Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Byzantines never abolished slavery. However acting as though these kinds of culture shifts are integral to some inevitable development of the human condition is again a simple view of history. The Romans lived in a time and place when Slavery was perfectly acceptable and there was an economic incentive that made it worthwhile (lots of money to live the high life, and the nature of Roman agriculture).

 LordofHats wrote:
The Romans lived in a time and place when Slavery was perfectly acceptable and there was an economic incentive that made it worthwhile (lots of money to live the high life, and the nature of Roman agriculture).

Again, there is no difference here between Ancient Rome and the United States, and we were able to abolish slavery.

I don't think there's a predetermined path to equal rights...but you seem to be implying that Roman civilization was inherently incapable of abolishing slavery, which I don't agree with.

 LordofHats wrote:
snip.

Surely though, any execution of an academic, especially one who was so far ahead of his time as Bruno, shows that religion has had a serious detrimental effect upon western civilisation? Whilst the dark ages may not have been as scientifically suffocating as popular culture would suggest, there was a serious penalty for advocating theories outside of what the Church saw as acceptable.

Also, I can see why the Church would take issue with Bruno, after all he proposed a "theory of the peaceful coexistence of all religions based upon mutual understanding and the freedom of reciprocal discussion."

 dæl wrote:


Surely though, any execution of an academic, especially one who was so far ahead of his time as Bruno, shows that religion has had a serious detrimental effect upon western civilisation?

Was it detrimental that Catholic Monks in Italy salvaged countless artistic treasures whenever a Roman city was on the verge of being sacked? Was it detrimental that the Church is solely responsible for the survival of Music throughout most of the Middle Ages as well as being for many centuries the most important patron for artists and musicians in Europe? Was it detrimental that the only men capable of reading and writing for a long time received their education from friars, abbots, and priests?

Like everything else. Bad stuff happened. Good stuff happened. The Church is like any government. They commit terrible deeds and accomplished amazing achievements.

there was a serious penalty for advocating theories outside of what the Church saw as acceptable.

Generally unless you came into conflict with Church doctrine (as Galileo did) they generally didn't care. Note that in my narration of Galileo's life, he and others, spent years arguing in favor of the Copernican model and the Church never acted even among many claims of Heresy. It wasn't until Galileo wrote a letter using theological arguments to advance the model that the Church acted against it. Copernicus published his book in 1543. It circulated for decades and was well known up to the point of the Galileo Affair.

What many people miss in this era, is that the scientists themselves were Christians. Galileo didn't mean to fall on the Church's bad side. Not just to protect himself but because he was himself devout. Copernicus held a doctorate in Canon Law. The scientific and religious spheres overlapped greatly in terms of who was involved. Many religious officials were scientists and many scientists quite religious.

 mondo80 wrote:

The money spent to build churches, indeed the money NOT collected by tax-exempt religions and churches ($17 Billion/year) is a drop in the bucket. Paltry. Nothing.

The money spent by the government on war each year is mind blowing.

 LordofHats wrote:
What many people miss in this era, is that the scientists themselves were Christians. Galileo didn't mean to fall on the Church's bad side. Not just to protect himself but because he was himself devout. Copernicus held a doctorate in Canon Law. The scientific and religious spheres overlapped greatly in terms of who was involved. Many religious officials were scientists and many scientists quite religious.

There's really no way to know whether individual scientists during this time period were sincerely religious, or just pragmatic and pretended to be so to avoid punishment.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I think the general idea is that if the influence of Greco-Roman civilization had not taken such a brutal blow, we would have likely had cars, electricity, modern plumbing, etc. well before the year 1000, and in general, most of the technoligical and scientific advances we have made would have come much earlier.

Nah. We would have had slavery. Rome was a predatory state not known in actuality for scientific advancement, especially once it went "empire" in a big way. Greece was, but guess who controlled Greece?

Labor saving devices, which is what the Industrial Revolution was, would not have taken off there as they had slaves to do the work. Its why it didn't take off there in the first place as they had the technology.

