The Biggest Hoax in History 

Thanks for sharing :)

@@ThePresentPast_ No worries! And thanks for the great video too, you opened my eyes to more of the history behind the ‘war’ between science vs. religion… I had some awareness, but I didn’t realise just how much of this stuff was fabricated during the enlightenment.

Also lindybeige

they do not allow comments here, even not offensive, nor vulgar, there is no Freedom of Speech, we are controlled, repressed, and tortured with Pain.

​​@@ThePresentPast_you seem like making stories giving no source .

If ocean acidification continues then the earth will be less flat

The earth is both flat and a globe and everyone knows it

Nice. You might wanna consider being a lawyer if you don't have a set career already

That took me a good 15 seconds of head scratching to get that. 😂

If 71% of the Earth's surface is indeed water, fizzy, fuzzy, or otherwise, then the earth is obviously flat, because water doesn't lay any other way than flat, and you can't make the globe from the remaining land. It doesn't curve enough for that.

I like to remember Chesterton's comment about historiography: "Babylon has only heaved half a brick at us, though it be a brick of cuneiform."

Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.

i think now the whole "conflict" between science and religion (apart from some exceptions) is focused around morality rather then scientific facts, but yes there is definitely impact to be left on cards of history from situations like this

@@Mr_Onion_RU-vidfs most of it is moral based, like is killing one innocent person to save many better than not killing one innocent person and letting the rest die, but it has opens my eyes and i am so surprised to see stuff like this

Societies are made up of humans. So naturally, their progress mimics that of individual humans. When you first start asking "why" of everything your desire for a *response now* out-races your patience for truth in its time by quite a wide margin. & while we get better at patience later, we Never Lose The Desire To Get A Response Now. This simply is put on hold for a bit. Between about ages 8 & 16 our curiosity far out-weighs this. At age 17 your subconscious (SC) mind starts asking "do you need this Spanish you learned in grade 4?" & it starts to forget things. & it also starts to solidify what you do keep. Freud would probably say this is where the ego _really_ comes into its own. Any thought retained becomes rooted in the SC, the only place most people retain information they don't utterly forget. But here's the thing. The SC isn't where our logic or reason lives. It's where our most primal reactive instincts live. Now, any time you hear something that doesn't agree 100% with a notion rooted in your SC you Will React with defending Your Preconceived Notion (PN) as your Only Priority. It will not matter if the offending information can save your child's very life or if your PN is something irrelevant like "but the Nazis were Fascists." By age 25 most people will Defend The PN over any other priority because questioning it triggers *_ALL_* their reactions including fight or flight & they can't relax until they go back to believing in the PN. So here's the catch; Our ego also defends our perceived _group's_ PNs. This is why there can be no dialogue about politics, its role in society, how we perceive politicians as if they were 'Government Itself' & not merely *supposed to be* representatives of the ideals of it, & their decisions. Absolutely no one _wanted to_ see any scientific studies regarding the safety of what "Surrogate-Daddy" already told us what was safe. People just wanted to show Daddy they were obeying Him. So yeah, every singular example is kind of useless. It's not even a pattern, & if it is, no one wants to see where it starts. Because questioning it triggers the same need to reject questioning it. Everyone would rather Go Along with the group's PNs (group-think) than think. Every example is the same because the _process_ (not a pattern) is the same: "I think A, B questions A. I Am A Good Person. I would not think A unless A Was Correct. Ergo whatever questions A Must Be incorrect." This applies to everyone 100% of the time. New ideas are rejected because they can't be a PN _and new._ Ergo they automatically trigger resistance. Even if they save would save lives, people will mentally reject all new ideas all the time.

Yeah it's just such a powerful and easy to believe idea! Glad I could be of service :)

Could I ask what is it that you did not agree with (or would change) in the video?

​@@joaocraveiro4050 Thanks for your question. I appreciate your interest in discussing the video and your openness to different perspectives - in my case, I’m influenced by Intellectual and Conceptual History (Quentin Skinner and Reinhart Koselleck, if you know what I mean). Before I list the changes I would suggest, I want to clarify that none of these undermine the main arguments of Jochem's video. In fact, these changes could further support his arguments about the Flat Earth myth and the Science vs. Religion myth (referred to as the "Permanent Conflict Thesis" from now on). As someone who has recently started creating History content for social media, I understand the need to make choices due to limitations such as retention and engagement. Please note that the topics mentioned below may deserve their own dedicated video. With that said, let's proceed: 1. The video mentions that the creators of the Permanent Conflict Thesis had personal issues which influenced their writings against religion during their time. It accurately explains how scientific interpretations of the Bible in the 18th and 19th centuries troubled them. However, it would be beneficial to include biographical information on Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, as both were Protestant individuals who argued that religion and science are inherently in conflict. While it is important to avoid overly psychologizing their work, exploring their backgrounds would provide a deeper understanding of how this myth gained traction due to institutional and social conflicts within modern trends of Christianity. 2. However, when discussing the Permanent Conflict Thesis, it is important to clarify that the existence of this myth relies on modern definitions of "religion" and "science" as separate domains within society, each representing comprehensive belief systems denoted by capital letters ("Religion" and "Science"). This conceptualization emerged as a result of confessional and apologetic texts produced within Protestantism and (or against) Catholicism in the 18th century, as well as the development of modern science as an independent field stemming from natural history and experimental philosophy in the 19th century. Consequently, it can be argued that prior to the 19th century, there was no conflict between "Religion" and "Science" because these terms, as we understand them today, did not exist (note that this does not imply the absence of conflicts between natural philosophy and Christian dogmas; it simply means it was not framed as a faith vs. reason or "Religion vs. Science" conflict). 3. The portrayal of Darwin's influence on the development of the Permanent Conflict Thesis in the video could benefit from a more nuanced perspective. Firstly, the ongoing debate about the existence of underdeveloped or fully formed human beings alongside Adam is not a new discussion, as it has been taking place since ancient Christianity, with figures like Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, and Theophilus of Antioch. Secondly, Darwin's work can be seen as part of Natural Theology, as he initially worked within this field. However, throughout his work, Darwin's conclusions ended up challenging and undermining the paradigm of Natural Theology as a framework for studying nature. The way it is said in the video regards more on how some people reacted to Darwin's ideas ("No way humans came from monkeys! This guy must be against God and the Bible!") rather than emphasizing the paradigm shift brought about by his discoveries, which for me deserved a bit more of attention. 4. The same goes for Galileo’s martyrdom myth: the conclusion is on point, however, it would help a few more sentences on how to situate his ideas relating to his peers and the broader context of the Inquisition’s procedure, since most of these additions, I believe, are more factual information. Anyway, after writing this much, it might seem I have huge complaints. But, as I said, it might be a historian's caprice, the video is great concerning to what it is intended for. And since it's part of the historian's craft, I will list below some sources fundamental to what I wrote: Ronald Numbers (ed.): "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (2010) Peter Harrison: "The Territories of Science and Religion" (2015) David N. Livingstone: "Adam's Ancestors - Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins" (2008) Tiago V. Garros: "Ciência, Bíblia e Teologia - Darwin e o movimento evangélico" (2018) Stephen Gaukroger: "Science and the Shaping of Modernity", 4 vols. (2009-2022)

