Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[karlhenning]

I take that as an occasion for genuine amusement, BTW: David makes a post about aspects of Christianity he finds noteworthy (i.e., the supposed topic itself), and a revisionist lightly slaps his wrist as a "conservative."

[DavidRoss]

This is a common fallacy among conservative people.

In reality most of these things wouldn't have happened without humanism, which is why virtually all these developments started gathering speed after 1750.

And, as Karl just noted, humanism is a consequence of Christian values, as was the Enlightenment from which it sprang.  Labeling the previous statement a "fallacy" betrays a lamentable ignorance of history (or disregard for the truth).  Labeling me a "conservative" betrays a lamentable incapacity for critical thought.

[Florestan]

Isn't 'The Sermon on The Mount' and the other pronouncements of Christ sufficient ?

Are they sufficient to you? Do you live accordingly?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Are they sufficient to you? Do you live accordingly?

Well it is an extremely beautiful document. No, I do not live up to it.

I was merely questioning the importance of theology as a subject.

[karlhenning]

Well it is an extremely beautiful document. No, I do not live up to it.

I was merely questioning the importance of theology as a subject.

Its importance resides, partly, in the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is not merely "a beautiful document."  It was (and remains) instruction.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Its importance resides, partly, in the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is not merely "a beautiful document."  It was (and remains) instruction.

Yes, I know that. But my question was:

Why do we need theologians (whose writings were often bloated) to supplement what Jesus Christ taught ?

[Florestan]

Why do we need theologians (whose writings were often bloated) to supplement what Jesus Christ taught ?

You make it sound as if it's the theologians who hinder you to follow what Christ taught. Just for the sake of the discussion, have you ever read a theologian? I mean, read his own works, not cherry-picked quotes about his work.

[Herman]

You've asserted a fallacy without anywhere near proving it, of course, Herman.  And perhaps you have indulged in a fallacy of your own.

One can't prove a negative, as you well know. One can only say what if the humanist - scientific revolution had not occurred, and (alternatively) look at other theocracies. Without the humanist-scientific revolution that had taken firm hold in western society around 1750, we would probably still have slavery (as we still have in so many other parts of the world), the sun would still revolve around the world and the powers that be would be able to say that everything should stay as it was, because God had ordained it so.

I am not saying there wasn't some overlap in some parts between christianity and humanism, but one can still see  -  the Creationism debate, stem cell research etc  -  that there is still vigorous opposition coming from Christians. During the Bush years there have been pretty clear attempts to add "secular" to the list a bad names, just like "liberal".

And of course this idea that all the above mentioned good things would have been impossible without Christianity was part of the same brain wash.

[Florestan]

Without the humanist-scientific revolution that had taken firm hold in western society around 1750

...and which would have been impossible without Christianity, as proven by the fact it never took place outside Christendom, as Karl very astutely remarked and as you implicitly admitted by using the term "western".

During the Bush years there have been pretty clear attempts to add "secular" to the list a bad names, just like "liberal".

Nowadays it's the turn of "conservative", apparently.

[bwv 1080]

One can't prove a negative, as you well know. One can only say what if the humanist - scientific revolution had not occurred, and (alternatively) look at other theocracies. Without the humanist-scientific revolution that had taken firm hold in western society around 1750, we would probably still have slavery (as we still have in so many other parts of the world), the sun would still revolve around the world and the powers that be would be able to say that everything should stay as it was, because God had ordained it so.

And, as Karl just noted, humanism is a consequence of Christian values, as was the Enlightenment from which it sprang. 

So is the fact that the humanist-scientific revolution (to use Herman's term) began in the West related to Christianity or not?  Its actually a very difficult question.  History tends to be overdetermined with an abundance of correlating factors.  I think ultimately the humanist-scientific revolution could have arisen in the Middle East, South Asia or China had the geopolitical and geographic circumstances not been so heavily in Europe's favor.  The payoffs to science and humanism in terms of economic productivity and military power ensured that they would have arisen somewhere (just as the development agriculture was a certainty).  The fragmentation of Europe meant that existing powers could not stifle threatening innovation to the extent that was possible in the East and the competition among states ensured that any possible competitive advantage would be realized.  Ultimately even slavery was subject to this logic - it is inefficient compared to voluntary employment - the costs of monitoring slaves and enforcing compliance are higher than paying wages to voluntary workers. 

Also the impact of the wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries as setting the stage for both a more tolerant Christianity and a backlash against religion in general has to be considered.  Imagine a large Calvinist minority in the Mughal Empire of Akbar - the dynamics would be very similar to what Europe is experiencing today with Muslim immigrants.