Think China before the great awakening. They did not advance in many industries because they had massive surplus labor.

Hmmm, I see what you are saying....but do you know for certain that Roman civilization would not eventually have abolished slavery? Roman civilization was fundamentally incapable of going through its own "enlightenment"? The US was built on slavery and territorial predation, but we were able to finally abolish slavery.

And we went through our bloddiest war to do it. Rome's entire economy was based on slavery. Think the entire Empire as the Old South.
Sure, maybe but odds are low. More likely is self implosion (as occurred) sometime.

Self-implosion I think is an over-simplification. There also were significant external forces that led to the collapse of Western Roman civilization.

In any case, I don't mean to sound like I think the abolishment of slavery would have been probable in our hyopthetical Rome, just that it wasn't imposible.

 jasper76 wrote:

Hmmm, I see what you are saying....but do you know for certain that Roman civilization would not eventually have abolished slavery? Roman civilization was fundamentally incapable of going through its own "enlightenment"? The US was built on slavery and territorial predation, but we were able to finally abolish slavery.

Honestly, I don't think so, and that's due to the general manner in which the Romans collected slaves.

See, the Romans didn't repeatedly go to a particular part of the world and "mine" the people as a resource. They went beyond their borders, and conquered people. The prisoners from that conquest were brought in to market and sold, and within a generation or two, those children could/would usually end up free. Similar happens when an area already part of the empire revolts, those people lose their citizenship and are put into slavery. Their version of slavery wasn't something built on racism or some strange belief that a certain skin color means that those "things" are only good for certain tasks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Self-implosion I think is an over-simplification. There also were significant external forces that led to the collapse of Western Roman civilization.

Certainly, the fall of Rome has many important factors involved with it. But it's sheer size definitely did nothing to help.

 jasper76 wrote:
Again, there is no difference here between Ancient Rome and the United States, and we were able to abolish slavery.

There is a great deal of difference. Even without the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, slavery likely would have ended. Industrialization renders it an ineffective model of labor. Even before the Civil War there were already signs it was on the way out. And ironically for this conversation, Britain abolished slavery in 1834 thanks in no small part to a man named William Wilberforce, an extremely devout evangelical Christian who saw slavery as an affront to his faith in a time where many Americans used their faith to promote it.

Slavery began in the American colonies because the need for labor. Britain wanted their colonies to be profitable but didn't have the people to work the fields. They started with indentured servants. They'd pay someone's way over the Atlantic and they'd work off the debt then be free. This created a major hobo problem. Why employ someone when you can have the British government and business' pay someone to come over from jolly old England and have them work for free? The colonies were ending up with a major unemployment problem.

Chattel slavery, the ownership of a person, began as a means to fix this. If someone is never free, well you don't have to worry about an angry mob of unemployed men attacking your estate or finding new indentured servants to replace the old ones. Economic and social need drove the rise of American slavery, and politics and culture eventually brought it to an end.

Roman civilization was inherently incapable of abolishing slavery, which I don't agree with.

Why would they? Everyone had slaves back then. It was central to their economy and agricultural models and to their ability to control the empire. They had no reason to at any point in their history. Rome didn't exist in a time when slavery was going to be abolished, making the question "would Rome have abolished slavery' a question without an answer and a question without a purpose.

 LordofHats wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Surely though, any execution of an academic, especially one who was so far ahead of his time as Bruno, shows that religion has had a serious detrimental effect upon western civilisation?

Was it detrimental that Catholic Monks in Italy salvaged countless artistic treasures whenever a Roman city was on the verge of being sacked? Was it detrimental that the Church is solely responsible for the survival of Music throughout most of the Middle Ages as well as being for many centuries the most important patron for artists and musicians in Europe? Was it detrimental that the only men capable of reading and writing for a long time received their education from friars, abbots, and priests?

All of which were of great benefit to civilisation, the question really is whether there was a net benefit from religion.

