|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 20, 2019 21:56:41 GMT 10
If infinite universes exist, with an infinite number of outcomes; then logically there must also be a universe where this 'multiverse theory' is erroneously false...🤔
Mind=blown
|
|
|
Post by fat on Jun 21, 2019 11:17:49 GMT 10
That's logical
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 21, 2019 17:21:17 GMT 10
I struggle with the "logic" but then I struggle with string theory too so that's neither here nor there. But here's the thing and it goes to the meaning of the word "universe". I'd always understood that embedded in "universe" is the Latin word for the number "one", or "unus". So we get "unity", "unify", "union", and in more complex words we get "unilateral", or one-sided and by extension its opposite "multilateral" or many-sided. You get the idea. Consequently I'd figured that the universe got its name to convey the idea of a cover-all generic term for everything that exists - space, time, the laws of physics and every bit of matter and energy that's bound up by space, time and the laws of physics. Put them all together and they make up this super "thing" called the "universe". And that's it. The Ultimate beyond which ... well there is no Beyond because no space/time. The song "Is that all there is" doesn't do it justice because the message of the universe is the opposite of the message that song. Is that all there is? Are you fucking kidding me! Want a touchstone for the Infinite? Try the Universe 'cos it's infinite!
But now it appears that the universe has never been infinite because it's just one of any number of universes. Whereas in the past you used the definite article ("the" universe) because there was only one universe, it appears that the universe that we reckon we're a part of isn't "the" universe but just a plain old garden variety universe in amongst a bunch of other universes. So just as a galaxy containing squillions of stars is a subset of a universe, a universe is really just a super galaxy which is part of a multiverse. It copmes down to the question "how many Big Bangs have there been?" Presumably somewhere out in the Great Wherever there's a Big Bang happening right now giving birth to another universe with its own space/time and laws of physics that bear little relationship to the stuff Isaac Newton cooked up.
I think that what Occam is implying is that given the vastness of the "multiverse" calculating odds that something, anything is going to happen is meaningless because no matter what the odds - ten trillion squared to one for example, somewhere in a universe far far away it's happening. Somewhere there's another universe in which there's a discussion board called NTB in which people with our DNA, nics and offline names, are leading parallel lives to ours. Absurd? Well yes but why should any of it have meaning? It's the Myth of Sisyphus all over again.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Jun 21, 2019 21:20:49 GMT 10
Of course - in that 'other' universe we all agree.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 22, 2019 9:20:57 GMT 10
Are you talking about heaven?
|
|
|
Post by fat on Jun 26, 2019 1:45:52 GMT 10
No - but it would be. ...or would it?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 26, 2019 9:43:10 GMT 10
I struggle with the Christian notion of the afterlife and of heaven and hell. "Hell* is a very ancient Anglo Saxon word which is related to similar words in the other Germanic languages. Originally and in pre-Christian pagan times it was simply the word for where you went if your afterlife fate was not to have a hero's death on the battlefield when you'd be taken to Valhalla there to feast with the gods. The rest of us presumably would go to "Hel" which was a gloomy misty sort of place.
To me religion has always been the human response to death. Life is short and for most of human history it's been a "vale of tears". I get that part because there's truth in it. If our own experience of life has been one of the "pursuit of happiness" rather than the "vale of tears" then that's because we won the jackpot by being born in a fabulously rich and privileged country like Australia where we have opportunities galore. The majority of human beings aren't quite so lucky and for them it's still a "vale of tears", Bangladesh springs to mind. The world's 60 million refugees spring to mind etc.
The thing about the "vale of tears" paradigm is that the afterlife is seen as a "better place" so that for Christians death is not the end of space/time for the individual who's just snuffed it, but a portal through which you pass to "the other side". Hence the Christian cry of triumph "Oh death where is thy sting, oh grave where is thy victory". The "pursuit of happiness" paradigm is in that sense blasphemous because it promises heavenly bliss during this life: you can have heaven right here by being a happy little consumer or by building socialism. You don't have to die to get there.
