No Telescope, No Microscope

[Thief]

I struggle to understand why people of this time period, continue to believe in stories that originated in eras that did not have telescopes or microscopes. The most prominent world religions all started over ~1,500+ years ago, with many doubling that. Think about that for a minute...

They did not have telescopes, and as a result many believed that the earth was the center of the cosmos. The sun and stars revolved around the earth, and creation was centered on earth. They did not understand what a star consisted of, how far away they were, or how big the cosmos actually was. They had no idea about the speed of light, black holes, dark matter, or what happens to a star once it goes super nova.

Because of various mythologies, heaven was thought to be "up" and hell (hades, etc.) was thought to be "down." They did not have the capabilities of flight, especially space flight, and had no way of knowing what was beyond the earth. Heck, they could not even soar through the clouds like we can today.

Nor did they have microscopes. They did not have the level of scientific knowledge that we have today, especially medical science. There are many passages in the Christian Bible that talk about various "demonic possessions," but the truth is that those possessions were illnesses or diseases, and those ancient people simply did not understand them (like epilepsy). They had no idea what bacteria or viruses were, or how they were spread.

So how is it that modern humans place their faith on the writings of such primitive, uneducated people?

it was not about science.
it's about God.

which can't be placed in a petri dish.

 

[Thief]

I asked myself that question every day, and to myself think how stupid we are to believe in such crap.

seen the evening news lately?
we are soooooooo educated nowadays!

 

[dust1n]

I appear to have been slightly mistaken. Telescopes in the sense of a tube with glass lenses don't appear before 1500(that we know of anyway, though Galileo was convinced some ancient civilizations had them and it was proposed in 1200 by Roger Bacon). I was mistaking observatories with telescopes proper. No hard proof, but I agree generally with Galileo. The ability to make them was there in many cases, and we've got pottery showing people looking through long tubes at things. Again, mostly circumstantial.

Lens have been around a while in various complexities. I believe what makes a telescope is a lens at the end the is curved one direction, and a second lens near the eye that is curved at another. One magnifies and the other clarifies.

 

[Nietzsche]

Lens have been around a while in various complexities. I believe what makes a telescope is a lens at the end the is curved one direction, and a second lens near the eye that is curved at another. One magnifies and the other clarifies.

Which is something that has been known in the West at least since the time of Ptolemy.

 

[dust1n]

Which is something that has been known in the West at least since the time of Ptolemy.

Unfortunately, there is no surviving recording in which Ptolemy describes how a telescope works, although it does appear he may be the earliest known or recorded instance of describing refraction of light, and the means by which the eyes see it. Still pretty impressive beyond reason though. Who knew looking at pretty rock would be so elucidating.

 

[1AOA1]

did not have telescopes or microscopes.

Neither our wineries and our jet skis.

The most prominent world religions all started over ~1,500+ years ago, with many doubling that.

Pre-fall.

 

[Nietzsche]

Pre-fall.

...pre-fall?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You right. Aryans in their original homeland in sub-arctic regions longed for sun and welcomed their long dawns which lasted for up to two months. They waited the waters to thaw (Saraswati, Apah) and return of grass, so that their cattle may graze again. Their new year started on the day of vernal equinox and with the coming of spring. RigVeda is full of such prayers.

 

[Quintessence]

I struggle to understand why people of this time period, continue to believe in stories that originated in eras that did not have telescopes or microscopes.

This is probably because you do not understand the purpose of mythology. You seem to be treating it as if it was our ancestor's equivalent of a science textbook, and that's it. This is (and was) simply not the case. Mythology is, first and foremost, meaningful storytelling that aims to convey a culture's norms and values. It is not about "believing in" the mythos as if it's some literal fact. Not unless we want to use an extremely superficial approach to mythology (which, granted, some people do). It's the lessons the mythos teaches, the values it supports, the relationships it illuminates, the ways of life it conveys... that's what matters. And we need no technologies to weave meaningfulness into our lives with story - with mythology. All technologies do is change the sorts of stories we tell.

So how is it that modern humans place their faith on the writings of such primitive, uneducated people?

This right here is an example of mythology that conveys certain norms and values. You tell yourself the story that other people honoring old lore is somehow about "faith" (when it need not be) or that our ancestors are "primitive" (a fairly judgmental term there) and that they were "uneducated" (also fairly judgmental and unfair). This says something about your personal values, something about the stories you like to tell. It says much less about the people who you are judging.

 

[outhouse]

Mythology is, first and foremost, meaningful storytelling

If you could get theist to understand this PROPER context, we could move forward leaps and bounds.

The first thing that comes to their minds is fiction, and denial. No matter how solid evidence is or is not.

 

[FearGod]

I struggle to understand why people of this time period, continue to believe in stories that originated in eras that did not have telescopes or microscopes. The most prominent world religions all started over ~1,500+ years ago, with many doubling that. Think about that for a minute...