The scientific and religious spheres overlapped greatly in terms of who was involved. Many religious officials were scientists and many scientists quite religious.

Was that necessarily a good thing?
One thing I am curious about is why religious institutions seemed to have a monopoly on education for so long?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
See, the Romans didn't repeatedly go to a particular part of the world and "mine" the people as a resource. They went beyond their borders, and conquered people

Discarding the issue of race and length of servitude, so did the United States slave industry, and its agents. I mean, I doubt that many people volunteered to enter the US slave market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Roman civilization was inherently incapable of abolishing slavery, which I don't agree with.

Why would they? Everyone had slaves back then.

I'm assuming you don't mean this literally.

 jasper76 wrote:


There's really no way to know whether individual scientists during this time period were sincerely religious, or just pragmatic and pretended to be so to avoid punishment.

Why? We have no reason to believe people were secretly not-religious and only pretended to be to avoid death and ample amounts of memoirs, private correspondence, and books in which men and women espouse their faith and its virtues. If that were true, surely a man as brilliant as Bruno would have known better than to publicly denounce Christianity.

This is argument from ignorance (the fallacy, not saying you're ignorant). If for any given scientist (which is most) we have no evidence of the later but plenty to support the former we have no reason to believe the individual was anything but religious.

 LordofHats wrote:
Why would they? Everyone had slaves back then. It was central to their economy and agricultural models and to their ability to control the empire. They had no reason to at any point in their history. Rome didn't exist in a time when slavery was going to be abolished, making the question "would Rome have abolished slavery' a question without an answer and a question without a purpose.

It's a purposeful question, because it was suggested that the Romans would never have made significant scientific advances on the basis of slavery...but it is possible that they could have abandoned slavery/ Not probable, mind you, but possible.

Roman civilization was inherently incapable of abolishing slavery, which I don't agree with.

Why would they? Everyone had slaves back then.

I'm assuming you don't mean this literally.

I might be wrong on this, but I seem to remember reading that Roman slaves would often have slaves of their own.

Good thread, and good respinces in general. There has been a small amount of trolling from the usual suspects, but nothing serious.
This is a good example of where Dakka works well, a very controversial topic discussed freely and open mindedly by most, you couldnt have this in most places.

i would like to think that the ground work of many threads over the years by more patient and empathy members of the religious and athieist community on Dakka has led to this. Well done all round.
Those who continually predict trollbait, in before lock or thread destruction on these topics, please stop or contribute rationally. Dakka can overcome the low intellectual level benchmarked on most of the internet.

So where is my take.

I dont really need to post for most to understand where I stand on whether religion is a good or bad thing. Much of what I would want to say has been said already.

i would like to highlight this
It says so much under its fair cloak, and shows how far some will go:

 mondo80 wrote:

Why single out the religious buildings, why not the barracks, or the munitions factories, or the banking infrastructure. Or maybe the gambling halls.
And why do those who wish to attack institutions always compare to how much health care or education could be bought witb the money, as if that was what redirected money naturally goes to.
Its a one sided ideal, linked to a policy of cultural annihilation.
as a rule of thumb when someone wants to utterly eradicate part of society, and promise nice benefits from it, they tend to be up to no good.

The message is also a direct an undisguised attack on mental freedom.
Those who want to proactively abolish religion are walking openly into a Stalinist future, and brazenly calling it an enlightenment.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


There's really no way to know whether individual scientists during this time period were sincerely religious, or just pragmatic and pretended to be so to avoid punishment.

Why? We have no reason to believe people were secretly not-religious and only pretended to be to avoid death and ample amounts of memoirs, private correspondence, and books in which men and women espouse their faith and its virtues. If that were true, surely a man as brilliant as Bruno would have known better than to publicly denounce Christianity.

This is argument from ignorance (the fallacy, not saying you're ignorant). If for any given scientist (which is most) we have no evidence of the later but plenty to support the former we have no reason to believe the individual was anything but religious.