But contrast that with the traditional Buddhist approach which is based on "karma" which I understand to be the unresolved shit that everyone has in their life. You keep coming back, and not necessarily as a human being, as long as you keep dying with unresolved karma. So basically there's a "groundhog day" factor in Buddhism which says no Nirvana for you until you're dealt with your unresolved karma. Until then it's back you go and you've gotta do it all over again. When you die with all your karma dealt with then you've reached Enlightenment and you basically cease to exist because you merge with the Buddha. So Nirvana is the release from space/time while karma keeps you locked in space/time.
I like the Buddhist karma/nirvana paradigm better because it tells the truth about death. Death is when you're finished with life - or rather life has finished with you - and you're out of the loop. You go from existence to non-existence. You've ceased to be. You've passed from space/time but not to another place or state. Buddhism says that Nirvana is the enlightened person becoming the Buddha. Your personality ceased to exist because it's merged with the Buddha and become part of it. A lot of human traditions have this idea of your personality ceasing to exist after bodily death because it's merged with a cosmic principle. Only the three Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have this idea of death as a gateway to another place so that when you die you're still in space/time.
To be honest with you Fat to be consigned to a place where everyone always agreed and where there was never any debate about anything, and that was going to be forever, sounds more like my idea of Hell. As a famous atheist writer Jean-Paul Sartre said in his play about Hell called "In Camera" or "Huis Clos" in the original French: "Hell is other people".
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 26, 2019 12:56:02 GMT 10
I struggle with the Christian notion of the afterlife and of heaven and hell. "Hell* is a very ancient Anglo Saxon word which is related to similar words in the other Germanic languages. Originally and in pre-Christian pagan times it was simply the word for where you went if your afterlife fate was not to have a hero's death on the battlefield when you'd be taken to Valhalla there to feast with the gods. The rest of us presumably would go to "Hel" which was a gloomy misty sort of place. To me religion has always been the human response to death. Life is short and for most of human history it's been a "vale of tears". I get that part because there's truth in it. If our own experience of life has been one of the "pursuit of happiness" rather than the "vale of tears" then that's because we won the jackpot by being born in a fabulously rich and privileged country like Australia where we have opportunities galore. The majority of human beings aren't quite so lucky and for them it's still a "vale of tears", Bangladesh springs to mind. The world's 60 million refugees spring to mind etc. The thing about the "vale of tears" paradigm is that the afterlife is seen as a "better place" so that for Christians death is not the end of space/time for the individual who's just snuffed it, but a portal through which you pass to "the other side". Hence the Christian cry of triumph "Oh death where is thy sting, oh grave where is thy victory". The "pursuit of happiness" paradigm is in that sense blasphemous because it promises heavenly bliss during this life: you can have heaven right here by being a happy little consumer or by building socialism. You don't have to die to get there. But contrast that with the traditional Buddhist approach which is based on "karma" which I understand to be the unresolved shit that everyone has in their life. You keep coming back, and not necessarily as a human being, as long as you keep dying with unresolved karma. So basically there's a "groundhog day" factor in Buddhism which says no Nirvana for you until you're dealt with your unresolved karma. Until then it's back you go and you've gotta do it all over again. When you die with all your karma dealt with then you've reached Enlightenment and you basically cease to exist because you merge with the Buddha. So Nirvana is the release from space/time while karma keeps you locked in space/time. I like the Buddhist karma/nirvana paradigm better because it tells the truth about death. Death is when you're finished with life - or rather life has finished with you - and you're out of the loop. You go from existence to non-existence. You've ceased to be. You've passed from space/time but not to another place or state. Buddhism says that Nirvana is the enlightened person becoming the Buddha. Your personality ceased to exist because it's merged with the Buddha and become part of it. A lot of human traditions have this idea of your personality ceasing to exist after bodily death because it's merged with a cosmic principle. Only the three Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have this idea of death as a gateway to another place so that when you die you're still in space/time. To be honest with you Fat to be consigned to a place where everyone always agreed and where there was never any debate about anything, and that was going to be forever, sounds more like my idea of Hell. As a famous atheist writer Jean-Paul Sartre said in his play about Hell called "In Camera" or "Huis Clos" in the original French: "Hell is other people". Interesting wording presented there, pim. But I need to point out that personal preference on worldviews has no bearing on what actually is. As humans we all have an instrinsic assumption of justice. --We believe that every injustice should have a consequence. How does that fit in the concept of karma, when Zen Buddhism, (which to my understanding is notably amoral), is concerned?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 26, 2019 14:27:37 GMT 10