[Herman]

And, as Karl just noted, humanism is a consequence of Christian values, as was the Enlightenment from which it sprang.  Labeling the previous statement a "fallacy" betrays a lamentable ignorance of history (or disregard for the truth).  Labeling me a "conservative" betrays a lamentable incapacity for critical thought.

1) you may want to google the word Renaissance.

2) why don't you quit the ad hominem stuff?

[mozartsneighbor]

The Renaissance, which led to the Scientific Revolution and later to the Enlightenment, arose, as the name clearly indicates, from a rediscovery of the scientific, philosophical, and artistic heritage of the Ancient Roman and Greek (pagan) era.

If these humanist and Enlightenment values and ideals arose from Christianity why were the Catholic Church and almost all ecclesiastical authorities so opposed to them? If you would care to study a bit of European history you would see that the church and those affiliated with it and its POV have consistently opposed the spread of liberal humanist democratic ideals in Europe, and instead supported absolutist and illiberal ideas and political rulers.

Not to say that there aren't some semi-humanist seeds in the New Testament and in those aspects of Christ's message that have been discussed here. It is important not to forget that Palestine and most of the Mediterranean basin had been during the centuries preceding Christ thouroughly Hellenized and later Romanized. Hellenic ideas and values were widespread in the region. Christ's supposedly original ideas did not arise from a vaccuum. Does Socrates'
Golden Rule, from over 400 years BC, ring a bell: "Do not do unto others what displeases you if done to you by others"

Humanism by its definition is contrary to the core of the Christian message, since it puts Man at the center and makes Man the measure of all things, while Christianity and other religions put God at the center of their world view.

[Herman]

Humanism by its definition is contrary to the core of the Christian message, since it puts Man at the center ...

Man, I'd say, and the world as we know it.

[drogulus]

     It's quite possible that secular humanist thought could not have arisen without the launch pad of Christianity.

The Renaissance, which led to the Scientific Revolution and later to the Enlightenment, arose, as the name clearly indicates, from a rediscovery of the scientific, philosophical, and artistic heritage of the Ancient Roman and Greek (pagan) era.

If these humanist and Enlightenment values and ideals arose from Christianity why were the Catholic Church and almost all ecclesiastical authorities so opposed to them? If you would care to study a bit of European history you would see that the church and those affiliated with it and its POV have consistently opposed the spread of liberal humanist democratic ideals in Europe, and instead supported absolutist and illiberal ideas and political rulers.

Not to say that there aren't some semi-humanist seeds in the New Testament and in those aspects of Christ's message that have been discussed here. It is important not to forget that Palestine and most of the Mediterranean basin had been during the centuries preceding Christ thouroughly Hellenized and later Romanized. Hellenic ideas and values were widespread in the region. Christ's supposedly original ideas did not arise from a vaccuum. Does Socrates'
Golden Rule, from over 400 years BC, ring a bell: "Do not do unto others what displeases you if done to you by others"

Humanism by its definition is contrary to the core of the Christian message, since it puts Man at the center and makes Man the measure of all things, while Christianity and other religions put God at the center of their world view.

     Christianity was humanized itself by contact with a great civilization. Islam and Judaism were tribal religions, though long exposure to Greek and Persian thought deeply influenced the Jews. The Muslims set up their own civilization and threw out too much, something the Christians couldn't do and for the most part didn't want to. Christianity became urban and of course urbane as it intermingled its heritage with a great pagan predecessor. There would be no scorched-earth policy for them as there was for the Muslim conquerors.

[bwv 1080]

Given that empiricism played no role in Aristotelian science, I do not know how much the rediscovery of classical learning can be credited for the advent of modern science

The distinctions between the Christian West and Muslim East are largely superficial.  Prior to the Enlightenment both were rather intolerant theocracies but a key distinction there would be that Christian communities have survived to the present day in  Muslim countries whereas the reverse has not occured in Sicily and Spain.  Had the Muslim world been a network of competing states and the West ruled by an all-powerful Holy Roman Emperor (like the Ottomans ruled most of the Muslim world) then who knows, maybe the scientific revolution would have occured in the East.  And is the Middle East solely a product of Islam? The entire area was Christian prior to the Arab conquests

[drogulus]

Given that empiricism played no role in Aristotelian science, I do not know how much the rediscovery of classical learning can be credited for the advent of modern science