Actually, itys not a logical phallacy, because I am not making a truth claim. I'm just saying we are ignorant of what anyone in history truly, tryuly believed. And since people present themselves falsely today to get out of trouble, it stands to reason that our ancestors might have, as well.

 jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The Romans lived in a time and place when Slavery was perfectly acceptable and there was an economic incentive that made it worthwhile (lots of money to live the high life, and the nature of Roman agriculture).

Again, there is no difference here between Ancient Rome and the United States, and we were able to abolish slavery.

I don't think there's a predetermined path to equal rights...but you seem to be implying that Roman civilization was inherently incapable of abolishing slavery, which I don't agree with.

That argument is laughably wrong on its face.
*Roman economy was based entirely on slavery and stealing the wealth of other nations. If a giant wall was put around the empire (which defacto occurred between the Germans and the Parthians/Sassanids) without
*Rome was a squabbling dictatorship.
*Rome had no federal system.
*After Caligula and Nero, citizens had no effective rights.

 dæl wrote:

One thing I am curious about is why religious institutions seemed to have a monopoly on education for so long?

Because it takes money. Even kings and queens in the early middle ages were quite poor (hence Feudalism, where they drew their wealth from the wealth of lower nobles). The Church, a body that because of the faith of the masses was able to acrew vast sums of money with little effort, had the ability to fund education. Nobles in Europe largely saw little value in being able to read. Why did they need it anyway?

The church on the other hand, basing itself on a document, had a vested interest in ensuring people were able to read. Go forward in time and this set up simply continues because it's what it was. People learned to read and right in religious institutions and because they had little issue with those institutions at the time, it simply continued. The scientific revolution began to change this but after Bruno and Galileo's lifetimes.

I'm assuming you don't mean this literally.

I mean everyone as in the civilizations of the time. The Greeks had slaves. Carthage. Persia. Slavery was a common institution in their world. It was normal.

I might be wrong on this, but I seem to remember reading that Roman slaves would often have slaves of their own.

The Romans practiced both indentured servitude and chattle slavery. In the US we tend to view slavery in binary terms. You're either free, or you're not. In ancient Rome there were varying degrees of freedom and of course varying degrees of enslavement.

It's a purposeful question, because it was suggested that the Romans would never have made significant scientific advances on the basis of slavery...but it is possible that they could have abandoned slavery/ Not probable, mind you, but possible.

Frazzled's argument was that the Roman's never made significant advancements because their able supply of labor made things simple for them. He's right. Advancement is driven by the need to solve a problem. The Roman's ample supply of slave labor, means that when confronted with many kinds of problems they could solve it by simply throwing people at it. As such they never had the need to be inventive in many fields. The fields they did innovate, warfare, law, political organization, can all be traced as Roman problem solved its way through the centuries.

Actually, itys not a logical phallacy, because I am not making a truth claim. I'm just saying we are ignorant of what anyone in history truly, tryuly believed. And since people present themselves falsely today to get out of trouble, it stands to reason that our ancestors might have, as well.

It is a fallacy. You cannot make a claim absent evidence. I can provide evidence that someone was a religious person. Baring evidence they were faking, the claim that "we can't really really know" is a fallacy based on ignorance. I can't really really know you're not a figment of my imagination or a hyper intelligent koala who has learned to read. All we can know is what we can derive from what evidence is present. Absent evidence that I'm crazy (that kind of crazy anyway) and that koalas have learned to read, I have no reason to believe you to be anything other than a guy in a chair in front of a monitor.

It is. Without religion Western civilisation would not have existed in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The Romans lived in a time and place when Slavery was perfectly acceptable and there was an economic incentive that made it worthwhile (lots of money to live the high life, and the nature of Roman agriculture).

Again, there is no difference here between Ancient Rome and the United States, and we were able to abolish slavery.

I don't think there's a predetermined path to equal rights...but you seem to be implying that Roman civilization was inherently incapable of abolishing slavery, which I don't agree with.

