Tradition betrayed

[Geo Dude]

[What's the emoticon for "hearty applause?]

I second this sentiment.

[DavidRoss]

[What's the emoticon for "hearty applause?]

[drogulus]

 

   

Modernism is a disintegrating force, not a constructive one (it "liberates", it never sets down).

     That's true, modernism is destructive of tradition. That's also largely, though not completely, a good thing. The traditional world was one we were entirely justified in escaping, which is why most traditionalists engage in severe distortion of the past in order to present it as a more desirable alternative to the present or imagined future. Almost no one wants to live in the past as it really was. You can see this even (especially) in religion, where phoney tradition reigns supreme, and belief that it's good to believe does the work formerly done by actual belief. I wonder, though, if beliefs can be recommended like that. I don't recall ever having a belief recommended to me by a teacher or anyone else worthy of trust.

     There were always people fortunate to reach adulthood without being hobbled by traditional mindfoggery, and for the rest part of tradition's allure is that responsibility to think about serious matters was considered too important for intelligent adults and was better left to compliant toadies. On this model Galileo was wrong because he was disobedient, surely as unmodern a view as one might find, and you find it less and less outside of its natural home.

     Authoritarian ideologies don't have to be supernatural. It might even be true that supernatural ideologies don't have to be authoritarian, though I have doubts on that score. I suppose it's too neat to assume that democracy and materialism "go together", since there are too many individuals who straddle the line. Yet it appears true when you step back to the long view.

[Herman]

To add one other thing: if it was that easy for modern civilization to "defeat" tradition, than "tradition" probably wasn't worth that much in the first place.

So everything that comes after is always better than what was before?

In that case we should perhaps stop listening to classical music, which is largely an artifact from the past, carefully preserved.

[71 dB]

So everything that comes after is always better than what was before?

Not even close.

Knowledge tends to cumulate and technology gets better. Human rights tends to develop because people fight for them and society gets more secular (less religious suppression).

Art forms evolve something different rather than better and have their high points whenever they form positive resonances with the surrounding society.

Development may also create undesired side effects. Pollution of environment is one.

[Karl Henning]

Human rights tends to develop because people fight for them and society gets more secular (less religious suppression).

Your prejudices continue to blind you on this point, but religion can be (and historically has been) a driver for promoting human rights.

[Iconito]

Your prejudices continue to blind you on this point, but religion can be (and historically has been) a driver for promoting human rights.

Would you please provide some examples of this? Thanks in advance.

[kishnevi]

Would you please provide some examples of this? Thanks in advance.

You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to. 

[DavidRoss]

You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to. 

Where's that "hearty applause" emoticon when you need it?

To deny the great role played by religion in general and Christianity in particular in bringing about virtually all of the social, moral, and technological blessings that too many take for granted in our Western Civilization of the 21st Century...is to proclaim one's ignorance of history.

[Florestan]

You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to. 

We could go back even further in time, right in that most Catholic of all Catholic countries: Spain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca

[DieNacht]

... and likewise religion including Christianity has been used to suppress the mentioned blessings. Catholicism in Italy and Spain in the 19th Century was indeed suppressive in relation to social reform; countless scientists of the 19th century had to fight against the dogmas of the church, including that of the Flood, in relation to developing geology and evolution theory. Galilei , Giordano Bruno and Copernicus had to fight the church as well, to mention some well-known examples emerging from the Renaissance current of secular science
...

Statements can be so general that they hardly have any value; one needs to be specific and deal with specific issues in history. Overall, the religious institutions and their accompanying sets of dogmas have tended to support existing hierarchies rather than overthrow them, and social turbulence is mostly the result of material inequality and the weakening of dogmas through alternative thinking to the established order, rather than religious insight.

[Florestan]

.Catholicism in Italy and Spain in the 19th Century was indeed suppressive in relation to social reform;

...and from this suppression sprang Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, the foundation on which Italian and German Christian-Democracy built the unprecedentedly succesful post-WWII social market economy.

countless scientists of the 19th century had to fight against the dogmas of the church, including that of the Flood, in relation to developing geology and evolution theory.

Among them Georges Cuvier, outstanding naturalist and zoologist, founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, a devout Lutheran and a supporter of the Flood theory.

