I am a big fan of science fiction. One of the goto story lines of many science fiction episodes is that of discovering an advanced technology from a long lost civilization and the race to acquire it. I have always enjoyed these narratives but thought them to be a bit ridiculous in their underlying assumptions, especially being an engineer. In reality, we don’t look to history for advanced technology, it doesn’t really work that way. No one is going to find a workable design for a fusion reactor chiseled onto the wall of the pyramids, even if you are a huge fan of Stargate SG1.
What occurred to me after watching Bill and Zo’s Virtue Signal episodes is there are actually things we can discover from the past like long lost advanced technologies in science fiction. Values and virtues. Our ancestors, specifically those in the line of western civilization, developed and lived by very specific and valuable ideas that helped form us. Obviously they had some not nice ways of living like us because we are all human. Perhaps that is the point of the narratives in science fiction, there are advanced concepts that we can discover from those that have gone before us. I pray we are in a time of rediscovery. And really what we need to find is all right there, not really hidden at all.
13 replies on “Advanced Technology and Ancient Values”
Don’t we have to be inspired and then create new technology via blood, sweat, tears, politics, and money? If you have no ideas and no curiosity then you create nothing. If you haven’t the means then you can’t bring your ideas into fruition. One discovers what is already there, one creates what isn’t. And there is plenty of both still to be had.
Very good point, the only difference between us in our technological advanced civilization and the humans who lived 10,000 years ago is our knowledge. They had the same raw materials that we have, we only KNOW how to rearrange and utilize the materials to our benefit. This is where I think those who are very materialistic/deterministic in their thinking and beliefs miss out and fail to explain many realities in life. Human thought and consciousness is real but is still not really explainable.
According to Hugh Ross we are currently in a pretty stable climate state. Farming and things like that are only possible if the climate is stable and if there is no ice age.
And for some things population numbers need to be higher. It doesn’t matter if a Neanderthal from England knows how to mine zinc or whatever and the closest zinc mine is in Africa. There needs to be a large enough population to allow people to work on non-survival professions. And the humans actually need the freetime to set up large scale trading routes. Cities are a requirement for trading routes and a decent number of people are the requirement of cities.
Based on that I reject your notion that knowledge is the only difference.
I take your point of the various other factors related to how we are different that those thousands of years ago. The greater concept I was trying to flush out was that too many ignore the reality of the human mind/consciousness and it’s ability to generate ideas and thoughts that no one can predict materialistically. A current example for me would be the whole GameStop story. I laugh out loud at the elites trying to figure out “why they did it”. They keep trying to argue using elite economic reasons and thinking. Those Reddit guys had reasons beyond that elite economic thinking. They had imagination that gave them a freedom of action beyond the current paradigm. Overall, even if you have in place all of the population, opportunities, materials, and whatever else, you have to begin with someone in their brain coming up with an idea.
I am a huge fan of Hugh Ross, he is a wonderful person and a brilliant scientist. I had the pleasure of spending 2 weeks with him and his wife on a cruise with a group of people. I wish he was more tolerated in scientific circles. A great example of where someone is thought suspicious because of their religious faith.
I just wanted to push back a little. Generally I agree. If people were open to having the correct thinking then they would proceed much faster. And two of the main limiting factors are both culture and the access to knowledge. Is someone believes that the human brain is part of evolution and that intelligence is inheritable, then that would also be a factor 10k years ago, at least to a certain extent.
It seems you know Hugh Ross way better than I do. I just had a phase where I watched a few videos of his. Just like I had a phase of Dr James Tour and Kent Hovind.
And I think it is funny that certain atheists claim, Christians can’t make statements about Science because they are biased and in the same breath they make statements about the historicity of the bible and about theology. Let’s just drop the “you are that and therefor I don’t have to listen to you”. I listen to a flat earther just as much as I listen to a Darwinist. And I try to look at their argument both within their own view and based on the facts about reality I’m aware of. I know I’m biased but tell me a person or a group of people who aren’t. Generally those people who think they are not biased are the most biased because they neglect factoring in their own bias.
I appreciate the discussion, You are definitely correct that culture and access to that knowledge are limiting factors. There are not many places where you can discuss this type of subject without it devolving into a mess. Hugh has a very sophisticated theory that he lays out there and can be tested and refuted. He also treats others he debates with great respect even though sometimes his opponent’s don’t extend the same curtesy.
In my opinion, One of the biggest roadblocks to further advancement of science, culture, and technology is this slavish, religious devotion to Darwin and his theories. I think he did discover something new but limited, adaptation and survival of the fittest. But he and his adherents thought they could explain everything in life with it, and use it as a cultural club against Christians. Then those on the other side of the argument have been arguing to the death over it playing into a poor fighting position. Enough of that weird dynamic.
I have been intrigued by the thinking of Hugh and the Discovery Institute folks (Intelligent Design). The Discovery folks have made some devastating scientific critiques of the Darwinist Supremacy movement, if I may coin a term. And they move beyond the typically lame counter response from religious folks, (I am one of them BTW)
Like so many things it has been politicized and caught up in culture wars. And these days scientists are some of the most proud and arrogant people alive. They are trying to “immanentize the eschaton” as Buckley once said. Trying to bring about the new age with one theory that explains everything.
I think one of the problems is that Darwinism seems to be the only viable option of a purely atheistic world view. And everything that tries to question that is put on the same level as questioning Atheism itself. And questioning Atheism is an absurd idea, just ask any new Atheist out there. They will give you good reasons why Atheism can and should not be questioned.
As someone who is just curiously observing that debate I don’t have any real skin in the game. I also can’t know if it is just something on the level of annoyance or if it actually hinders the progress of science. But I guess every supremacy movement is in some way a hinderance to objectivity. Sometimes it is temporarily not relevant. But it will always be a hinderance in long term.
By the way what do you think gives the best overview of the theory of Hugh Ross? I welcome anything from book to YouTube series. I just won’t attend a school or something like that.
His website is good for current articles, reasons.org
Books would be “More Than a Theory (Reasons to Believe): Revealing a Testable Model for Creation”, “Why the Universe Is the Way It Is”, and “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home”He is labeled as a “creationist” by opposition, in the classic “prison of 2 choices and I create the 2 options to make it I am right and you are wrong” He is a Christian to be sure but his theories and ideas are nuanced and outside that bi-polar disagreement. Agree or not with the conclusions he makes a well though out case and opens it up for critique.
I listened to a few videos of him. Because of that I know the general outlines of his model. But it is quite a while back and I don’t remember any details.
He is a creationist of a sort. But not a young earth creationist. I know that Christianity has several different possible explanation for how earth came to be. And the old age isn’t a new idea. But few people know that and even if Atheists knew, they wouldn’t use that because it doesn’t help them rhetorically. #notall
Thanks for the recommendation.
Absolutely. One of the biggest things I learned from Hugh was how the Young Earth idea is relatively new in the grand scheme of things and that the age of the earth argument really wasn’t a huge deal either way to many Christians for the last 2000 years.
I read the book “Controversy of the ages” by Theodore J Cabal and Peter J Rasor.
This book is about exactly this topic and it is very well researched and about a neutral as it gets. I can totally recommend it. Especially if you like foot notes.
Have you read “Weathering Climate Change” by Hugh Ross? This is a topic I’m generally interested in.
I have not, just heard him talk about it.