That argument is laughably wrong on its face.
*Roman economy was based entirely on slavery and stealing the wealth of other nations. If a giant wall was put around the empire (which defacto occurred between the Germans and the Parthians/Sassanids) without
*Rome was a squabbling dictatorship.
*Rome had no federal system.
*After Caligula and Nero, citizens had no effective rights.

Laughably wrong? Are you implying that the US did not go through a period of time where slavery was perfectly acceptable, and there was an economic incentive to make it worthwhile?

The stuff you're saying about dictatorship is after the fact. And the first part of the first new thing you added "Roman economy was based entirely on slavery and stealing the wealth of other nations" is still true of the US if you change one word: ""US economy was based significantly on slavery and stealing the wealth of other nations"

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Also why is a futile question in that we cannot get any valid answers. And even the existence of a valid answer is quite dubious anyway.

You don't understand religious people as your perspective is too narrow. With those questions, there is no definite answer, and that's not what people are looking for. People are looking for accomodation and for an answer to those questions they can understand and that they acknowledge.

In science, there (mostly) is a definite answer. Sometimes, there isn't a need for "the" answer.

 LordofHats wrote:

Actually, itys not a logical phallacy, because I am not making a truth claim. I'm just saying we are ignorant of what anyone in history truly, tryuly believed. And since people present themselves falsely today to get out of trouble, it stands to reason that our ancestors might have, as well.

It is a fallacy. You cannot make a claim absent evidence. I can provide evidence that someone was a religious person. Baring evidence they were faking, the claim that "we can't really really know" is a fallacy based on ignorance. I can't really really know you're not a figment of my imagination or a hyper intelligent koala who has learned to read. All we can know is what we can derive from what evidence is present. Absent evidence that I'm crazy (that kind of crazy anyway) and that koalas have learned to read, I have no reason to believe you to be anything other than a guy in a chair in front of a monitor.

I still respectfully maintain that its not a fallacy. There is ample evidence that in modern times, people regularly lie to avoid punishment. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine that people did the same in eras gone by, since it's well-observed human behavoir.

By you saying that you can provide evidence that someone was a religious person, and your evidence is based on lets say writings, pointing out that writings are not completely reliable because they could have been false to avoid punishment is not an "argument from ignorance", which is an assertion that a given propsiotion is true because it has not been proven false, or that a proposition is flase because it has not been proven true. I am not proposing that no scientists were indeed religious. The only proposition I am making is that people's writings are not 100% reliable indicators of truth.

For example, I have never jaywalked in my entire life.

nkelsch wrote:
And while private charities may be all the rage... that is based on the assumption that people are naturally charitable without skygrandpa looking down on them while stroking his white beard. The sad truth is while you supposedly *COULD* have private charities which rely on non-religious donations... they simply don't materialize.

One of the two biggest French charities is Secours populaire français, which is totally secular. The other one is Secours catholique, which, you guess it, is catholic .
Now, of course it does not work in the U.S.A., that is because atheist is almost an insult there apparently.

nkelsch wrote:
A world where the government seizes your money for charitable/personal use to spend to build schools to indoctrinate your kids and that assumes you trust the government to do what is best with your money?

No thank you.

Yeah. Never trust the government. I mean, if it does bad thing, your only recourse is to vote for another one, and we all know they are all just as bad. You'd rather trust private company/organization. I mean, here you have full control, because if they do bad stuff, you can just go to their competitors…
Oh, wait!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is. Without religion Western civilisation would not have existed in the first place.

If by “not existed” you mean “would have been different”, then yeah, that is kind of obvious. If you mean something else, I have no idea what that could possibly be.

 Sigvatr wrote:
With those questions, there is no definite answer, and that's not what people are looking for.

Uh? I have read the Quran, I am pretty sure it was presenting very definite facts. About burning for eternity and stuff. I am pretty sure it is the same in the Bible, with even more non-sensical stories and rule added. As far as I know, most religious people do not say “I think there may be a God, I am not sure though”. It seems to the vast majority of them, God is a pretty definite answer.

