Cultural change and resources

In my last blog we have dumped the stupidity of failing to understand why cultural changes take place.  We now know that in the world according to Jack (me, although most people call me John I like 'the world according to Jack' better) changes are caused by the group perception of a problem or the group perception of an attainable desire.

But problems are solved differently, why is that?  People, or beings, perceive things differently and apply different solutions.

Supposedly, some millions of years ago, two groups of nearly similar primates handled the same problem differently.  One group handled cold weather by running south and another group handled cold weather by killing something and wearing its skin.  The group that ran south turned into gorillas and chimpanzees and the group that killed stuff became us.

This is a simplification and a paraphrasing of what may have happened, but, correct in the essential ideology behind the concept of evolution.

So what was the difference between these two groups?  Why didn't they solve the problem the same way?

Resources.

The first probable resource would be some charismatic leaders.  One convinced their people to run when it began getting cold.  The other convinced people to stay.

The second probable resource was a psychotic nutcase (in our current slang) who came up with the idea of killing something and wearing its skin.  If my previous assumptions are in the right ball park those killed were probably members of the same group.  So what probably happened is some psycho killed a member of their family, or the member was killed in some way, and the psycho used a rock to skin that person and wear their skin.

Yeah, our species "evolved" from that.  Maybe, remember that I'm a Christian so I think God placed us here on Earth some time ago (no particular time frame go shove that stupidity) and the worst among us came up with wearing people's skins for as a solution to their particular form of a problem, not for survival.

In any case the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and well worth spending time on.  I couldn't be a physical anthropologist because I have a problem thinking of one being killing another and wearing its skin as anything except kind of sick.  And yes, I own leather and I even have a military hood with a wolf fur trim around the hood.  Hypocritical I know.  There is a big difference between picking something out at an Army surplus store and killing something, hacking off its skin and wearing it.

Back to resources.  In my opinion the members of the species that ran south were probably the more intelligent and more physically active of the two groups.  Yet, we as a species, probably evolved from the second group that procrastinated and used the resource of dead things and their skin.

Lots of circumstantial evidence for that idea around.  As a species we are constantly talking about labor saving devices and improving productivity using the resources we have available.

The group that ran south evolved in a different way because once they were in a warmer climate they didn't have a problem that required cutting off somethings skin and wearing it.  Truthfully, the group that evolved into gorillas probably never even considered that as an option and they still don't.

That is the point.  A being has to recognize a problem, have resources available and come up with a solution that applies the usage of particular resources to a particular problem.

So the world ends, zombies crawl out of the wood work and millions starve to death because they can't eat foods that are past their expiration date.  Essentially they will starve to death because the societal or cultural taboo on eating foods past their expiration date is stronger than that individuals will to survive.

The ancestors of gorillas probably never conceived of wearing a dead somethings skin which is why they evolved into a fairly peaceful species of hunter gatherers which lives in harmony with the environment that our species spends its time destroying.

Our ancestors, on the other hand, found the idea of wearing a dead somethings skin preferable to being cold which is why we evolved into something that spends most of its time destroying other things and the rest of its time whining about it.

Different groups solve problems differently because they have different resources.  These resources include different ideas from different individuals within the group and the group acceptance of these ideas.

Did some gorilla ancestor some millions of years ago decide for some reason to wear some dead thing's skin?  I think they probably did and I think the group probably found the idea so abhorrent that, as a group, they took the unheard of action in beating that individual to death.  The ancestors of gorillas probably did not think any problem could be solved by wearing some dead thing's skin.

The group that eventually evolved into gorillas rejected the concept of wearing some dead thing's skin.

We have seen similar things in our history.  Aristotle (again with geocentric versus heliocentric!  shut up already, we get it!) comes up with the idea of a geocentric universe and the idea that the great Aristotle could be wrong is so abhorrent that not only do we kill people who disagree we blame the whole adoption of the idea of killing people who disagree with the great Aristotle on a religion that wasn't even organized until about 600 hundred years after his death.