The distinctions between the Christian West and Muslim East are largely superficial.  Prior to the Enlightenment both were rather intolerant theocracies but a key distinction there would be that Christian communities have survived to the present day in  Muslim countries whereas the reverse has not occured in Sicily and Spain.  Had the Muslim world been a network of competing states and the West ruled by an all-powerful Holy Roman Emperor (like the Ottomans ruled most of the Muslim world) then who knows, maybe the scientific revolution would have occured in the East.  And is the Middle East solely a product of Islam? The entire area was Christian prior to the Arab conquests

      The Muslims either destroyed or entirely subjugated the areas they conquered, and even more important they refused to consider any learning from the pre-Islamic period to be of any use except in the narrowest sense, such as the making of weapons. Bernard Lewis has written extensively about this, and I'd recommend his book The Muslim Discovery of Europe.

      bwv 1080, you make some excellent points. The situation in Europe was unique, where Pope, Emperor, and king had to compete for power and influence. Think of Voltaire scuttling off over the Swiss border when things got too hot for him, then fleeing back to France when the Genevans had had enough. And there was often a prince somewhere who would be willing to support heretical scientists and philosophers.

     

[drogulus]

Given that empiricism played no role in Aristotelian science, I do not know how much the rediscovery of classical learning can be credited for the advent of modern science

      I need to expand a bit on this point. First, you're right.  The new thought was instead inspired by the example of the ancients, and I think they learned something important about the relation of knowledge to religious belief, that the continuity of knowledge was larger than any dogma would allow. Christian thought might be right about something, but not because it was Christian. In the process of working out how this was so the relation between what is true and how it is discovered was established. Empiricism came to be the explanation, and it is a new development.

     

Being a good Christian is not easy, to be sure. But the crux of the matter has been nailed on by G. K. Chesterton: The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. .

     If you consider it as an ideal instead of as a body of truth then it has been tried and mixed results have been obtained. Here we see once more the same doublemindedness about these concepts that has plagued the discussion all along: Is religious belief an action program and therefore ethical in its orientation, or is it a system of truths which like all such systems must be confirmed by something outside itself? The solution that's most commonly used is to treat it as an ethical system that is bolstered by a unique truth discovery process that verifies itself by belief. So, the question to ponder is do you want to make x true or do you wish to capture whatever benefits x can be said to offer and call that a form of truth? There's a price to be paid for doing this, since you have to twist things around a bit to call something true for its benefits alone (contra some pragmatists).

[bwv 1080]

     

      The Muslims either destroyed or entirely subjugated the areas they conquered, and even more important they refused to consider any learning from the pre-Islamic period to be of any use except in the narrowest sense, such as the making of weapons.
     

ISTM that this is simply a convienent ex-post narrative, the mirror of the narrative of Christianity being the font of all liberal goodness.  I don't see how this attitude is different in the Mongols, Vikings, Normans or Franks.  Particularly as the later Muslim conquests were very entrepeneurial - some tribal leader would fly the banner of Jihad to legitimize the conquest of some infidel area.  Later of course there were relatively enlightened and liberal Muslim rulers, first in the Baghdad Caliphate and later in India with Akbar.

[drogulus]

     Whether Christian civilization is the font of anything makes no difference to me. And I don't care what anti-Muslim uses are put to their history, which is what it is. What explanation do you have for Muslim backwardness? Is it all a plot by Dick Cheney to steal their oil? This is the kind of thing that really gets me riled. I refuse to twist ideas around make them reflect poorly on the political trend I dislike. Bernard Lewis supported the Iraq war, right? Therefore he must be wrong about the roots of Muslim failure. But it happens that Lewis is right, and he is far from being alone in his analysis of how the Muslim world got to where it is. You can't have a reasoned discussion about the relation of the Enlightenment to Christian influence and then go off on a compensatory tangent about how liberal Muslims occasionally are without undermining the whole point. We are discussing differences here, and the occasional similarities don't change the overall picture.

     A professor at Boston University wrote an article I excerpt here:

     The Real Reason for Muslim Decline

     By Husain Haqqani

     The erosion of the leadership position of Muslims coincided with the west's gradual technological ascendancy. Soon after the Ottomans took over Constantinople, Johann Gutenberg printed a Bible using metal plates. Printing was introduced into the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512) only to be virtually banned for use by Muslims in 1485. In Europe, a full grown book industry evolved, facilitating wide dissemination of ideas and knowledge. By 1501, more than a thousand printing presses had produced approximately 35,000 titles with ten million copies. But in the Ottoman Empire, only Christians and Jews used printing technology.
Muslim use of the printing press did not start until 1727, causing the Muslims to lose more than 270 years in the greatest explosion of knowledge. The Persian, Mughal and Ottoman Empires controlled vast lands and resources but many important scientific discoveries and inventions since the fifteenth century came about in Europe and not in the Muslim lands.