 Sigvatr wrote:
People are looking for accomodation and for an answer to those questions they can understand and that they acknowledge.

Rather than for any kind of actual truth. Yep.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In science, there (mostly) is a definite answer.

In science, the goal is to get the best possible model. It is pretty easy to see how a good model can be pretty useful (technology!), and how a model can be rated as good or not (accurately predict the result of experiments, and is as tractable as possible).
Specific goals, specific ways to attain those goals, and the end result is that those goals are attained. Religion, on the other hand…

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Just saying...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
One of the two biggest French charities is Secours populaire français, which is totally secular. The other one is Secours catholique, which, you guess it, is catholic .
Now, of course it does not work in the U.S.A., that is because atheist is almost an insult there apparently.

Also, worldwide, you get the Red Cross (not religious unlike what some silly (for lack of a stronger expletive) Muslims who just love to complain and draw attention to themselves pretend). They are kind of a big deal. Actually I could not name any religious charity that would be nearly as big.

Some of the biggest charities in the US are secular as well:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2013/11/25/the-largest-u-s-charities-for-2013/

But it could be argued that the charity might not accurately the religion of the people donating to it. So even secular charities might receive money from religious people, and atheists might donate to religion-associated charities as well.

Then there are donations given directly to the individual's house of worship, I don't know how those fit in the picture.

I think religious can do the greater good, but is often used to justify great evil.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
And while private charities may be all the rage... that is based on the assumption that people are naturally charitable without skygrandpa looking down on them while stroking his white beard. The sad truth is while you supposedly *COULD* have private charities which rely on non-religious donations... they simply don't materialize.

One of the two biggest French charities is Secours populaire français, which is totally secular. The other one is Secours catholique, which, you guess it, is catholic .
Now, of course it does not work in the U.S.A., that is because atheist is almost an insult there apparently.

This explains a lot about you. I can assure you that you are quite definitely wrong, unless by "the U.S.A." you mean select areas of certain southern states.

 Sigvatr wrote:
With those questions, there is no definite answer, and that's not what people are looking for.

Uh? I have read the Quran, I am pretty sure it was presenting very definite facts. About burning for eternity and stuff. I am pretty sure it is the same in the Bible, with even more non-sensical stories and rule added. As far as I know, most religious people do not say “I think there may be a God, I am not sure though”. It seems to the vast majority of them, God is a pretty definite answer.

Ever heard of a metaphor? Don't take the Bible (or Quran, I think, but as I have never read it, I'll defer to you for that) too seriously; early Christian scholars certainly didn't.

 Sigvatr wrote:
People are looking for accomodation and for an answer to those questions they can understand and that they acknowledge.

Rather than for any kind of actual truth. Yep.

By "actual truth", I assume you mean empirical truth?

 Sigvatr wrote:
In science, there (mostly) is a definite answer.

In science, the goal is to get the best possible model. It is pretty easy to see how a good model can be pretty useful (technology!), and how a model can be rated as good or not (accurately predict the result of experiments, and is as tractable as possible).
Specific goals, specific ways to attain those goals, and the end result is that those goals are attained. Religion, on the other hand…

Except... science can't answer every question to which there is an empirical answer.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:


The church, despite a belief that it is violent, tends to cause the softening of a country. This can be seen in the Roman Empire where the country went very well and started to crumble only when christianity became widespread.

To blame the fall of the Roman Empire solely on christianity is quite a bit naive, to say the least. And anyhow, we see later, in the 900s-1300s or so, that Christianity can be and is, just as "hard" as any other military force previously seen.

