I have watched this thing quite a few times now and I am struck how the discovery of the new world put Christianity into hyper drive.
It almost appears that Islam would have held dominance if not for missionary work in the Americas.
I would really like to see is a map chronicling the expansion of religions BEFORE the Abrahamic religions were introduced. Of course accurate data for that would be hard to come by.
(Source)
Islam's European expansion was halted early in the 8th Century by Charles Martel, Grandfather to Charlemagne. A second wave, led by Suleiman was rebuffed when his Siege of Vienna failed early in the 16th C. Ottoman Mediterranean Naval supremacy was lost later that century in the Battle of Lepanto.
ReplyDeleteThe history, in my view, is far more complex, and much more interesting than the animation, but it takes more time to assimilate.
I don't know of any charts similar to the above on pre-Monotheistic faiths, but the information is available. Ancient Egyptian, selected Mesoamerican, Incan and Minoan/Etruscan/Mycenaean/Greek/Roman (they were all quite similar) religions are reasonably well documented.
Be warned, you might not escape a rigorous study of history with all your sacred (or un-sacred) cows still in tow.
Dave Lewis... excellent analysis!
DeleteThe great thing about being an Atheist, no sacred cows.
DeleteAnd I checked that "rigorous study of history" off my checklist decades ago.
You must be a very quick study. I've been studying history for decades and my "need to read" list just keeps growing.
DeleteI could imagine a Nihilist claiming to have no sacred cows....not an Atheist. Most curious.
Dave, I agree with Gryphen. I am essentially an atheist and I fel I have no sacred cows.
Delete(I was an atheist until I realized that the argument against believers could be used against my thoughts, and that is that they can't prove god's existence. Now I am an agnostic, but only because I can't DIS-prove god, either.)
And just why can an atheist NOT be able to say he/she has no sacred cows? Just curious.
I suspect you're both getting hung up on the religious connotations of the word "sacred" and losing sight of its meaning- which includes "highly valued and important." All of Gryphen's time spent on this site is evidence that he cares deeply about issues as do your comments (actions I'm not rebuking but commending- I don't have much time for true nihilists).
DeleteI'll bet both of you consider the teaching of evolution in schools something of a sacred cow- do it, or else. On a corollary note, many readers of this site revere Richard Dawkins (although they would probably blanch at the statement).
To study religion is one thing. Even as an Atheist I try to look at religions from a historical point of view. As a student of history how can one not as most of humanity's wars against each other have had a religious bias at the heart of the conflict.
DeleteI no more care for vocal Atheists than I do for those vocal practitioners of religion. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Your spirituality is none of my business and neither mine is yours.
Evangelism is a very narcissistic pursuit and throughout time there have been cultures that have thrived without any help from the "Big Four" religions. Granted, in the absence of both religion and scientific knowledge man tends to engage in a "deistic" approach to explain that which he does not understand. However, in this day and age there is no real reason to engage in this deification of the world around us.
Granted, Dark Matter is still a mystery, however, I feel pretty certain that science will solve that one in time and it won't be the work of "the gods" but will be fully explained by technology not yet developed.
I don't want to seem apathetic, but really I am. I wasn't raised with religion and I simply don't care about it unless it impacts my life. Is "Areligious" a word, because that's what describes how my family and I live, we live without any religion and don't really give other people's beliefs a second thought unless they try to evangelize and proselytize and even then I'm never sure what to say except I'm and Atheist, but truly doesn't even describe my disconnect from religion in general. When you try to tell the faithful that you simply aren't "into" religion it means to them that they must try harder to "bring you over". That's the behaviour that I simply cannot tolerate.
"As a student of history how can one not as most of humanity's wars against each other have had a religious bias at the heart of the conflict."
DeleteYes, because clearly land and power politics had nothing to do with it as evidenced by the video above...
Christianity had 2 factors that beat Islam when it came to conquering South America - the first being that it was introduced early by Christian controlled empires with oceangoing capabilities i.e. Portugal, Spain etc. whereas Islam grew basically by expanding outward by way of continental conquests. They had seagoing capabilities within the Mediterranean and surrounding areas but not enough empire to manage expansion across the ocean.
ReplyDeleteThe other factor is that it is necessary to offer the conquered people a god that makes sense to them. To native pre-Columbian people human sacrifice made a lot of sense, so the idea of nailing a person to a cross until death as a sacrifice to a god went over rather well. There was no need for a Convert or Die policy as was implemented during the Crusades - it was readily accepted in the New World. In fact, it went over so well that they started nailing their own people to crosses - even children. The missionaries had to explain that that wasn't quite the idea.