Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[bwv 1080]

People have to be careful about conflating two separate questions.  

The first is whether Christianity made some contribution toward the development of modernism (defined as science, capitalism, liberal democracies etc).  The answer to this is yes and one can argue about the relative importance of it relative to other factors.  

The second question is whether modernism could not have arisen in the Middle East, India or China, civilizations which were on an equal or higher technological footing during the Middle Ages. Here you have to look first to the geographic and geopolitical advantages of Europe over these other regions - the balkanization of political power in particular as being of more import than the theological differences.  The social technologies that comprise modernism are/were as inevitable as agriculture was to stone age hunter gatherers.  Given a large enough competitive landscape and sufficient variation the competitive pressures will lead to this outcome somewhere.  They do not have to come exclusively from Christendom any more than agriculture had to derive from the tribal god of whoever first domesticated wheat in the Fertile Crescent.  Again, the gains from Modernism are sufficient to guarantee that it would have emerged somewhere, if for no other reason than it enables a larger and more lethal military than any other system known to us (look at the USA).  The Middle East, India and China were inferior only in that they had, for various reasons largely unrelated to religion, a smaller competitive landscape and less cultural variation.  Arguments for some sort of natural ideological superiority for the West inevitably cherry picks aspects of premodern European culture that harmonize with modernism while ignoring the numerous schools of thought that conflict with it and then applying the reverse when drawing the comparison to the Middle East, India or China.

[bwv 1080]

Christ's teachings are very clear.  But remember that prior to the Reformation (which preceded and ushered in the Enlightenment), Christ's teachings were inaccessible to an illiterate populace controlled by a State Religion more concerned with secular power than with spiritual enlightenment.

But every single one of the reformers (with the exception of Menno) was interested in establishing a state religion and persecuting heretics.  Luther and Calvin both killed Anabaptists by the thousands and the most brutal religious persecutions in England were done under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, not "bloody" Mary.

Judged by the original goals of its founders the Reformation was a failure and its influence on the Enlightenment was the fact that it produced a bloody stalemate after igniting a series of wars as devastating to Europe as anything in the 20th century which alienated subsequent generations from rigid pronouncements of theological truth.

[DavidRoss]

The Reformation a failure?  I'd say that the religious, economic, intellectual, and political freedoms we take for granted today all testify to its smashing success!

[bwv 1080]

The Reformation a failure?  I'd say that the religious, economic, intellectual, and political freedoms we take for granted today all testify to its smashing success!

Wooo boy!  Go Reformation!

If you are just going to take points out of context and respond with slogans I don't see the point.  Do you understand what the goals of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al were?  Hint, they were not to let every Christian read the bible and decide for themselves what the "plain word of God" was or to bring about a more liberal society

[Bu]

The Reformation a failure?  I'd say that the religious, economic, intellectual, and political freedoms we take for granted today all testify to its smashing success!

Don't know if I'd call the Reformation a total failure, either.  I'm sure it derserves indirect credit for some of the aforementioned things that happened after it began, due to the implications of the theology.  I think the Catholic Counter-Reformation also had am impact of some kind in re-shaping Europe (such as the reforms of the Council of Trent and the formation of a society like the Jesuits--who aimed at education), but in totality there were other factors operating, as Steve noted.

[drogulus]

Judged by the original goals of its founders the Reformation was a failure and its influence on the Enlightenment was the fact that it produced a bloody stalemate after igniting a series of wars as devastating to Europe as anything in the 20th century which alienated subsequent generations from rigid pronouncements of theological truth.

     Yes, what counts as a success by our standards is very far from what religious reformers intend. Would Luther wish to claim credit for the Enlightenment?

    Of course the record is mixed. Elizabeth didn't wish to "make windows into men's souls". Freedom of conscience had many origins and this must have played a small part in making the idea acceptable. Who knows how extensive the persecutions would have been if her brother had reigned for 45 years.

[Bu]

     Yes, what counts as a success by our standards is very far from what religious reformers intend. Would Luther wish to claim credit for the Enlightenment?