Not according to Edward Gibbon, who wrote the like 3500 page work on the decline of the Empire to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

Rome had always gone through foreign invasions and internal crises. Invasions such as the sack of Rome by Brennus, the wars with Pyrhhus, the Punic Wars, the Teutones and Cimbri invasions, the Third Servile War - the Romans survived all of these. They also managed to survive the Civil War that resulted from Sulla's siege of Rome and the subsequent wars when the Triumvirates fell apart. The crisis following Nero's death was also pretty significant. The only difference was the intensity of the invasions of the 2nd to 6th century. However, by the end of Trajan's reign, the empire was in a stronger position that it had been before. One cannot assign the blame of the fall on the lack of external conquests either - as Gibbon states, there were only a few exceptions to the general peace of the Empire when the state would expand. These were events such as the conquest of Britain and Trajan's conquest of Dacia and Parthia. It's perhaps important to note that these events did not drain Rome's coffers to the same extent as Justinian's did, and therefore the collapse is perhaps not due to an overextended empire, at least not immediately.

So the fall probably had a cultural reason. What difference was there between the Roman who had experienced the crises of the 1st Century BC and the Roman who had lived in the 5th Century, when the Western Roman Empire finally fell? The later Roman was a lot more decadent, for a start. In the 1st Century BC there were still almost Greek civic virtues. One apparently could see General Marius lifting stones in the Campus Martius. By the end of the first century AD, however, decadence had already set in, and perhaps it was the introduction of Christianity as the state religion that finally settled this. You see that from the introduction of Christianity to the end of the Western Empire the esprit de corps of the Roman military declines and barbarians, many pagan or following a different sect of Christianity, become more prominent in the military of the Roman empire. The Roman people no longer care - in the pursuit of living a peaceful life, they abandon their militaristic culture and follow a softer path. By having many barbarians, the coffers of the empire would be drained as well. Having barbarians could prove to be a bad thing, too - just look at the fate of the Visigoths.

The Romans were famed for their religious liberties. This is evident in the profusion of Celtic-Roman temples in Britain and the worship of Mithras amongst other gods in mystery cults. This indicates that the emperors ruled over a disparate population who had a variety of beliefs and cultures. To manage the provinces, the emperors would have Proconsuls or Quaestors (I think it was these guys) who governed the provinces. With the introduction of Christianity, power would have been decentralised and it would no longer have been in the power of the Emperor and the governors but also in the hands of Catholic bishops. The bishops did have a lot of power to agitate the crowds - look at the burning of the Library of Alexandria, for example. This would cause fractures in the Imperial system because it's no longer as strong as it used to be.

So one could argue that Christianity was a major factor in the collapse of the empire - fewer Romans were interested in serving upon the introduction of the religion and the power of priests meant that there was less centralisation in what had been a fairly centralised system. True, there were other causes, such as the barbarian invasions, the division of the empire etc, but Christianity must play a major role in the fall of the empire.

To anyone who says that the Romans could have abolished slavery: one must remember that the state was heavily dependent on slaves to function. Hence the outbreak of the Third Servile War.

And regarding scientific and technological advancement, the Romans were impressive. They preserved the Greek achievements, for example, and doctors such as Galen, though Greek in origin, prospered in the Imperial court. One must not forget the incredible engineering feats that were lost after the barbarian conquest of Western Europe.

Regarding religion as "truth", it's probably a bit idiotic to simply assume that upon forming societies, humans will automatically understand the scientific method and get to finding out scientific facts. People probably have more pressing concerns such as feeding themselves and building families to ensure their society survives. Religion is a way to try and reach the truth. Pagan religions would assign divine reasons for lightning and storms (which may not necessarily be false - who says that there's only one truth?) and with these reasons would create truths about what happens after death and how to live a perfect life - something science probably would never answer.

I don't know where I was going with this post. Sorry. To answer the question, it's probably difficult to divorce religion from the western culture. Our values come from religion. For example, we look at polygamy with disgust - we think it's exploitative. In many other societies, polygamy is perfectly fine. Part of that attitude must come from Christianity. Therefore, regardless of what you think about religion, you can't separate our culture from our Christian heritage, no matter how many churches you burn.