Galilei , Giordano Bruno and Copernicus had to fight the church as well, to mention some well-known examples emerging from the Renaissance current of secular science

Except they were not secular in the least: Bruno was a Dominican friar turned pantheist, Galilei and Copernicus were all their life devout Catholics (whether the latter was or was not ordained as a priest is yet unclear).

Overall, the religious institutions and their accompanying sets of dogmas have tended to support existing hierarchies rather than overthrow them, and social turbulence is mostly the result of material inequality and the weakening of dogmas through alternative thinking to the established order, rather than religious insight.

I'm afraid you conflate two different things: religious institutions and religious convictions. One can very well be a devout Christian yet act in manners contrary to what this or that Church mandates. In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...). To say that the Church as a whole, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist or whatever, was always on the side of the good is certainly a gross exaggeration; but to say that countless Christians, clerical and laic alike, acting precisely according to their religious convictions, devoted their life to the promotion of justice and good and contributed immensely to the advancement of society, of science and of arts and letters - this is the truth and nothing but the truth.

[DieNacht]

 

...and from this suppression sprang Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, the foundation on which Italian and German Christian-Democracy built the unprecedentedly succesful post-WWII social market economy.

Great Britain and France / London and Paris among others had set examples that were hard to ignore; are you seriously saying that a papal paper from 1891 introduced these liberal ideas ?

Among them Georges Cuvier, outstanding naturalist and zoologist, founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, a devout Lutheran and a supporter of the Flood theory.

Does scientific progression include the questioning / abolishing of a literal interpretation of the flood ?

Except they were not secular in the least: Bruno was a Dominican friar turned pantheist, Galilei and Copernicus were all their life devout Catholics (whether the latter was or was not ordained as a priest is yet unclear

- were they attacked or stimulated by the dominant church authorities ?

I'm afraid you conflate two different things: religious institutions and religious convictions. One can very well be a devout Christian yet act in manners contrary to what this or that Church mandates. In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...). To say that the Church as a whole, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist or whatever, was always on the side of the good is certainly a gross exaggeration; but to say that countless Christians, clerical and laic alike, acting precisely according to their religious convictions, devoted their life to the promotion of justice and good and contributed immensely to the advancement of society, of science and of arts and letters - this is the truth and nothing but the truth.

I am saying that the church institutions have mainly been on the side of the rulers and the dogmas. They rarely questioned class structures, unless in popular or radical movements, and usually reacted after an urge for change had been articulated from secular forces below, at least since the Renaissance.

[Florestan]

  Great Britain and France / London and Paris among others had set examples that were hard to ignore; are you seriously saying that a papal paper from 1891 introduced these liberal ideas ?

I am not quite sure about what those examples refer to and I don't know if by "liberal ideas" you mean liberalism in the American or in the European style. Please elaborate.

- were they attacked or stimulated by the dominant church authorities ?

Bruno was in constant conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, not least because of his passionate and assertive personality. Copernicus received encouragements, appraisal and work commissions from two popes and several cardinals. At first, pope Urban VIII was sympathetic and supportive of Galilei (to whom he was in personal friendly terms), but the unfortunate and ill-thought choice of the latter to barely disguise Urban as Simplicius eventually alienated his most powerful and influential supporter.

Between black and white there is an infinite number of grey shades. The history of the relationship between science and church(es) is no exception.

[Geo Dude]

Among them Georges Cuvier, outstanding naturalist and zoologist, founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, a devout Lutheran and a supporter of the Flood theory.

I have no problems with the general thrust of your argument, but the history employed here is a bit shoddy.  To start, Cuvier was not particularly devout.  While he acted as a liaison between the Catholic leadership and Protestant community in France he was critical of their arguments over theological matters as he found the subject rather pointless.  For that matter, his devout daughter frequently prayed for him because she thought he was going to hell because he wasn't religious enough.

As for the flood theory:  He was not a proponent of 'flood theory' (in its modern form), per se, nor were the majority of serious scientists working within his time.  First of all, he like other serious scientists accepted that the Earth was ancient.  Second, and more importantly, his concern was not with Biblical literalism, but with demonstrating that life on Earth was punctuated with extinctions; he used the Biblical flood, among many other religious and historical texts, to provide evidence of a cause for the apparent mass extinction found in the fossil record.  He was even criticized by a well known priest for being scared of leaning too heavily on the Bible as a scientific document.