In fact, hardly anyone tells anyone how stupid Aristotle must have been to believe in a geocentric universe.  People are still telling each other how great Aristotle was and hardly anyone ever talks about Aristarchus.

 The group perceived a problem or believed that understanding the motion of the universe was an attainable desire.  The group had access to a charismatic and intelligent person as a resource.  The group used that resource to create a solution to their perceived problem/desire.

Was the solution correct?  I think everyone agrees that the geocentric model is incorrect from anything other than a relativistic viewpoint.  Yet the solution was accepted by the group and defended against challengers.

Problem/desire >>>resources >>> Solution >>>> Group satisfaction (sans Mick Jagger) and stability

Notice that the solution does not have to be "correct" it only has to satisfy the desire/problem that the group perceives.

If the solution is not satisfactory to everyone the group may split or even kill each other to determine who is "correct" in their evaluation of the solution.

All this anthropology stuff is pretty simple from a high level overview and it really amazes me that this Theory of Jack, as I call it, wasn't adopted hundreds of years ago.

The tough stuff in every discipline is not the high level overview though.  The tough stuff is in the details.  I can explain how to use a vertical knee mill to someone in minutes.  It takes years to develop the skills to work on complex pieces.  I imagine the tough stuff in Cultural Anthropology is in the field work, ethnography, etc.

I'm better with theory although I am pretty good in the technical application of theory I kind of suck in the humanistic application of theory.

I therefore imagine that while I find high level, broad stroke technical theories easy to review and develop most anthropologists are more comfortable with focusing on the humanistic details which is why the Theory of Jack, the problem/desire>resources>solution>satisfaction theory, has not been applied.

And yeah, I call it the Theory of Jack as humorist twist on the idea, "you don't know Jack" which could be applied to both the student and the teacher.

Amazingly we all find ourselves in both of those roles throughout our lives because sometimes our problems are solved or our desires are satisfied by being the student.  Other times those problems and desires are solved by being the teacher.

Anthropology and Common Sense

Recently I decided to go back to school and get a degree in Anthropology. There are a lot of historical and anthropological theories that don't make a lot of sense.

For example, what motivates cultural change? The most basic answer is Problems. Desire is also a motivator, although within groups the group typically reacts to problems rather than goals. In my experience it takes a very charismatic leader to motivate a group to achieve a goal. Motivating a group to avoid a common problem is much easier. This is why politicians engage in attack politics; it is easier to group people together if they share the perception of a common problem.

Why didn't the stone age people of the Americas invent the wheel? The reality is that they probably did create wooden rollers that were much more difficult to build and use than skid technology so the rollers were abandoned except in very specific circumstances. For the most part a man or dog dragging a travois was easier to build and use than a wheel. In rough or soft ground wheels become stuck easily which is why tracks are common on construction equipment. The wheel was more of a problem for the people of the Americas than skid technology which never becomes stuck in the mud.

Problems must be solved. In a group the majority of the group must perceive a problem in order to create a group solution. Desires can be satisfied. In a group the majority of the group must share a desire and believe it can be attained to satisfy a desire.

Groups act or create customs, laws and rituals in order to solve what the group perceives as a problem or to satisfy what the group perceives as an attainable desire.

This is essentially the theory of evolution, the members of a species that respond “best” to a problem live and those that respond “badly” to a problem die. The weather begins to turn cold so either those who run south fastest live or those who can control their environment, fire, shelter, clothes, live.

This is basic common sense stuff, but, open up a text book on Cultural Anthropology and read a bunch of different theories on the development of culture that make almost no sense. It boggles the mind.

Different cultures develop differently because of different conditions. These conditions can be anything from climate to charismatic leaders. Aristotle proposed the idea of the geocentric universe and was so charismatic that almost two thousand years later people were torturing and killing those that disagreed with Aristotle's theories.

