Why the west advanced faster

In sending the link, Chuckles wrote: “Answers on a postcard,” and he’s right. So were all the others who commented at Westhunt on why the west outstripped China five hundred years ago.

Not mentioned, for example, was the fallow farming system nor the Romans having been before – it was the combination of so many factors.

I commented below 74 comments at that point:

All the above are correct but don’t discount religions/belief systems, which influenced mindsets.

The way Christianity influenced men and women, even in something as apparently irrelevant as monogamy, [is that the system] had no issue with the financial and scientific advances. A close look at Islam in Persia shows advances despite, not as a result of Islam, which was antithetical to advancement not dedicated to Allah.

The Chinese mindset had a whole lot to do [the stalling of advancement], as people pointed out above.

That comes through in the junk sail, as someone mentioned, which ‘did the job’ quite uncannily but the Chinese developers, for some reason, did not wish to go further.

Compare that to the western mindset of wanting that half a percent more speed and so better and better aerofoils were designed. Computers and kevlar come into this, Dupont’s dacron is ubiquitous today in the world of sail.

And a look at Dupont shows they are one of the 13 satanic families who think they’re the rulers of the world.

There is also the philosophical measure of ‘advancement’. Who’s to say that for the human being, the agrarian Chinese way was not better? Look at the levels of stress and dislocation in society today, look at the inability of anyone, especially women, to be ‘satisfied’.

And to whom do people turn for relief – to Eastern philosophy and mental regimes, e.g. yoga, when a readymade system is there for the taking in Christian faith, which almost all reject, yet those driving the greatest advances of the C18th were openly godfearing men and women.

Penultimately, I’d like to mention two core tenets which almost always paralyse these sorts of discussions, such as the one Westhunt has initiated:

1. The tendency of people with pet ideas to both assert those ideas to the exclusion of other angles and also to flatly reject what were undoubtedly core influences, e.g. in tilling, husbandry and wine production.

Which causes this 80% 20% failure to tie all factors in, in their correct relationship. people will accept the first 80% of why something is but reject the last 20%.

2. And why do people do this? For ideological reasons, which determine their very mindsets.

One of the commenters mentioned the Marxist mindset, which is essentially the old atheism repackaged sociologically and concedes no due praise to a faith which allowed such seeking for advancement to go ahead, as well as tolerating the ideology itself. Libertarianism did not spring from Chinese nor Islamic society, it sprang from ours.

This also applies to the technical and general scientific mindset and how rejection of a key factor [one of many] for ideological reasons hamstrings any true discovery of why things work.

I have a word for those who reject what is staring them in the face – pig-ignorant.

Pig-ignorant ideology

Churchill hit it and that quote remains immortalized, the one about it being present from the French Revolution onwards. Dress it up in whatever livery you care to but an ideology which hinges on:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government

… is a pig-ignorant ideology. Add twisted and debased definitions of ‘fairness’, ‘equality’, ‘tolerance’ and you have a system for a downwards spiral into barbarism.

Ideological fanaticism, from the Established, pointy hat Church to Marxism to the death cult Islam, is antithetical to the well being and healthy advancement of society.  A system combining all elements, which encourages wide reading and discussion, nurtures advancement.

8 comments for “Why the west advanced faster

  1. mona
    March 11, 2017 at 8:13 pm

    I think we may have visited by aliens but observing humans may have fled the world in horror.

  2. Errol
    March 11, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    No issue with science or technology? Are you bonkers? Christianity held the west back for over 500 years. It was a control system. The absurdity of refusing evolution, of punishing scientists, of deliberately, intentionally preventing people from learning to read and write by monpolizing education?

    Science and reasoning began in ancient Greece, then migrated to Rome and really took off in the middle East – then the darkness of religious obesiance came about (because intelligent people cannot be controlled) and the Church – of either ilk – set about making eveyone miserable and impoverished – physically and mentally.

    In the West we advance because of geography, a need to communicate and share resources. We needed things so set about building devices to facilitate trade. With trade came exploration and science and the dark ages, those myth obsessed centuries of suffering and intellectual stagnantion caused *entirely* by religion ended and man threw off the chains of ignorance.

    We no longer have to struggle to exist because of great wealth because we have thrown away primitive superstitions. Those left in the dark are now spreading here, wanting that wealth because our society has reached a nadir of decadence.