He could barely stomach Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers.  He didn't have much love for the Jews, either, but then again anti-semitism was far more acceptable in his generation.

[Bulldog]

Ok, my apologies. That was entirely my somewhat puerile and convenient expression. However, I do find "bad" a convenient handle for people prone to violence, hatred, etc.

I feel there's good and bad in everyone; what's important is how each of us handles these conflicting tendencies.  Does a religion influence which tendency most emerges?  I suppose so, but I think it's valid to put the responsibility on the individual.

[karlhenning]

Thanks for your answer.  Not having a religious bone in my body, I don't feel that Christians or Muslims commit crimes - people do.  Some of them might use religion as justification for the crimes, but that's just a common excuse by folks prone to violence, hatred and revenge.

Excellent point, Don.

[drogulus]

     You might also consider how much "credit" the Jews should wish to take for Christianity and it's twisted variants. This business of claiming credit doesn't just amount to saying that your group originated all the good things, does it? 

     

I feel there's good and bad in everyone; what's important is how each of us handles these conflicting tendencies.  Does a religion influence which tendency most emerges?  I suppose so, but I think it's valid to put the responsibility on the individual.

     It will always be the case that responsibility must be shared out between the individual and the ideology most responsible for the persons behavior, whether that person acknowledges it or not. If I act badly, is that because of my humanist ideals or my failure to live up to what I think they are? The best way you can tell is when actions are explicitly justified by reference to a doctrine or belief.

    So, while it's unlikely that John Dewey should be held responsible if I start burning witches, it's marginally more believable if I cite him as the reason, though you might also consider at some point that I'm insane.

     

[Homo Aestheticus]

Here is  Charles Murray  on all this:

"Religion is indispensable for igniting great accomplishment in the arts... Human beings have been most magnificently productive and reached their highest cultural peaks in the times and places where humans have thought most deeply about their place in the universe and been most convinced they have one. This helps explain the preponderance of achievement in the arts and sciences in Europe during the centuries when Christianity was regnant..."

******

(And he is an avowed agnostic)

[Bogey]

Hello, Bill—

I'm not sure how you might best resolve the apparent inconsistency implicit in the conception of a Creator-God who knows everything that's ever going to happen—including such trivia as the number of times you will read tabloid headlines featuring Jennifer Aniston while waiting in supermarket checkout lines—and the fact that we have free will and can choose to act in ways unconditioned by nature, nurture, or an omnipotent, clock-making God.  One way out of the conundrum would be to imagine that such a God stands outside of Time as we know it, such that Godly omniscience is not knowing what choices we will make in the future (from our point of view), but rather what choices we have already made (from God's point of view).

Such theological questions hold little interest for me, insofar as they are by necessity a form of intellectual tail-chasing, since they are entirely concerned with ideas about God.  When it comes to matters such as God, love, joy, sex, car repair, cooking, or music appreciation, understanding is a poor (and very unreliable) substitute for experiencing, don't you think?

Two comments.

First, I do enjoy a good "tail-chase".

Second: Indeed to your last point.   I believe in reading someone who has mastered the language well beyond my word-smithing capabilities so that when I am asked by others to further articulate my beliefs I can do it at a level that approaches profound.  In other words, your last line is stinking cool and I will throw it down many a time in the next few weeks.

[drogulus]

     Terror and misery inspires great art. Murray is not so much wrong here as trite. Which era was it when people thought most deeply about their place in the universe? Was that the era of Newton, or Einstein? Oh, that's right....Murray is handing out empty compliments to his friends. The condescension of the agnostic wouldn't please me very much if it was flung in my direction.

     

Second: Indeed to your last point.   I believe in reading someone who has mastered the language well beyond my word-smithing capabilities so that when I am asked by others to further articulate my beliefs I can do it at a level that approaches profound.  In other words, your last line is stinking cool and I will throw it down many a time in the next few weeks.

     Bogey, you should consider that this is often wrong. All experiences must be tested by what reason tells you about them. Sensory impressions don't explain themselves to you. If you don't realize this you'll just fall for the "don't think, just feel" gambit that all pure experiencers end up getting tripped up by. You're only one step away from $5,000 speaker cables if you go down this road. 