Aristotle solved what some people believed was a problem. That solution became so important to so many that they were willing to kill to support it. I think that is pretty crazy, but, it still happens today. People adopt ideologies from charismatic leaders and those people are willing to kill others to maintain that ideology over all other ideologies.

In these cases the problem is ideological as opposed to physical. Who cares if the sun goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun as long as crops grow, children are born healthy and people can enjoy the warmth of the sun?

In reality the sun going around the earth or the earth going around the sun is relative to the observers position. Einstein proved this issue of relativity. Yet rather than accept the relativistic viewpoint people will kill each other over what they perceive to be the “truth”. We could accept that our position on Earth makes the motion of the sun relative to us OR we can insist that motion is relative to some arbitrary point calculated as “galactic center” (per Doctor Who) or the center of the universe.

This relativity is only a problem if we perceive it as one, and it seems we do. As cultures we fight, torture and kill each other over acceptance of these relative viewpoints. Could anything people do be more ridiculous?

Cultures react to the perception of common problems or the attainability of common desires.

Before Aristotle began teaching his geocentric view of the universe, and even after, did it really matter in the distribution and utilization of cultural resources? Does it matter today if we take a relativistic viewpoint from our location or a different arbitrary location? If people in a group don't perceive this “truth” as either a problem or an attainable desire the idea becomes irrelevant.

Anthropologists Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran believe that humans have a predisposition for religion. I think that is actually horsecrap. I think humans have a predisposition to seek out answers to questions or solutions to problems or solutions to desires. Religion often provides these solutions, as does science.

The question of whether these solutions are delusional or not I will leave to another time, although I will state categorically that I do not believe faith based solutions are delusional. I did say I would leave the question until later, not that I would leave the answer to that question until later. The illiterate will assume that both statements have the same meaning and yet they are very different. The literate among readers will also notice that I wrote “solutions are delusional” and not “religious solutions are delusional”.

So why Anthropology? Because there is so much horsecrap that has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with academics blathering about, beating their chests and patting themselves on the back. In fact, it is a lot like every group based scientific endeavor I have ever been involved with.

“Just a sec John, you just pointed out the ridiculousness of killing over an idea that, relativistically, is true from both perspectives. Why not just accept that other things can be relativistically true from alternate perspectives?”

Excellent question oh wise and literate reader. Because we learn through disagreement and discussion. Devolving a disagreement into torture, murder, war, etc is ridiculous. Sure, all of us get emotional about a subject and will become angry and offended when people disagree with us. We will call each other names and tell others the person or people who disagrees with us is/are delusional.

In working on advanced manufacturing science projects I found it easier to work with and advance when I worked with people to whom English was a second language. These people focused more on content, the message rather than the messenger or the wrappings of the message.

I think we need to focus on basics. The message rather than the envelope and paper, metaphorically speaking.

In my opinion the development of culture is easy to track. Just look at the peoples perception of problems and attainable desires; everything comes together.

Addendum:  Re-reading this it occurs to me that some people won't understand the relationship between cultural change occurring as a response to a perceived problem, the hard wired predisposition to seek solutions and killing people over a relativistic issue like geocentric versus heliocentric universe.  I will bet that skipped right over some people's heads.  It has to do with how egotistical people are about a solution.  Aristotle solved the "problem" by "proving" the geocentric universe theory.  When people like Aristarchus presented the heliocentric theory guys like Archimedes called Aristarchus an idiot (paraphrased).  Some people in some cultures place so much importance on their solutions they are willing to torture and murder to protect their solution.
 The issue of a specific relativistic center is an example of the perception of a problem and the acceptance of a specific solution and how those issues are of primary significance in cultural change.
The way a culture or cultural group handles the perception of a problem and/or desire and the perception of a/the solution defines the group.

Evolution and Stupidity

The concept of “evolution”, that species adapt to changes in order to survive requires that changes occur slowly over a very long time. The more simplistic an organism is the more quickly it can adapt to changes. The more complex an organism is the longer the time it will take to adapt.