They did not have telescopes, and as a result many believed that the earth was the center of the cosmos. The sun and stars revolved around the earth, and creation was centered on earth. They did not understand what a star consisted of, how far away they were, or how big the cosmos actually was. They had no idea about the speed of light, black holes, dark matter, or what happens to a star once it goes super nova.

Because of various mythologies, heaven was thought to be "up" and hell (hades, etc.) was thought to be "down." They did not have the capabilities of flight, especially space flight, and had no way of knowing what was beyond the earth. Heck, they could not even soar through the clouds like we can today.

Nor did they have microscopes. They did not have the level of scientific knowledge that we have today, especially medical science. There are many passages in the Christian Bible that talk about various "demonic possessions," but the truth is that those possessions were illnesses or diseases, and those ancient people simply did not understand them (like epilepsy). They had no idea what bacteria or viruses were, or how they were spread.

So how is it that modern humans place their faith on the writings of such primitive, uneducated people?

Why there were Bacterias and viruses?
Were these harmful organisms on earth by accidents and coincidences or by a plan ?

 

[Quintessence]

If you could get theist to understand this PROPER context, we could move forward leaps and bounds.

The first thing that comes to their minds is fiction, and denial. No matter how solid evidence is or is not.

Er... a lot of us do understand this, actually. But since the slice of literalists have loud, obnoxious voices, plus generate controversy that is great ad-bait and a money maker, all the rest of us get ignored. Oh well.

 

[outhouse]

Er... a lot of us do understand this, actually. But since the slice of literalists have loud, obnoxious voices, plus generate controversy that is great ad-bait and a money maker, all the rest of us get ignored. Oh well.

Sadly, it is the minority.

 

[Quintessence]

Sadly, it is the minority.

I'm not aware of any global or regional surveys demonstrating this to be the case. And frankly, even if it is the case, that doesn't excuse the pejorative broad-brush attitude.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I struggle to understand why people of this time period, continue to believe in stories that originated in eras that did not have telescopes or microscopes. The most prominent world religions all started over ~1,500+ years ago, with many doubling that. Think about that for a minute...

They did not have telescopes, and as a result many believed that the earth was the center of the cosmos. The sun and stars revolved around the earth, and creation was centered on earth. They did not understand what a star consisted of, how far away they were, or how big the cosmos actually was. They had no idea about the speed of light, black holes, dark matter, or what happens to a star once it goes super nova.

Because of various mythologies, heaven was thought to be "up" and hell (hades, etc.) was thought to be "down." They did not have the capabilities of flight, especially space flight, and had no way of knowing what was beyond the earth. Heck, they could not even soar through the clouds like we can today.

Nor did they have microscopes. They did not have the level of scientific knowledge that we have today, especially medical science. There are many passages in the Christian Bible that talk about various "demonic possessions," but the truth is that those possessions were illnesses or diseases, and those ancient people simply did not understand them (like epilepsy). They had no idea what bacteria or viruses were, or how they were spread.

So how is it that modern humans place their faith on the writings of such primitive, uneducated people?

It was telescopes and microscopes that helped debunk previous core atheist beliefs;

It validated that the Universe did in fact begin in creation event, not a static/steady state as atheists had preferred.

Microscopes helped debunk the 'immutable' classical physics that supposedly left no room for deeper mysterious unpredictable forces guiding physical reality and the universe

They have also helped support the idea that the universe was created primarily for the benefit of humanity, by exposing the 'great silence' of the galaxy

The Bible compared the number of stars to the number of grains of sand, which was once considered a gross exaggeration until we learned they are remarkably close.

just to name a few

Astronomy was what first inspired me to challenge my own atheist beliefs

 

[outhouse]

, that doesn't excuse the pejorative broad-brush attitude.

Actually in context it does.

Atheist do not have this problem, theist factually do have this problem. If you already understand this, then it really does not apply to you does it?

I did not claim all theist so I did not specify.

CONTEXT was that we could move forward leaps and bounds if theist understood, do you have an argument against this?

 

[outhouse]

, not a static/steady state as atheists had preferred.

Rhetoric.

There was no secular science that dictated anything from this time period . The world was ran by mythology then.

Supply sources are please stop the rhetoric.

 

[dust1n]

It was telescopes and microscopes that helped debunk previous core atheist beliefs;

You mean like the Earth was created before the Sun as described in the first three verses of the Bible?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You mean like the Earth was created before the Sun as described in the first three verses of the Bible?

"In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". The heavens would include stars like the sun

 

[1AOA1]

...pre-fall?

Before materialism took root, mankind walked with God.

Er... a lot of us do understand this, actually. But since the slice of literalists have loud, obnoxious voices, plus generate controversy that is great ad-bait and a money maker, all the rest of us get ignored. Oh well.

If you say something like a literal God is symbol or myth for something physical, you can expect resistance. In cases like Jesus's parables, for example, the physical seed or tree was used as a symbol for the spiritual kingdom of heaven.