That guy just has to run interference Occam. He can't help himself. Shall we do a workaround?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 26, 2019 23:22:55 GMT 10
Occam, attempting a workaround, we’ve gone from a notional multiverse to the afterlife and now morality. Truly we range far and wide when the trolls stay away Is morality something innate that we’re born with or is it cultural in that we’re taught morality during our upbringing? I’ve always thought the latter was the case. A baby has no notion of morality and in our culture we view it as a prime responsibility of parents to inculcate a sense of right and wrong in their children. I’m not a lawyer and I could be wrong but I believe that Australian courts consider the minimum age for criminal responsibility to be 10 years of age. Below that age a child cannot, in law, be held criminally liable. There are of course people who appear before the courts on serious criminal charges facing serious jail time if convicted and who exhibit no remorse during the trial. It’s as if they have no sense of shame or personal responsibility. Religious faith of course has traditionally been the vehicle for instilling a sense of right and wrong in people and to people of faith, and even to people who have lost their faith, it can and does provide moral signposts. But there are no guarantees here! In Australia we’ve been shocked in recent years as public enquires have uncovered appalling cases of sexual abuse of children by Christian clergy who abused their position as moral gatekeepers and mentors and violated their duty of care in the most egregious way. But here’s the thing: when their grotesquely evil behaviour was unmasked before a court of law and they stood exposed as the paedophiles that they are, they exhibited zero remorse. So yes amorality is a “thing” and lots practise it. It’s why we have courts and a criminal justice system. I’m sorry but I can’t address your point about Zen Buddhism basically because I know diddly squat about it! I understand that you spent some time in Japan. I seem to remember you mentioning it. So tell us more!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 27, 2019 23:49:02 GMT 10
Occam, attempting a workaround, we’ve gone from a notional multiverse to the afterlife and now morality. Truly we range far and wide when the trolls stay away Is morality something innate that we’re born with or is it cultural in that we’re taught morality during our upbringing? I’ve always thought the latter was the case. A baby has no notion of morality and in our culture we view it as a prime responsibility of parents to inculcate a sense of right and wrong in their children. Modern science points to something different. www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.htmlBut to address fat's point, I think he was indicating such as the example provided by schrodinger's cat. Until fully observed, all possibilities exist. Even a universe where everyone actually agrees, or ipso facto, disagrees.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 28, 2019 0:30:20 GMT 10
Occam, attempting a workaround, we’ve gone from a notional multiverse to the afterlife and now morality. Truly we range far and wide when the trolls stay away Is morality something innate that we’re born with or is it cultural in that we’re taught morality during our upbringing? I’ve always thought the latter was the case. A baby has no notion of morality and in our culture we view it as a prime responsibility of parents to inculcate a sense of right and wrong in their children. Modern science points to something different. www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.html So religion isn't the moral gatekeeper and mentor for the culture as a whole to the extent that we've always believed that it is? I'm distinguishing between "faith" which is individual and "religion" which is communitarian. Mind you ever since I started thinking about these things as an adult I'd always instinctively rejected the notion that "moral gatekeeper" was religion's primary purpose. It has frequently served that purpose (and has also abused that purpose!) But if a religion is a community of believers who share a faith then to me the prime purpose of religion is to provide the context within which that faith can be expressed. It's an interesting article. I skimmed through it. I'll come back to it another time. Turning to "Schrödinger's cat" ... I had a sneak peek at Wikipedia because I must confess I'd never heard of Schrödinger's cat. I love these absurd examples to demonstrate a profound point. On the point of "until fully observed, all possibilities exist", it's a fair point. It's where agnostics part company with atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 29, 2019 22:35:39 GMT 10
So religion isn't the moral gatekeeper and mentor for the culture as a whole to the extent that we've always believed that it is? I'm distinguishing between "faith" which is individual and "religion" which is communitarian. Mind you ever since I started thinking about these things as an adult I'd always instinctively rejected the notion that "moral gatekeeper" was religion's primary purpose. It has frequently served that purpose (and has also abused that purpose!) But if a religion is a community of believers who share a faith then to me the prime purpose of religion is to provide the context within which that faith can be expressed. Of course not! Morality is discovered, not invented. In protestant terms no one is capable of being morally perfect. We aren't saved by the 'good', we do. Grace is a gift only given by God himself, through the sacrifice of his son. "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory..."