Sharks do not adapt. Apparently they are the perfect species remaining essentially unchanged for millions of years.

Personally, I find that unlikely, however, it does create the potential for an interesting concept.

If we assume that biological or physical change, what we call evolution, is driven by a need to adapt to changing conditions then we can assume that the minimal changes which Sharks have undergone are a response to minimal changes in the conditions to which sharks respond to.

Sharks have not changed because the environment in which they live has not changed.

If this is true we can also assume that the physical adaptability of humans to their environment would also minimize the potential for biological change or “evolution”.

Personally I think the term “evolution” is kind of dumb. The term implies the subjective ideology of “improvement” to a species. If biological evolution of humans is an accurate theory then it is possible for a species to change in a way I would subjectively consider negative, or “devolve”. But, whatever.

Biological and physical anthropology make the assumption that primates evolved along varying paths in response to changes.

I wonder. Lets speculate. Thousands of years ago in a region where primates lived it became cold. Some primates ran, migrating to escape the cold. Some killed animals or other primates and wore their skins to stay warm improving their chances for survival as they migrated. Possible? Sure. An improvement? That would be a subjective interpretation of the possibilities.

In engineering we only do one thing. Solve problems. People buy solutions. No problem, no solution, no product, no sales.

Boredom is a problem. Entertainment is a solution.

Freezing is a problem. Clothing, fire and shelter are solutions.

A typical deer is more than a match for an unarmed primate. Larger animals with heavier, warmer skins require team work to hunt. Team work requires communications skills.

Did cold weather challenge some primates in a different way? Did some primates just keep migrating away from cold while others developed the skills to hunt, build fires and communicate so they could live in colder climates?

Gorillas typically do not build huts even though they seek shelter. Obviously by seeking shelter from the rain they indicate that they perceive rain as a problem and shelter as a solution. Gorillas have apparently decided that the available shelter is an adequate solution to their problem.

Different members of the same species have a different attitude toward the same or similar problems.

In fact, as societies we defer to people or groups who have very rigid demands. Alpha males typically either beat or charm those about them into submission and deference. As societies we then defer to the Alpha or leaders attitude toward a problem. How does that attitude toward a problem encourage biological or physical change? Do people become more “charismatic”? Do people become more likely to be followers instead of innovators?

Is there any evidence at all that people have become more or less aggressive in the last few thousand years? Is there any evidence that modern humans are “more evolved” than say, ancient Egyptians?

I don't believe so. Why not? Did humans become so physically adaptable that “evolutionary” change became minimal? Why didn't we stop at Neanderthal? Why didn't we stop at Cro-Magnon?

What problems could there have been that encouraged biological or physical solutions in primates?

For me there are way too many unanswered questions. I am a Christian and I can adopt a faith based position. As a scientist it is much more difficult for me to jump on a band wagon. Sure, “evolution” or biological adaptation to a change in conditions sounds reasonable. BUT what conditions cause a primate to become driven to kill for selfish, even narcissistic, reasons? What conditions cause a primate to become unsatisfied with sitting under a tree to get out of the rain?

More likely the drive to kill and seek alternate shelter was driven by a “devolution”, an inability to survive. Gorillas might seek alternate shelter if they believed they would die otherwise. A gorilla like primate may kill a deer, not from hunger, because it desires the skin of the deer as protection from the elements. A group of gorilla like primates may develop rudimentary communications skills so they can hunt and kill larger animals.

Did humans “evolve” because they were weaker than other other primates? Because they devolved from a previously successful primate that existed easily without seeking complex shelters or killing?

This is counter intuitive to Darwin's “the strong survive” ideology. Strength is a subjective term, and opinion. It requires a comparative analysis or a unit of measurement to be objective.

In my opinion then the concept of evolution is subjective, not objective.

I look at a picture of a gorilla sitting under a tree in the rain and I look at a picture of people building a sky scrapper and I ask myself, “have we “evolved” or did the gorilla “evolve?” Which species takes advantage of harmony with its environment?