[karlhenning]

     Terror and misery inspires great art.

Many things inspire great art. (Just saying.)

[Bogey]

     Terror and misery inspires great art. Murray is not so much wrong here as trite. Which era was it when people thought most deeply about their place in the universe? Was that the era of Newton, or Einstein? Oh, that's right....Murray is handing out empty compliments to his friends. The condescension of the agnostic wouldn't please me very much if it was flung in my direction.

     
     Bogey, you should consider that this is often wrong. All experiences must be tested by what reason tells you about them. Sensory impressions don't explain themselves to you. If you don't realize this you'll just fall for the "don't think, just feel" gambit that all pure experiencers end up getting tripped up by. You're only one step away from $5,000 speaker cables if you go down this road. 

Let me clarify.  I am not one to push well crafted language that captures my thoughts aside and try to be overly original.  Ocassionally I will pull off an original quote worth repeating in minor circles.  However, as far as "gut feelings", I am right more often than not.  When acting on pure reason, I'm a human coin flip.....on my best days.



From left to right: drogulus and Bogey 

[Florestan]

Thanks for your answer.  Not having a religious bone in my body, I don't feel that Christians or Muslims commit crimes - people do.  Some of them might use religion as justification for the crimes, but that's just a common excuse by folks prone to violence, hatred and revenge.

Agreed. But then again: one cannot find in the Gospels a single line which could even remotely be interpreted as endorsing violence, let alone killing.

It is an heretic that makes the fire,
Not she which burns in't
                             Shakespeare, The Winter's Tale, II, 3

[Florestan]

     Terror and misery inspires great art.

If this were true, then North Korea or Zimbabwe would be inhabited only by MIchelangelos and Beethovens...

Truth is that great art is the result of the free expression of the personality of the artist. Economical and political cicumstances play little role, if any.

Shostakovich was great not because of the Soviet regime, but in spite of it and we have to thank himself alone for his music, not Stalin or Zhdanov.

Van Gogh's economical misery was not the cause of his art, but the consequence of his personality freely expressing itself. He wasn't great because he was poor; he was poor because he was great.

[Florestan]

Arguments for some sort of natural ideological superiority for the West inevitably cherry picks aspects of premodern European culture that harmonize with modernism while ignoring the numerous schools of thought that conflict with it and then applying the reverse when drawing the comparison to the Middle East, India or China.

Could you please give us some examples of Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese schools of thought whose tenets could have been used as a starting point for the Enlightenment as we know it?

[Herman]

Here is  Charles Murray  on all this:

"Religion is indispensable for igniting great accomplishment in the arts... Human beings have been most magnificently productive and reached their highest cultural peaks in the times and places where humans have thought most deeply about their place in the universe and been most convinced they have one. This helps explain the preponderance of achievement in the arts and sciences in Europe during the centuries when Christianity was regnant..."

******

(And he is an avowed agnostic)

Eric, just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true.

As always with these kinds of lofty statements, they don't add up. Murray seems to be implying that "the times and places where humans have thought most deeply about their place in the universe and been most convinced they have one" and "the centuries when Christianity was regnant" are the same. He's careful not make this explicit, because of course there's no way this can be evidenced.

There's a lot to be said for the 19th and 20th century being the era in which "humans have thought most deeply blahblah" and have actually come up with something, and that was the era that empirical science was regnant, and Christianity in decline (in Europe).

If there's one thing that's constant in this discussion it's that defending Christianity as the source of all good, and bad thinking go hand in hand.

[mozartsneighbor]

Agreed. But then again: one cannot find in the Gospels a single line which could even remotely be interpreted as endorsing violence, let alone killing.

It is an heretic that makes the fire,
Not she which burns in't
                             Shakespeare, The Winter's Tale, II, 3

The Old Testament is full of violence, and lots of terrible stuff like clear guidelines that endorse the practice of slavery. Christ did not reject the Old Law outright, did he?