Ignorance is an attitude and the world's Muslims have to analyze, debate and face it before they can deal with it. The 57 member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) have around 500 Universities compared with more than five thousand universities in the United States and more than eight thousand in India. In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities', and none of the universities from Muslim-majority states was included in the top 500.

There is only one university for every three million Muslims and the Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The U.S. has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million. The Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the western nations spend around five per cent of GDP on producing knowledge.

The tendency of Muslim masses to accept rumours as fact and the readiness to believe anything that suggests a non-Muslim conspiracy to weaken or undermine the Muslims is the result of the overall feeling of helplessness and decline that permeates the Muslim world. Most Muslim scholars and leaders try to explain Muslim decline through the prism of the injustices of colonialism and the subsequent ebb and flow of global distribution of power. But Muslims are not weak only because they were colonized. They were colonized because they had become weak.

     Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. He is author of the book 'Pakistan between Mosque and Military'


     
     

     

[bwv 1080]

     Whether Christian civilization is the font of anything makes no difference to me. And I don't care what anti-Muslim uses are put to their history, which is what it is. What explanation do you have for Muslim backwardness? Is it all a plot by Dick Cheney to steal their oil? This is the kind of thing that really gets me riled. I refuse to twist ideas around make them reflect poorly on the political trend I dislike. Bernard Lewis supported the Iraq war, right? Therefore he must be wrong about the roots of Muslim failure. But it happens that Lewis is right, and he is far from being alone in his analysis of how the Muslim world got to where it is. You can't have a reasoned discussion about the relation of the Enlightenment to Christian influence and then go off on a compensatory tangent about how liberal Muslim occasionally are without undermining the whole point. We are discussing differences here, and the occasional similarities don't change the overall picture.

     A professor at Boston University wrote an article I excerpt here:

     The Real Reason for Muslim Decline

     By Husain Haqqani

     The erosion of the leadership position of Muslims coincided with the west's gradual technological ascendancy. Soon after the Ottomans took over Constantinople, Johann Gutenberg printed a Bible using metal plates. Printing was introduced into the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512) only to be virtually banned for use by Muslims in 1485. In Europe, a full grown book industry evolved, facilitating wide dissemination of ideas and knowledge. By 1501, more than a thousand printing presses had produced approximately 35,000 titles with ten million copies. But in the Ottoman Empire, only Christians and Jews used printing technology.
Muslim use of the printing press did not start until 1727, causing the Muslims to lose more than 270 years in the greatest explosion of knowledge. The Persian, Mughal and Ottoman Empires controlled vast lands and resources but many important scientific discoveries and inventions since the fifteenth century came about in Europe and not in the Muslim lands.

Ignorance is an attitude and the world's Muslims have to analyze, debate and face it before they can deal with it. The 57 member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) have around 500 Universities compared with more than five thousand universities in the United States and more than eight thousand in India. In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities', and none of the universities from Muslim-majority states was included in the top 500.

There is only one university for every three million Muslims and the Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The U.S. has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million. The Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the western nations spend around five per cent of GDP on producing knowledge.

The tendency of Muslim masses to accept rumours as fact and the readiness to believe anything that suggests a non-Muslim conspiracy to weaken or undermine the Muslims is the result of the overall feeling of helplessness and decline that permeates the Muslim world. Most Muslim scholars and leaders try to explain Muslim decline through the prism of the injustices of colonialism and the subsequent ebb and flow of global distribution of power. But Muslims are not weak only because they were colonized. They were colonized because they had become weak.

     Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. He is author of the book 'Pakistan between Mosque and Military'


     
     

     

But I think you are back to the issue of concentrated political power.  Had their been a Holy Roman Emperor with the power of the Ottoman Sultan he might very well have banned printing as well.    The same with the various Chinese pogroms of intellectuals and the burning of their fleet.  Your average 16th century European was every bit as pig-ignorant as the average Muslim (was there witch burning hysteria in 16th century Baghdad or Cairo? and did the new literate protestantism moderate the hysteria or fan its flames?  BTW nowitch burnings of that scale ever occurred in the middle ages when the Church was more powerful).  Had the powers that be in the Muslim world found that tolerating liberalism and science neccessary to preserve their self-interest (which eventually happened in Europe because of the political fragmentation and interstate competition) then liberalism and science would have prospered.  But if anything I am downplaying the importance of religion on either side of the equation.  I think that religions reinvent themselves to suit current circumstances.  If circumstances support an angry militiant orthodoxy then that version of the religion will prosper.  If people's self interests are better served by a tolerant liberal version of the religion then it will come to the fore.