Which species has adapted successfully?  Which is stronger?

The Virgin Birth

Sounds wild? A child born of a virgin. Happens pretty regularly these days. It is a less common occurrence throughout history.

Is it a “miracle”? You could say that anything, even when there is a valid, natural and reasonable explanation, is a miracle. Or you could say nothing is a miracle.

I believe in miracles. (lets leave the “since you came along" and the rest out of this :-)

There is a movement among Christians to save embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. Women can volunteer to carry an embryo and then raise the child as their own. Some of these women are virgins.  Virgin births.

Back in the 1980's I read a book, and excuse me if I forget what book, that discussed a case from the 1800's. A young girl became pregnant and was examined by a doctor. Her hymen was intact. This caused quite a stir. A virgin birth! The doctor and the girls parents were not quite up to believing that their daughter, who had been caught in (for the 1800s) compromising situations with a couple of different boys, had been selected by God to be the virgin mother for the second coming of Christ. They pretty much hammered her until she explained what happened.

She and a boy were going to have sex and before he could actually get it inside of her he came. The boy's semen was all over her vagina. Apparently some of the semen worked it's way into her and fertilized an egg. This was a pretty amazing thing to the doctor, but, beliveable since the girls hymen was intact. The girl's father grabbed the nearest shotgun and that was that. By the time the baby was born the girl was married and was no longer a virgin.

There are recorded instances of a girl's hymen ending up being pushed aside rather than broken so that she becomes a “swinging door virgin”. See “everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask”. Truthfully it would never have occurred to me to ask if a girl could become a :swinging door virgin”, but, I didn't title the book. That might be the book where I read about the virgin pregnancy, but, I don't think so. Virgin pregnancies may have been discussed in “everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask” also though.

So virgin pregnancies can occur under the right conditions and if the father doesn't have a shotgun handy, or a spear or whatever, a virgin birth can occur.

Is that a miracle?

I think so.

There are legends about the Virgin Mary being raped by a Roman soldier. In some of the legends the soldier is identified. Archaeologists and theologians have gone so far as to track down this soldiers grave. Supposedly Joseph refused to accept that a rape by a pagan heathen had defiled his betrothed. I don't buy that, but, some do and it is possible. It is also possible that the Roman soldier didn't actually penetrate Mary so it was decided she hadn't been raped.

If that had happened and Mary had gotten pregnant, been inspected by a couple of the women in Nazareth and found to be a virgin it would have caused some consternation. In that case I suspect Joseph and Mary's family would have accepted the birth as a miracle.

I have not yet met a woman who had any kind of relationship with her mother and didn't want her mother around when she gave birth and brought the kid home. Mary took off to Bethlehem. Kind of wacked, but, Bethlehem was a pretty important city to the family of Judah. When Judah and Israel split most of Judah stayed in Jerusalem. Bethlehem became one of the cities people went to so they could sacrifice. It was a pretty important city.

When it was discovered that Mary was pregnant and a virgin it may be that Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to discuss the issue with a particular Rabbi and that this was during a census. Mary then gave birth the night they arrived, maybe early, and kind of screwed up discussing a virgin pregnancy with a Rabbi.

Sound reasonable?

So the whole story can be explained in natural, reasonable terms.

Does that mean it wasn't a miracle?

This is an explanation of people. It is based on common understanding of the times and traditions. It lacks something though.

The Holy Ghost.

In order to understand scripture we could study the scripture as I have done, we could study the culture of the time as I have done, we could review translations as I have done and we can develop reasonable, natural theories as I have done.

There is no faith in any of that.

Faith is accepting and believing something without reason or evidence.

Sure, I can talk reasonably about what might have happened to explain a virgin birth. I choose instead to accept the Bible as truth and I seek my understanding through the Holy Ghost. I do not seek an understanding through logic, reason, inference, implication or the teaching of people. I read the Bible, I pray and I place my faith in God. If God has a reason for me to understand something a particular way God uses the Holy Ghost to help me.

