I bet John Locke read Cicero.
Exactly - it was when the church no longer had the power to condemn people (such power being taken up by secular courts) that progress began.
I personally figure Newton’s laws of motion were the beginning of the end of religion as a primary explanation for the universe. Once he concluded that the movements of the planets obeyed the same immutable rules as the movement of objects on Earth, Heaven lost its magic. I’ve no problem believing that Newton himself was a religious man and gave religion serious thought.
Perhaps I’m not describing my stance clearly enough. Christianity was an overbearing presence in medieval Europe. Gradually, the church diminished in power, taken up by the various kings. As this happened, serious scientific inquiry could slowly begin. Helped along by the printing press (which aided greatly in the spread of ideas) and a number of gifted individuals like Newton building on the work of other gifted individuals, the Renaissance and Enlightenment and eventually the Industrial Age marked the spread of scientific ideas at a rapidly increasing rate. By this time, the concept of Deism had taken hold and it was no longer necessary to adhere to any particular dogma or ritual.
Now, if you want to claim, in effect, that since history happened a particular way, it necessarily must have happened that way, and all alternatives would be worse, be my guest. I still see nothing crucial or unique in Christianity that laid necessary groundwork. A similar faith that aggressively proselytized (converting as necessary at the point of a sword) and yet was willing to assimilate existing rituals would have filled the role just as well. We could easily have had more progress or less progress, but not no progress. It’s this aggression combined with flexibility that enables the spread of Christianity, as it would any faith. What if a religion was similarly aggressive and flexible, but had no Jesus-figure? Please indulge me and list a few critical dogma elements that are necessary for and exclusive to Christianity. I’ll assume the first is that Jesus was the son of God (feel free to restate in a more formal way). Then list why these elements are crucial to the Renaissance.
In any case, whatever form and role the unifying religion may once have had, we don’t need it any more, and haven’t for several hundred years.
No it isn’t. The Spanish Inqusition did execute people convicted of heresy (well, technically, the Spanish government did after the people were investigated and condemned by the Inquisition). There were also major cases of religious executions in Germany, in England, in France. It wasn’t a myth.
Progress is a process not a destination. I am using secular humanism to point out the root of morality contained within it. Is learning about history a process of discarding Christianity and nothign more? Knowing what really happened is unimportant beyond the goal of discarding religion?
But it happened in Christianity. Making up some hypothetical of ‘any fertile soil’ is masturbation. It happened one way.
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]Something good happened in a Christian society - proves Christianity is crucial.[/li][li]Something bad happened in a Christian society - doesn’t count.[/li][li]Something good happened in a nonChristian society - doesn’t count.[/li][li]Something bad happened in a nonChristian society - proves Christianity is crucial.[/ul] [/li][/QUOTE]
These are all strawmen and only distract from the discussion.
So Carl Sagan’s musings are automatically true?
You’re the one waxing about hypotheticals. I am talking about how it DID happen, you’re talking about fictional scenarios that suit your bias. Secular Humanism came directly from Christian philosophers, starting with Thomas More’s Humanism, and evolved to the American founding Fathers who were all religious men to some degree or another.
Judaism?
Again, you try to make it about provign God, which is regressive in these kinds of discussions. It’s an attempt to make the discussion less nuanced in order to turn it into the old saw about whether or not God exists, pointless fruitless and masturbatory.
He has enough wiggle room in the adjective “common” :
Thing is, the frequency is largely irrelevant. All it takes is a handful of well-publicized show-trials and executions, even one every three or four years, to have a chilling effect on free scientific inquiry.
And yet the 16th and 17th Centuries were the dawn of the enlightenment. Amazing that eh?
In PARTS of Christianity.
Pre-modern Christendom was a very fragmented place. If Christianity was responsible for the Renaissance in Italy, why didn’t it trigger a Renaissance in Ireland? If Christianity spawned the industrial revolution in England, then why didn’t it do the same in Russia?
The wide variety in outcomes for different Christian countries over the last 1000 years suggests that Christianity played only a minor role in the evolution of modernity.
Okay, so what’s the destination? And if it’s irrelevant, what’s the point of this thread? If Christianity was necessary to get us to this point, but this point (and some ultimate future destination point) doesn’t matter, then why does Chrsitianity matter?
I consider it an evolutionary process, myself. If Christianity was needed as a guide to understanding the universe, we’d have to keep it. Since it isn’t, we don’t. This is not specific to Christianity, of course, but anything that might’ve once been useful but can now be replaced with something more accurate, like the geocentric model of the universe.