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jun 29, 2019 23:11:44 GMT 10
Grace is a gift only given by God himself, through the sacrifice of his son. "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory..." Utter delusional piffle.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 30, 2019 0:45:29 GMT 10
Doing a workaround from Quasimodo's troll post, that sounds like the "justification by faith" preached by John Calvin. Am I right?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 30, 2019 6:17:16 GMT 10
Doing a workaround from Quasimodo's troll post, that sounds like the "justification by faith" preached by John Calvin. Am I right? No, as preached by Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:1 & Romans 3:28 I believe Calvin taught about the 'elect' who were called, specifically.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 30, 2019 8:01:17 GMT 10
Yes I know about Calvin's teaching on "the elect". It was an important point on which he differed sharply from Rome on the topic of faith v the role of "good works".
Maybe I'm getting confused with that other great Protestant reformer Martin Luther whose initial break with Rome had been over the sale of indulgences (the scam to surpass all other scams and which financed the building of St Peter's Basilica in Rome). But Luther went on to preach the "priesthood of all believers" as a sharp critique of the Roman model of a hierarchy of priests & bishops going up to Pope himself, and maybe the phrase "justification by faith" was Luther's. He defined the sharpest and deepest divide between Protestant Christianity (the Word, as revealed in Scripture) and Roman Catholicism (the Sacrament).
When I lived in Switzerland I became fascinated by the history of the Protestant Reformation since so much of it happened in Switzerland. I visited the churches in both Geneva and Lausanne where John Calvin debated the Pope's emissary before packed congregations who subsequently voted to embrace the Reformation preached by Calvin - very Swiss! In Amsterdam near where my mother grew up there's a Protestant (as in Calvinist - Dutch Reformed) church called the Westertoren or Western Towers which is almost next door to where the Anne Frank tragedy happened in WW2. It claims to be the world's first dedicated Protestant church meaning it had been built from scratch as a Protestant church as distinct from other Protestant churches in Europe which had originally been pre-reformation Catholic churches refurbished to strip them of the gaudy "idolatrous" Catholic graven images and wall fittings and to give them a more sober "Protestant" aspect.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jul 1, 2019 23:59:50 GMT 10
Unfortunately pim, I am no authority on Early Church history. My late wife would have been able to help , but unfortunately she is now a resource unavailable to me. I think the idea is, no matter how 'good' human kind can be; we can never be good enough to appease a perfectly righteous, and moral God. (In the same way no matter how high a man can jump, they'd never be able to make it to the moon.)
Only God himself could achieve this, thus Jesus being God incarnate was necessary to live, and thus die (Completing the course), In our stead.
If we were capable of achieving this on our own, without God, then Christ's sacrifice was for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jul 2, 2019 11:13:00 GMT 10
Thanks Occam. One historical quibble: given that the history of Christianity as a spiritual movement probably dates back to St Paul who most scholars agree transformed what would have been a faction within Judaism from what we might term a "Jesus" movement" to a separate and distinct religion we call Christianity by reorienting it towards the mainly Greek speaking Gentiles of the eastern Mediterranean. So that would give Christianity a 2000 year vintage. Others might place it at 1700 years from the Edict of Milan when Christianity became legal, or maybe 100 years later when the then Emperor (forget who) went a step further and made Christianity the official religion, in effect the only legal religious show in town so those folks who still worshipped the old gods were dismissed as hillbillies. In Latin that translates as "pagani". Go figure. So Christianity either begins 2000 years ago with Paul, or 1500 years ago when it took over the faltering Roman Empire and in effect replaced it. The position of the Pope is modelled on that of the Roman Emperors and, quaintly, the official language of the Papacy remains Latin to this day. What I would call "early Church history" encompasses that period when theologically the debates (debates? Hell! They'd send in the troops and impose a bloodbath on people whose concept of Christ differed from the prevailing orthodoxy. They don't call eastern rite Christianity "Orthodox" for nothing!) were around the nature of Christ. So to me "early Church" brings up Gnostics, Monophysites, Nestorian, Arians and a host of others. What happened to them and why in the mediaeval world that followed the ancient world the struggle was between the two remaining Christianities, Orthodox and Roman, and Islam. That's what I would call "early Church history". The Protestant Reformation happened over two centuries, the 1500s and the 1600s, when Europe waded knee deep in rivers of blood. One outcome of this which should be of interest to you was that it was the driving force behind the European settlement of North America. English Puritans exiled themselves in North America and took the King James Bible with them. The rest is history. Yours! It's why Australia and North America are so different. We Australians are a by product of the English Industrial Revolution while you guys are a by product of the Protestant Reformation.
