He tells a story about how Chevron became the first western oil company to drill in Saudi Arabia. It could be a myth, but it has the smell of truth.

Many oil companies, including Chevron, wanted to wildcat in Arabia, and they all had asked the Saudi Sheik for permission. It must have been before he decided to call himself king. The sheik had a sickly son, and he became aware that Chevron's exploration team had a doctor. The doctor cured the son. That gave Chevron an edge in the bidding.

As that example shows, even though Islamic medicine may have been in some ways deficient, individual Muslims have no problem with western medicine. Because of my mother's and grandmother's charity work, I have personal experience with that fact. Wealthy Arabic business men live here in palatial estates, so their families can use American medical care. Ordinary Arabs immigrate to the United States for the same reason.
 
Some fascinating quotes:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams


"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington
 
Resurrecting an old thread. :)
Upon reading some history of the Reformation, I realized that Protestants were the most significant group to pull up stakes and move to a new land to worship in freedom. Other groups in history were more interested in controlling the land they possessed and pushing their ideals on those around them. Protestants were, and in many cases still are, willing to leave all they knew and strike out on their own to live Biblically as they were guided. That is as Biblical as it gets. Leave the material things behind, trust God to provide in a New World. I think if it were feasible, Protestants would be preparing to leave Earth to venture to a new planet to make a new start. Political correctness and government overreach is causing the same attitude within the Christian Church to be willing to start over. We are seeing this in the world's elections. Trump in America and right wing candidates gaining significant support in European countries show this determination to scrap the system or overhaul the system because political leaders are blindly running towards the liberal progressive take overs of massive parts of countries, leaving what was good about the freedoms Christians implemented into our way of life, delineated from the Word of God.
 
Top