We reserve our right to moderate as we see fit on the grounds that this blog is our property and we do not owe anyone a platform, however, we rarely exercise that right.

Great comment!
.-= My last blog-post ..Let it rain =-.

Me = navigationally challenged.

The ‘dark ages’ term refers not to the pre-enlightenment medi-eval period (1000-1400), but to the preceeding post-byazntium (read rome west) and pre medieval period (circa 600-1000 C.E.).

A precursory read of wikipedia would be anough to get a sense of this.

The term ‘dark’ is not an attribution to a lack of reason from which the ‘enlightenment’ so conveniently (albeit scemantically) was some kind of social climbing out of. In fact ‘dark’ refers to the apparent lack of historical (written) texts from the period that were made available to medi-eval historians who pondered the fall of Rome.

We now increasingly know that this period (600-1000) was in fact marked by the Golen age of Islam (who were theists, and reading the Greek classics), the rise of Charlemagne and later the Papal peace declarations (peace of God, truce of God, that would later help to unify Europe and force many of the voilent knights and princes out on the Crusades) among other things. In fact there is much more continuity in this history than common misconceptions owuld have us think.

Perhaps the biggest stumbilng block to European (christian) development during the ‘dark ages’ was not it’s lack of knowledge, but its lack of unity. Europe was split into many small warring factions after Rome, in spite of the fact that most of these factions were very romanised in their cultures. It wasn’t until the crusades that Europe began to unite, and instead of horading development, trade and knowlege they began to share again – fuelling the economic growth required for strong cities, trade and the luxury good that is higher learning.

As noted in this post, arguably the theological contention that God would require a universe of order is one of the underpinnings of the later enlightenment.

I'd ask where people get this junk, but I think it comes with an appetite that seeks it out.

If I were better educated and as mature, I could have written what you have done so very well.

Thanks and if you don't mind, I'll post a quote and reference on the the Dawkins God Delusion Amazon discussion forum in which I participate.

Ciao and thanks

Paul Boire
Toronto area

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/-/1/ref=cm_cd_t_h_dp_t?_encoding=UTF8&cdItems=25&asin=0618680004&store=books

Good question.

The reason I do is twofold.

First, is because these claims are not limited to PC they are fairly commonly made and believed. I have heard these claims so often I intended to write something general on this whole issue and had already been working on a post to do so. PC simply provided me with an opportunity to address it

Secondly, because unfortunately many people read PC and take what he said as true. The number of times I have heard PC cited on talkback radio recently suggests his readership is wide.

I have learnt that on the net (like in student newspapers) when you have a conversation often your audience is the silent third parties who read the exchange.