I'm with @Joao Craveiro - I'm curious to hear your objections

@@VE0003 , Just check my previous answer

Same here.

This is interesting

Yes, he was a theoretical physicist and a Catholic priest. The idea of the Church being 'against science' is hilariously ridiculous.

not true at all.

Honestly we need to start Promoting Scientist Priest more and More nowadays. Proof of how damaging this lie is how there are Christians who thought their love of science contradicted their faith that they abandoned Science. And only until they learned of Father Georges Lemaître, the Father of the Big Bang theory did they realize such Conflict Didn't have to exist at all.

I mean dark ages objectively was a time of civilizational decline. Was it THAT bad as some people tend to believe? Definitely not

@@oleole4340 exactly

​@@oleole4340 i see it more of a time of civilisational stagnation. The decline in my opinion happened around the early centuries AD, as Rome fell into disrepair.

@@johnseppethe2nd2 I think it also very much depends on your perspective. For a lot of people the decline of Roman Empire was positive news. Cities (even far into modern times) were huge death traps. With a life expectancy at birth in the Roman Empire of about 25. Which then greatly improved. But I heard it in a podcast so don't quote me on the exact number.

⁠doesn’t that also kind of depend on the geographic region you are looking at? I learned in school (maybe that’s wrong too, lol) that most of Central/northern/eastern Europe 500 AD was not nearly at the civilizational level as 1500 AD.

Part of me wonders if the Victorians were not trying to cover for themselves in some way. Christianity has, through the Catholic church, opposed things like slavery and imperialism at times (and of course at other times either accepted it or encouraged it). I wonder if the Victorian era push to see religion as backward was not in part influenced by their desire to cast the church as a relic that need not be heeded?

​@@MeEntertainmentJo_876It also has to do with the fact that the British abhorred the Catholic Church until these days.

And the Napoleons too, if you watched the video

Yess! If he hadn't found another continent on the way, they wouldn't have made it even half way to the destination!! He was way off by like 70-80%

@@thotslayer9914 Depends, what for?

I'll try a bit more :)

Genetics. What we see in genetics on what happens in DNA after a couple reproduces is a loss of information in each offspring. Therefore, it is impossible that a simple cell with a “simple” (still ridiculously complex) genetic code, produce an more complex offspring through natural selection. What we see is INvolution, which means our ancestors had better genetics than we had and so did the animals. With this, the story of creation in genesis starts making a lot more sense.

​@@juanranger4214 You have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about

Dude, Britain and America were one of the few societies that even recorded history. I’m Indian, and Indian civilization mainly recorded poems and stories about gods, they didn’t record real people as much as Europe, Britain, and later America.

Reddit?

@@Albrik_IT reddit atheists have a tendency to blame everything wrong with the world on religion. The mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion for complex conflicts sometimes spanning decades deserves a gold medal

Bible=useless

Because this video is mentioning how people didn't think the earth was flat? Why would he talk about people who were completely normal for the timeframe?

@@annaairahala9462 yea i just think it would be more interesting and so he can just put more evidence that people during the medieval didnt think the eart was flat 😅

People did explore west before Columbus. Due to their less technologically advanced ships, they could not travel as far out into the open ocean before exhausting 50% of their supplies and having to turn around and head home. The exception is the Vikings, who were able to hop from the Faroes to Iceland to Greenland to Labrador and Newfoundland. Even then, the distances involved made it impractical to establish permanent contact with the western lands, and the news of their discovery did not spread far. What Columbus managed to do was convince his patrons of a very long estimate for the distance across Asia east-west, which was in dispute at the time. If such a very long estimate we’re true, this meant that the distance across the ocean would be just short enough to sail to Japan before exhausting 100% the supplies in their super-advanced ships. In fact, Columbus did reach land roughly where he expected Japan to be, but further south. Ultimately, Columbus lucked out: there was land where he expected it to be, just not the land he was expecting.