My suggestion for you. Ignore people. God's ways are not the ways of people. Pray and accept guidance from the Holy Ghost, even if that guidance conflicts with what people think God's ways should be.

The best example I can think of in this is abortion.

God is pro-choice. God created choice. People say abortion is murder. What does the Bible tells us? That when men strive and cause a woman to lose her fruit the punishment is decided by the judges. Exactly what happened in the United States, the judges of the Supreme Court decided the punishment for abortion is zilch.

What about a Rabbinical interpretation? There are actually Rabbinical courts that can decide things like this, but, there is something that is very telling.

One of the things the great Rabbis of Judaism have done is compile a list of the Mosaic laws given by God to Moses. This is called the Mizvot and there are 615 of them (613 some say, look it up on the web). The law against abortion in Exodus 21:22 is not on that list.

Why not? You could ask a Rabbi. I'll just point out that God gave Moses instructions on abortion, Moses gave those instructions to the people in the book of Exodus and the Rabbis did not choose to see that instruction as a commandment against abortion by God.

Yeah, a lot of Christians will tell you that the Bible does not address abortion.

So how can we understand this quagmire? Prayer and the Holy Ghost.

The Dark Ages Myth

The idea of the Dark Ages is a myth.

After the fall of Rome Europe turned into a group of non co-operative feudal monarchies that spent most of their time arguing with each other.  This is actually a pretty typical result when an empire falls.  It doesn't matter if you call them warlord or monarchs or sheiks or maharajah, when a strong, large empire falls every leader worth a crap starts up his own empire.  If one of them is outstanding then that one kicks butt on the others and a new empire is created.  Until a strong leader shows up and brings everyone in line, the way Genghis Khan did, the leadership in charge fight among themselves.

Rome falls, taking quite a long time to disintegrate.

After Rome falls a bunch of monarchies pop up all over Europe and all these leaders decide that the Pope is in charge because they are used to having someone in Rome be in charge so they never argue with the Church in Rome and let the Pope walk all over them for around 900 years until the superior European mind breaks through the limitations imposed by the Church and takes a sudden technological jump into the renaissance.

(deliberate run on sentence because it is so stupid a statement it does not deserve correct grammar)

So not happening.  What crap!

The Chinese are just as smart as the Europeans, how come a big technological jump didn't occur there?  They didn't have a really evil church imposing limitations.

The Indians (from India) are just as smart as the Europeans, how come a big technological jump didn't occur there?  They didn't have a really evil church imposing limitations.

The (insert favorite non-European ethnic group here) are just as smart as the Europeans, how come a big technological jump didn't occur there?  They didn't have a really evil church imposing limitations.

Okay so Europeans are not any smarter than anyone else, how could the technological advance that is called the renaissance occur in Europe?

My opinion is that any time an organization evolves with the ability to work with many different disparate political groups and collects some of the smartest people within a small geographic area that organization will eventually come up with some really great ideas no matter how evil or good they are.

One of the differences between the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, like Islam and Judaism, is that the Catholic Church  was collecting all the smart people into one area.  Collected into Italy where the renaissance just happened to start.

So by now some closed minded person is tying a hangman's knot while reading and is preparing to run out and drum up a figurative lynching party if not a literal lynching party.

I ain't a shock jock, or a troll, and IF people think I am than I am happy to be a shock jock or troll because Galileo and Martin Luther were also shock jock trolls stirring up trouble for no particular reason, well, the search for the truth but who cares about that reason.

Certainly not the people thinking of censoring or lynching people who challenge the ideas of others, like the idiots  tying lynch knots as they read.

Now maybe I am wrong, maybe when you collect a bunch of really smart people into a particular area for a long time it won't inspire technological or academic advancement.  No, that is a ridiculous statement.  I'm right, tough shit.

