Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[drogulus]

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. 

     This would tend to support the view that the Enlightenment influenced Christianity as much as the other way around. That is, the Enlightenment as a political as well as a philosophical/scientific movement.

     The point about the Muslim destruction of the past and indifference to ancient learning shouldn't just be seen as "Hooray for us", particularly "Hooray for the Christian us".

     There's a reason the the resurgence of interest among young Iranians in the great empires of the pre-Islamic past. The Muslims never could entirely obliterate the memory of ancient Persia, though to this day they are trying. So, its protest against a hated regime as well as a new historical consciousness and awareness of what Muslim conquest meant for them.

      So I think you underestimate the value of ideas just a little. I don't think material circumstance governs everything. Muslim ideas about the worthlessness of everything that came before Mohammad are far more extreme and pervasive than any similar idea ever held by a sizable portion of the Christian world. That had to feed into the decisions of rulers.

     

[bwv 1080]

     This would tend to support the view that the Enlightenment influenced Christianity as much as the other way around. That is, the Enlightenment as a political as well as a philosophical/scientific movement.

I think that is the case.  Furthermore the influence of Christianity on the Enlightenment was primarily a negative one - a backlash against the Wars of Religion and incidents like the Great Witch Hysteria

     

The point about the Muslim destruction of the past and indifference to ancient learning shouldn't just be seen as "Hooray for us", particularly "Hooray for the Christian us".

Absolutely

There's a reason the the resurgence of interest among young Iranians in the great empires of the pre-Islamic past. The Muslims never could entirely obliterate the memory of ancient Persia, though to this day they are trying. So, its protest against a hated regime as well as a new historical consciousness and awareness of what Muslim conquest meant for them.

Yes, there are similar strains I am sure everywhere outside of the Arabian peninsula

     

So I think you underestimate the value of ideas just a little. I don't think material circumstance governs everything. Muslim ideas about the worthlessness of everything that came before Mohammad are far more extreme and pervasive than any similar idea ever held by a sizable portion of the Christian world. That had to feed into the decisions of rulers.

But those ideas emerge from a set of circumstances that are condusive to them.  How pervasive is this view in South Asia vs. Turkey vs. Egypt? 

[Florestan]

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. 

They could have, yet they haven't. Contrafactual history is always a pleasant pastime but never a rational argument for anything. Besides, Europe, that is, Christendom, had not only the geopolitical and the geographic advantage, but, most important, the intellectual one, meaning that the worldview implied in Christianity, which blended Jerusalem, Rome and Athens, was conducive, in long term, to what we call Western civilization.

[Herman]

They could have, yet they haven't. Contrafactual history is always a pleasant pastime but never a rational argument for anything. Besides, Europe, that is, Christendom, had not only the geopolitical and the geographic advantage, but, most important, the intellectual one, meaning that the worldview implied in Christianity, which blended Jerusalem, Rome and Athens, was conducive, in long term, to what we call Western civilization.

What you're doing is constantly equating Europe / the west with Christianity, frontloading the argument, making sure humanism / science is part of Christianity, whereas the previous posters had just cogently argued that Christianity and humanism / science were often (and still are) in opposition.

[Florestan]

What you're doing is constantly equating Europe / the west with Christianity

It's a plain-sight historical truth that European civilization has been informed in all his aspects by the Christian religon, to the degree that Christendom and Europe were sometimes synonyms.

Christianity and humanism / science were often (and still are) in opposition.

That is also true, but a conflict arousing from a son's rebellion against his father does not invalidate their kinship in any way.

[Herman]

That is also true, but a conflict arousing from a son's rebellion against his father does not invalidate their kinship in any way.

frontloading again. Humanism and sccience weren't "born" from Christianity.

You can go on like this forever, but it has nothing to do with thinking things through.

[Florestan]

Humanism and sccience weren't "born" from Christianity.

Let's take the "humanist-scientific revolution which gained momentum around 1750" and consider some facts about it.

1. It riped and blossomed in a narrow geographical space.

2. That was a space that has been thoroughly Christianized for centuries , both spiritually and intellectually.

3. Outside that space we don't find any trace of it before its importation from the original craddle.

Now, draw your own conclusions.

[Herman]

4. Church authorities did everything within their power to prevent humanism and science developing.

[Florestan]

4. Some Church authorities did everything within their power to prevent humanism and science developing, while many devout Christians, both clergy and laity, were involved in developing science and humanism.

Fixed.

[Herman]

Right. Now let's fix, say, World War II.

"Even though the majority of Germans were just going about their business..."

[Florestan]

Right. Now let's fix, say, World War II.

"Even though the majority of Germans were just going about their business..."

I fail to see any connexion with the subject at hand.

Meanwhile, you might want to consider this or this

[karlhenning]

That is also true, but a conflict arousing from a son's rebellion against his father does not invalidate their kinship in any way.

Right;  it is scarcely the occasion to declare that the son is some species other than his father 

[DavidRoss]

Here is an aspect about my Christianity that I find somewhat conflicting.  First, I believe that as humans we have free will.  That is we can make choices that are good, bad and everything between.  However, as a believer in God, I also believe that He is all knowing.  This being the case he already knows the path that I am going to take, that is, my path is predetermined.  So, can I believe both of these aspects at the same time?  Is it also due to the fact that I am trying to look at things from God's vantage point and by trying to do so I come up very short?  Comments and insights most welcome.

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?

[karlhenning]

Well said, David.

[karlhenning]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love an Omniscient God

[DavidW]

Let's take the "humanist-scientific revolution which gained momentum around 1750" and consider some facts about it.

1. It riped and blossomed in a narrow geographical space.

2. That was a space that has been thoroughly Christianized for centuries , both spiritually and intellectually.

3. Outside that space we don't find any trace of it before its importation from the original craddle.

Now, draw your own conclusions.

You have to actually supply the argument yourself.  Establishing correlation is different from establishing causation.  I'm sure there are many funny things that were unique to Europe in the 18th century, but I doubt that any of them are direct causes of the scientific revolution.  You have to establish that this is more than a coincidental correlation.

Also, it's quite arrogant to assume that your over-simplistic explanation is at all satisfactory to explain such a complex issue.  Perhaps I'll rethink this if you can come up with an argument that clearly shows a logical connection between Christianity and the scientific revolution.

[Florestan]

I suspect you haven't read the articles I provided. You can do it
here and here

[DavidRoss]

Denying the relationship between Christianity and the fruits of the Christian civilization guided by Christian beliefs and values is like denying the relationship between the English language and Shakespeare.

There's an expression about "biting the hand that feeds you."

[karlhenning]

Thread duty:

I'm feeling the love.

[DavidW]

I suspect you haven't read the articles I provided. You can do it
here and here

The first article is a clearly just an opinion piece without references on a website against revolution.  Hardly credible or interesting.

The second one looks like it could be more interesting.  But I would prefer you to actually make your case instead of throwing out links from the 5 seconds you took to do a google search.