    • March 11, 2017 at 10:36 pm

      No, you’ve been duped like most. There was no flourishing in the middle-east – that is a myth put out by anti-Christian rationalists. In fact, Islam severely constricted any flowering with the same view as today – if it ain’t Islamic, it must be destroyed. There were advances in Persia [posts passim] but in spite of, not because of.

      The Renaissance took place, not in the middle-east but in Christendom. It was under Christendom that learning flourished once more.

      • Voice of Reason
        March 12, 2017 at 4:52 am

        The Renaissance was about humanism, not Christianity. Many of the places favourable to scholars rejected much of the power of the church. Historical sources also suggest that the impetus was the floods of Greek scholars from the fallen Constantinople.

        • March 12, 2017 at 9:10 am

          You’ve missed the point too. Interesting that two genuinely intelligent guys in other ways could so easily miss the point on this one topic, a highly sensitised topic, no?

          The point is that humanism flourished within Christendom. That is – supposedly fascistic Christianity which supposedly held back progress was home to the flourishing of alternative ways.

          And there, in one, is the difference between tolerant Christianity – which by the very presence of humanism it was – and other genuinely intolerant systems.

          I ran a series of posts, which can’t squeeze into a little blog comment here, showing that there was no Muslim Golden Age at all. There was a Persian Golden Age and opulent buildings. Big deal – Mugabe, Zuma and Idi Amin had opulent buildings.

          Bottom line is that atheistic Marxists have been fed pap now for centuries. We’ve seen the fake news scandal worldwide explode now – well false history is a consequence of that too.

          All of us know of the crisis in universities right now. It was a joke for so long that the feminists were expurgating and rewriting the history books – that’s the tip of the iceberg and don’t forget I also was in universities, which I think VofR is too.

          Now, one of us says nope, never saw any of that. The other says there damn well was and gives examples over the years. It all comes down to willingness to see or three wise monkeys.

          Thank you, gentlemen.

  3. graham wood
    March 12, 2017 at 9:32 am

    James. I agree with your prognosis on the whole, and yes Errol has been duped. “Science and reasoning began in ancient Greece” Really? I wonder where the evidence for that is.

    You say, and I concur: “A system combining all elements, which encourages wide reading and discussion, nurtures advancement.”
    Indeed so, and this was the rationale to a great extent behind the rise of the early universities – to promote what science was then called – i.e. natural philosophy.
    The unique 12th century invention of the specifically Christian based universities in Western Europe particularly that of Paris, and later of Oxford spurred on intellectual and scientific enquiry and opened the way for what we now call modern science.

    For a fascinating exploration as to why and how science began and advanced so rapidly in the West do take a look at Rodney Stark’s ‘The Victory of Reason’, and ‘How the West Won’, in which he posits the familiar theme that science is but the handmaid of theology.
    Thus: ” “Those who took part in the great achievements of the 16th and 17th centuries saw themselves as pursuing the secrets of the creation. Newton, Kepler, and Galileo with others regarded the creation itself as a book, that was to be read and comprehended.”

    I think he is right too in noting that “the Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress, more fully revealing himself as humans gain the capacity to understand. Moreover (and to me this is the supremely important element) – “Because God is a rational being and the universe is his personal creation, it necessarily has a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting increased human comprehension. This was the key to many intellectual undertakings, among them the rise of science.”
    These pose further fascinating questions such as
    1. Where does the “fine tuning” of man’s life and existence on earth come from – i.e. everything seems to conjoin in suitability for his life to be sustained?
    2. Why does the universe contain so many established “laws” – i.e. gravity, movement of the planets and hosts of others?

    • March 12, 2017 at 11:43 am

      That’s exactly what I’d like to see a return to – universities cutting edge liberal arts plus STEM subjects, as they were in their heyday.

      Where such things are openly discussed, not suppressed.

      • Graham Wood
        March 12, 2017 at 11:57 am

        Agree James, but it cannot happen under the present oppressive anti-intellectual climate operating in the majority of our unis. I saw a report recently somewhere that 9 out of 10 unis in the UK are actively suppressing free speech in one way or another. What a depressing fact that is for students, and particularly Christian students.
        Something like 40 years of cultural Marxism teaching by lefty professors and tutors and an aggressive ideological anti Christian bias cannot be easily overturned in the immediate
        short term can it?
        I am genuinely sorry for our students in this situation in such a climate of intellectual repression – which I’m sure you share

Comments are closed.