2021/01/08

Atheist Creation Myth

Dark Ages

Every religion provides its adherents with an origin story--an explanation for who the faithful are and how their creed came to be.

Nu-atheism is no exception. Some would argue that atheism isn't a religion but a lack of belief. Science and logic prove this claim false. Human beings are wired to worship. The only people who have no gods are nutcases who think they are God.

Listen to atheists spawned by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the like, and it soon becomes apparent that they worship their intellects and their egos. Like all faiths, theirs has a creation myth.

An integral part of the atheist creation narrative is belief in the Christian Dark Ages. During this benighted period, the story goes, Europeans lost the advances of Greece and Rome. Stifled by the Church, further technological advancement would have to wait for the Renaissance, which was mainly a warm up for the Enlightenment.

Most religions' origin stories are set during purposefully vague past epochs. When a time frame is given at all, it's in nebulous terms like, "a long time ago," or, "in the primordial chaos before time."

Nu-atheism is one of the few religions that sets a key part of its origin story during a concrete span of time. The "Dark Ages", in the original Medieval usage, referred to either the 13th or the 10th and 11th centuries, but Reformation and Enlightenment writers later expanded its duration from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance.

Conveniently, the concrete historical setting of this particular creation myth allows us to conclusively debunk it.

Any historians worth their salt have been disavowing the concept of the Dark Ages for years.

So have honest atheists, for that matter. Here's Tim O'Neill's review of Hannam, wherein he demolishes the internet atheist dogma that scientific advancement stalled in the Middle Ages.
It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.
If there were no Dark Ages, why is belief in the Dark Age myth so widespread? First, people need stories that reinforce their identities. A story that reaffirms who you are over and against someone else is especially powerful. Knowing you're not them is vital to knowing who you are.

For atheists who get their medieval history from Family Guy, an essential part of who they're not is the superstitious rubes that razed the ancient libraries and burned free thinkers at the stake. To them, it doesn't matter that that those rubes never existed.

Second, the black legend of the Dark Ages is another Christian own-goal. It was Protestants who took the ball from Petrarch, ran with it, and passed it down the field to Enlightenment secular humanists. Much like the campfire tales about the Crusades, propaganda spread by the Reformers as part of their own origin story came back to bite them.

This post isn't to knock all religious origin stories set during a concrete point in history. The existence and ministry of Jesus, for example, is better attested than the lives of Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.

For an increasingly accurate picture of how future history will unfold, read my military thriller Combat Frame XSeed:

Combat Frame XSeed - Brian Niemeier

10 comments:

  1. Brian

    A good booklet is Jean Gimpel's the industrial revolution of the Middel ages. It's available in English and is a succient summary.
    It helped me appreciate the middle ages

    xavier

    ReplyDelete
  2. I came expecting to see the infamous "The area under the curve is what religion cost us," graph, and now I must walk away disappointed.

    Also, maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought the original term "Dark Age" referred to the sixth through eighth centuries following the fall of Rome, and was called that because surprisingly little was written during said era, making it a 'dark' age in that you couldn't see anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The term "Dark Ages" was first used to describe the early Middle Ages by Petrarch, a huge Greco-Roman culture weeb, in the 1300s.

      Delete
    2. Malchus

      Henrik Pirenne posits a rather interesting theory. The Moslem invasion cut off the papyrus supply forcing scribes to use vellum.
      I find it interesting

      xavier

      Delete
  3. The first time I came across a fedora was in tenth grade. During a discussion in class, he revealed what he thought about existence and everyone stared at him like he was a loon. It was a public school. He was eventually kicked out for being an antisocial knob who went to totally organic protests out of town in order to riot. Nobody really noticed when he left because he had no friends and nobody liked him.

    I don't think anyone remembers him but me, and it painted the nu-explosion to come in stark colors. They are all like that bratty, vapid teenager. All they do is attempt to justify the juvenile beliefs they've clutched to since the first time they smoked weed in their mom's basement.

    It seems it's always been like this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reading Souldancer right now and found applicable quote for our times. After Astlin tries to suffocate Xander in a rash attempt at a so-called mercy killing:

    "Despair is a subtle vice,...It tempts us gently but sows no less evil than wrath."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, there is no cause to abandon hope. Christ has already triumphed.

      Delete
  5. I believe the author of this site is, himself, an atheist. He is also, however, fed up with the arrogant ignorance of many of his fellow atheists. It looks like a useful resource to me. The only article I've read in full is the one on the Library of Alexandria.

    History for Atheists

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The existence and ministry of Jesus, for example, is better attested than the lives of Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar."

    As someone who spent a lot of time among nu Atheist types during formative years, it always struck me as odd how offended they got when I questioned the existence of Socrates using the same skepticism they'd use to deny the historicity of Jesus. I mean, reading Plato makes Socrates feel like Plato's attempt to constantly refer to his amazing and super talented dad who you can't meet but could totally beat your dad up and by extension that makes Plato totally awesome and unassailable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No historical person or event predating the Modern era would survive the standard of evidence fedoras hold Christianity to.

      Delete