Compared with the Edict of Milan of 310AD, the Protestant Reformation only happened a few hundred years ago. Not "recent", I admit. But certainly not "early".
Why am I into this stuff? Firstly because I'm heavily into history and read history books for relaxation. Yeah, I know, geeks and nerds of the world unite. But secondly I often find myself debating people who argue, ignorantly, that "what Islam needs is a Reformation like Christianity had". My answer is "Look at the history of the Protestant Reformation from Martin Luther through to the Thirty Years War. Wade through the rivers of blood of those times. Now look at Wahabbi Islam and its offshoots in al-Qaeda, ISIS, Jamaia Islamiya etc etc. That's what a Reformation looks like. Islam needs a Reformation? Guess what, they're having one!"
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jul 2, 2019 15:44:31 GMT 10
Unfortunately pim, I am no authority on Early Church history. My late wife would have been able to help , but unfortunately she is now a resource unavailable to me. I think the idea is, no matter how 'good' human kind can be; we can never be good enough to appease a perfectly righteous, and moral God. (In the same way no matter how high a man can jump, they'd never be able to make it to the moon.) Only God himself could achieve this, thus Jesus being God incarnate was necessary to live, and thus die (Completing the course), In our stead. If we were capable of achieving this on our own, without God, then Christ's sacrifice was for nothing. Just as well there is no proof that any god exists, eh? Just as well it is patently obvious the god concept is an imaginary concept dreamed up by evolved human beings, eh? 'cause if there was such a thing as a god, your post graphically shows why that god would be a selfish, controlling arsehole.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jul 2, 2019 16:19:45 GMT 10
Occam don't allow Quasimodo's trolling to hijack the thread. Let's just work around him.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jul 2, 2019 23:02:51 GMT 10
Occam don't allow Quasimodo's trolling to hijack the thread. Let's just work around him. Agreed. But Quasimodo just seems like the wrong moniker. He's more like a "whack-a-mole": Pops up to troll you, and disappears down a hole once you whack him over the head, only to emerge somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jul 2, 2019 23:09:38 GMT 10
Thanks Occam. One historical quibble: given that the history of Christianity as a spiritual movement probably dates back to St Paul who most scholars agree transformed what would have been a faction within Judaism from what we might term a "Jesus" movement" to a separate and distinct religion we call Christianity by reorienting it towards the mainly Greek speaking Gentiles of the eastern Mediterranean. So that would give Christianity a 2000 year vintage. Others might place it at 1700 years from the Edict of Milan when Christianity became legal, or maybe 100 years later when the then Emperor (forget who) went a step further and made Christianity the official religion, in effect the only legal religious show in town so those folks who still worshipped the old gods were dismissed as hillbillies. In Latin that translates as "pagani". Go figure. So Christianity either begins 2000 years ago with Paul, or 1500 years ago when it took over the faltering Roman Empire and in effect replaced it. The position of the Pope is modelled on that of the Roman Emperors and, quaintly, the official language of the Papacy remains Latin to this day. What I would call "early Church history" encompasses that period when theologically the debates (debates? Hell! They'd send in the troops and impose a bloodbath on people whose concept of Christ differed from the prevailing orthodoxy. They don't call eastern rite Christianity "Orthodox" for nothing!) were around the nature of Christ. So to me "early Church" brings up Gnostics, Monophysites, Nestorian, Arians and a host of others. What happened to them and why in the mediaeval world that followed the ancient world the struggle was between the two remaining Christianities, Orthodox and Roman, and Islam. That's what I would call "early Church history". The Protestant Reformation happened over two centuries, the 1500s and the 1600s, when Europe waded knee deep in rivers of blood. One outcome of this which should be of interest to you was that it was the driving force behind the European settlement of North America. English Puritans exiled themselves in North America and took the King James Bible with them. The rest is history. Yours! It's why Australia and North America