This whole thing is a straw man. I don't think I have ever heard an opponent of religion suggest that medieval Christians were stupid for believing in a flat Earth. It is also no news to anyone interested in the issues that belief in a flat earth is a myth (although the research on the perpetrators is new to me).
It's not a straw man because he's not creating a villain to argue against it. He's explaining the origins of a very common historical myth still taught in schools. Whether or not those origins were originally perpetrated using straw man arguments is irrelevant.
"incessant attacks on Christianity ... sneers at Christianity ... slandering Christians ... vitriolic sneers at Christianity ... strong antireligious prejudices"
Sheesh. His main point is a reasonable one, but this sort of righteous fury against the infidels is off-putting.
Good rule of effective rhetoric: make it seem you're being totally fair to the other guy. Then the neutrals might listen to you, rather than instantly pattern-matching you as an obvious partisan.
I am not a historian, but I've read a lot on history. My personal thesis is that, because of the social changes required for the transition from old economic systems (feudalism) into our current world, the old order had to be belittled.
In the old order, most people had a place in the world (the land, the guild, the church, etc.). In the new order, you worked 16 hour shifts just so you could eat and you had no guarantees. You need a big ideological blow to your head to not want to go back to the old order. Hence the medieval bashing.
Again, this is just a little thesis of mine. One day I'll find the time to read enough to give it some weight (or just disprove it).
'In the old order, most people had a place in the world (the land, the guild, the church, etc.). In the new order, you worked 16 hour shifts just so you could eat and you had no guarantees'
I think you are romancing the old order.
Most likely the same kind of people (being most people) worked (or struggled along) for '16 hours a day' (for example on land not owned by themselves). Just so they could eat and probably without guarantees.
6 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] threadSheesh. His main point is a reasonable one, but this sort of righteous fury against the infidels is off-putting.
Good rule of effective rhetoric: make it seem you're being totally fair to the other guy. Then the neutrals might listen to you, rather than instantly pattern-matching you as an obvious partisan.
I am not a historian, but I've read a lot on history. My personal thesis is that, because of the social changes required for the transition from old economic systems (feudalism) into our current world, the old order had to be belittled.
In the old order, most people had a place in the world (the land, the guild, the church, etc.). In the new order, you worked 16 hour shifts just so you could eat and you had no guarantees. You need a big ideological blow to your head to not want to go back to the old order. Hence the medieval bashing.
Again, this is just a little thesis of mine. One day I'll find the time to read enough to give it some weight (or just disprove it).
I think you are romancing the old order.
Most likely the same kind of people (being most people) worked (or struggled along) for '16 hours a day' (for example on land not owned by themselves). Just so they could eat and probably without guarantees.