The people who challenged Galileo were supporters of the Aristotelian view of the Universe.  Not a Christian view because Aristotle was not a Christian.

Aristotle had defined the academically correct view of the universe at the time.  Back then, just as in current times, when you challenge your academic advisers your academic advisers begin sharpening up their knives for the death of one thousand cuts.  The same figurative death Galileo was subjected to.  This might sound weird, but, before it was considered wrong to hit students teachers hit students all the time. 

In fact it has only been recently that some locations have ceased corporal punishment for challenging a teacher.  When I was a kid teachers often had paddles and that was the 1960's.  Imagine what people who challenged teachers were subjected to in the 1500's.  Thumb screws, the rack, all in a good day educating students not to tell their teachers they were full of shit!

In my experience there are teachers who would love to go back to torturing students who challenge stupid, bigoted ideas like the "Dark Ages".   Ooooh, the evil church kept the superior European intellect from blossoming.  Of course Asia had a civilization far advanced of anything in Europe a thousand years before Rome. If I was going to bet on any ethnic group having a technological revolution like the renaissance it would be China, not Europe.

Now what was going on in Europe that wasn't happening in China?  Spaghetti maybe?  Nope, Chinese invention.

Hmmmm, what could have impacted the culture in Europe such that Europe advanced faster than China?  What major cultural influence occurred?

How about a central political and intellectual organization interacting with all of the governments in Europe and attracting the intellectuals and academically oriented MEN from all of those governments?  Yeah, guys can do some smart stuff if you get enough smart guys together and give them enough time.  Hundreds of years in this case.  Maybe if women had been allowed an education Europe could have jumped from mud huts to space travel.

You know what is  really hilarious?  The Catholic Church of the middle ages is actually indicative of the result when academic intellectuals are allowed to govern anything.

Of course for academics to admit this would take a miracle roughly the size of half the multiverse.  Yes, half of the infinite is still infinite.  The infinite sub set of the infinite set.

As a result of the lack of this miracle; intellectual academic egoists actually refuse to admit that the Church was the primary intellectual academic institution in Europe for the 900 years that it was supposedly preventing technological and academic advancement.

See, for these egoists, not elitists they are egoists, to admit that the Church actually primed the renaissance would be tantamount to admitting that they were egoists and not the elite.

So here we are, 500 years of denial.  My suggestion, GET OVER IT!  The church primed the renaissance.  The church was the group of academic, intellectual egoism until the intellectuals advanced beyond it.

It is kind of kewl that intellectuals advanced beyond requiring a political authority and eventually rejected it.  It is also kind of stupid that the Church receives the blame for Europeans advancing so much faster in technological innovation than the rest of the world.

After all, the superior Europeans would have jumped right from mud huts to space travel if it hadn't been for the church.  Now that is really stupid.

How about, Europeans would have progressed faster than any other culture in the world if it hadn't been for those evil time traveling priests who kept the Europeans in mud huts while the Egyptians and Chinese were developing much more technologically advanced civilizations.  Nope, that is really stupid too.

I ain't buying into no "Dark Ages" bullshit.

Empires in Rome, Egypt, China and even Greece kept education for the rich in their societies.  They all behaved about the same, except for the church.  The church went beyond political lines to collect and educate the smartest of the poor as well as the rich.

Yeah, like any political entity it killed, tortured, murdered, waged war, blamed others for their own mistakes and, in my opinion, still does not seem to embody the attitude of Christ.  Regardless of the authenticity of the religious convictions of the church or the extent of the evil which the church committed I still believe it is a no brainer that the technological advancement in Europe over other cultures is primarily due to the church.

Not that the church meant to, the act of bringing a bunch of really smart people together for a really long time probably also built the foundation for the political fall of the church.

Now that is my conclusion.  So sharpen the knives all you inquisitors, ready the hang nots (sic) and prepare the lynching parties because I just proved the "Dark Ages" is a stupid, bigoted myth propagated by academic egoists and a serious case of  denial whether anyone will admit it or not.