are so different. We Australians are a by product of the English Industrial Revolution while you guys are a by product of the Protestant Reformation. Compared with the Edict of Milan of 310AD, the Protestant Reformation only happened a few hundred years ago. Not "recent", I admit. But certainly not "early". Why am I into this stuff? Firstly because I'm heavily into history and read history books for relaxation. Yeah, I know, geeks and nerds of the world unite. But secondly I often find myself debating people who argue, ignorantly, that "what Islam needs is a Reformation like Christianity had". My answer is "Look at the history of the Protestant Reformation from Martin Luther through to the Thirty Years War. Wade through the rivers of blood of those times. Now look at Wahabbi Islam and its offshoots in al-Qaeda, ISIS, Jamaia Islamiya etc etc. That's what a Reformation looks like. Islam needs a Reformation? Guess what, they're having one!" I would agree the actual early church started 2000yrs ago, my use of the word was for lack of a better one. But I would also point out that the Reformation wasn't the only time Church saw a split. There was also the Great Schism, where Rome insisted that they were the 'Real' Church, and the Orthodox Churches simply said "forget that noise", and walked out on them. My point about Salvation through Grace, still stands though. God's Salvation isn't something for humans to debate about.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jul 3, 2019 0:45:28 GMT 10
But I would also point out that the Reformation wasn't the only time Church saw a split. There was also the Great Schism, where Rome insisted that they were the 'Real' Church, and the Orthodox Churches simply said "forget that noise", and walked out on them. Yes the Schism of 1054 over the "filioque" clause. My very rusty schoolboy Latin translates "filioque" as "and from the son". Latin was a highly inflected language so there's an ending there that means "and" and there's an ablative case ending on the "filio" part which makes it mean "from the son". English had dropped most of its inflections by the time of Chaucer and uses prepositional phrases instead so what Latin was able to express in one word English needs four words. It's why I'm such a grammar pedant: once you master Latin grammar, English grammar becomes a piece of cake. Anyhow the Romans unilaterally changed the Nicene Creed to have the Holy Spirit proceeding not just from the Father but also "from the Son". The Greeks in Constantinople stood firm on their "Orthodoxy" and the two branches split, thundering excommunications and anathemas at each other. It has to have been the longest quarrel in history since each side didn't revoke its excommunication of the other until 1964. There was also the bit about priestly celibacy and differences in the type of bread to be used in the Eucharist. But they're minor details compared with the "filioque" thing. That went to the nature of Christ so it was heavy shit. I've always argued (to Catholics) that their apparent heresy (the Orthodox tradition said it was heresy) made Catholics the first Protestants. Occam I can't argue with you on that one. "Salvation through Grace" is a standard Protestant position to take. For me to argue against that doesn't just put me up against you but against the giants of the Protestant Reformers: Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. I wouldn't stand a chance!!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jul 3, 2019 0:59:04 GMT 10
There was also the Schism within the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages which saw two Popes, one at Rome and the other at Avignon in France. It lasted for about 40 years so that period went through quite a few Popes on both sides. What else was there? Oh yes the Cathars! They were such a threat to Roman Christianity, having spread through most of southern France, that the Pope actually declared a crusade against them. It was the only Crusade which was launched entirely within Europe. You know that bike race in France? The Tour de France? When you watch the TV footage of the peleton as it goes through the Pyrenees you'll see these ruined castles on craggy peaks. You can't miss them! They were Cathar strongholds and they were besieged in a holy war against the Cathars. All of them fell to the Crusaders and everyone within them was slaughtered. Those wars of religion basically depopulated southern France during the Middle Ages and destroyed a whole language and culture. It's why French is spoken down there today. It wasn't just religious genocide but also cultural and linguistic genocide.
|
|