Just so we're clear:  I'm not arguing in favor of the religion versus progress model of history; quite the opposite, in fact.  The idea of Cuvier as an extremely religious flood proponent is a piece of false history originally promulgated by those who wish to promote that historical model, but the truth about Cuvier is far more complex and interesting.

[Karl Henning]

. . . The idea of Cuvier as an extremely religious flood proponent is a piece of false history originally promulgated by those who wish to promote that historical model, but the truth about Cuvier is far more complex and interesting.

I am sure the last is true (that the truth is more complex and interesting); I note, though, that extremely is not what Andrei said.

[Florestan]

Indeed, Karl - and thank you.

@ Geo Dude

I agree 100 % with what you wrote and am aware of the facts you cite. I didn't consider it necessary to elaborate on Cuvier's case and perhaps I chose a rather unfortunate formulation. In both cases - mea culpa.

[Geo Dude]

Karl:  I happily acknowledge that that part of the post was poorly phrased, and admit with a bit of embarrassment that I was on auto-pilot by that point.

Florestan: it's very rare to meet people who are familiar with the actual history of geology, much less Cuvier, and most derive an interpretation based on what Stephen Jay Gould would call 'textbook cardboard history' to support whichever side of the debate they happen to be on.  I'm glad you're historically aware because I feel that it's a particular tragedy when the real Cuvier gets lost in the midst of such arguments given how shockingly brilliant the man was.


On a more general note, if anyone wants to look more deeply into this subject -- and has the patience for 700 page scholarly tomes -- please look into M.J.S. Rudwick's Bursting the Limits of Time and Worlds Before Adam.  For a more accessible, albeit philosophically oriented, history that unfortunately does not deal with Cuvier, try Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle.

[Iconito]

You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to.

Religions existed for some thousand years before the abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world and most social reform movements of the 19th century (i.e., religion doesn't seem to be the determining factor in those developments)

As for that "counterimage" you mention, I'd like you to know that my personal position is NOT that religions are the sole cause of all the evil in the world (it's more like religions are steaming mountains of bullcrap of which we should get rid)

I'm afraid you conflate two different things: religious institutions and religious convictions. One can very well be a devout Christian yet act in manners contrary to what this or that Church mandates.

So, anything goes. You just do what you want and screw what the Church mandates.

In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...).

Ditto, with an exquisite twist: "Simon says don't do what Simon says"

[DieNacht]

I am not quite sure about what those examples refer to and I don't know if by "liberal ideas" you mean liberalism in the American or in the European style. Please elaborate.

I meant that the economic growth, the rise of the middle classes and the political reforms in 18th - 19th Century France and England & the huge influence from the metropolises of the day (Paris and London in particular) were necessarily a more important part of the inspiration for political reforms in Germany, than a papal paper from 1891.
Another factor was Bismarck´s establishing of a strong coherent democratic state and improved trade conditions as well as public wellfare much earlier than 1891 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck.

Bruno was in constant conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, not least because of his passionate and assertive personality. Copernicus received encouragements, appraisal and work commissions from two popes and several cardinals. At first, pope Urban VIII was sympathetic and supportive of Galilei (to whom he was in personal friendly terms), but the unfortunate and ill-thought choice of the latter to barely disguise Urban as Simplicius eventually alienated his most powerful and influential supporter.

Between black and white there is an infinite number of grey shades. The history of the relationship between science and church(es) is no exception.

Bruno was not burned alive due to his personality traits, the official reason was heresy, and his books not placed in the papal list of forbidden books in 1600 (the same year that he was burned) for that reason either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

I can only agree that Copernicus received some support from Catholic dignitaries, but some say that the delay of the publication of "De Revolutionibus" was fear of the church authorities. The heliocentric model was not debated for 60 years due to fear of heresy, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
and met very strong opposition from Luther and Calvin. In 1616 the book was included in the papal list of forbidden books, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Galileo spent the later part of his life in house arrest after having been condemned for heresy.