Again, this is dismissal instead of discussion, and it relies on the fallacy that since A preceded B, A caused B.
You say “strawman” a lot, far more than justified. I stand by my statement. Arguing the Christianity was necessary to science ignores the times Christianity impedes science, and ignores advances in science by nonChristians.
Well, I said “amusingly.” No, no-one’s speculations are automatically true. Not mine, or yours, or ITR’s, or Sagan’s. In fact, exaggerating my statement into something you can challenge is by definition a strawman. You’ve made numerous misjudgements about my stance and failed to acknowledge any of them.
I don’t agree that you are. Rather, you’ve selected items that tend to support your thesis while ignoring items that don’t.
I see no reason to assume humanism or something similar couldn’t have developed from something other than Christianity.
And again, if Judaism had been as aggressive and flexible as Christianity, it could’ve become the dominant European religion, and possibly with similar results. Heretics would’ve been stoned instead of burned, I guess.
Try to imagine, if you will, a religion with similar attitudes as Christianity, but with a completely different mythology, i.e. a central figure with nothing in common with Jesus - one who didn’t claim to be the son of God and was not crucified. It’s like Christianity, but it’s clearly not Christianity. Why would it automatically fail?
That’s twice you’ve said “masturbatory” in your post, and you’re wrong both times. I’m not arguing whether or not God exists - I’m maintaining that religions are arbitrary and interchangeable and even followers of a specific religion have no objective reason to embrace it and not others.
I’ll respond to this and get to the rest of the post later as I don’t have much time.
What I refer to as masturbatory is precisely the point Poccacho made in the other thread about introducing Star Trek. You are saying, “What if this fictional scenario had happened instead.”, Well “What if Hitler had died as a child?”, there are all kinds of fictional what ifs we can ponder, but they tell us nothing. They are not useful.
And your above about science is a straw man because I did not say Science can only occur with a Christian society. THe definition of a straw man is when you ask a person to respond to something they didn’t say as though they said it. I never said it so I won’t respond to it as though I did.
Well, I find it significant that church-based prosecutions lasted the longest in Spain (the Inquisition wasn’t abolished until 1834, though its actual influence had waned long before) and Spain was not a major center in the Enlightenment. I wouldn’t make any definite claims, but to me this implies that the sooner religion gets out of the courts, the better off the country is.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, then. On rereading the OP, I get the impression (and I’m prepared to be corrected) that your thesis is that Christianity is critical (or at least very important) for the establishment of “a compassionate society”. I’m not entirely sure this has occurred, or that other causes can’t be found, or that Christianity was crucial, though.
In any case, you saying “masturbatory” repeatedly doesn’t constitute a compelling argument. You’re free to say the same about any of my statements, of course.
In lieu (for now) of a clarification, I’m going to go with “compassionate society”. I admit this is an assumption, and I’m perfectly willing to have the issue clarified further, so I do not believe this constitutes a strawman.
Question: Is/was Christianity necessary for the advent of medieval and (eventually) modern “compassionate societies”?
The major problem (perhaps the first of many) is defining what a “compassionate” society is. I personally prefer arguing matters of science and technology because they’re far less arbitrary and statistics (i.e. life expectancy, infant mortality, telephones per capita etc.) are easier to find. How can one firmly identify what is and is not a compassionate society? Crime statistics? Charitable donations per capita? Foreign aid as a percentage of GDP? Can a society that bans abortion be seen as compassionate toward children, while one that permits abortion be seen as compassionate toward women (I’ve seen this debated at length in this forum)? Does a society lose all claim to compassion if it contains officially-sanctioned acts of violence or oppression against women or minorities? If so, there have been quite a few uncompassionate societies in the last hundred years, several of them predominantly Christian.
If I limit myself to just medieval and pre-medieval Europe, I’ll concede that in some places where Christianity rose to predominance, it may have replaced local superstition (which may have been quite violent) with Christian superstition (which is relatively less violent). I don’t know how universal this claim could be - there may have been pagan societies that had never heard of burning heretics at the stake before Christians showed up, or maybe the pagans liked burning people at the stake and Christians cheerfully adopted the practice, as they absorbed other pagan customs.
If the strength of the argument is “look at what DID happen”, well, then, let’s look at what actually did happen. When, where and why was the first Christian persecution for heresy? When, where and why did Christians eventually stop persecuting for heresy (assuming they did)? How much did Christianity itself change in that interval?
‘More compassionate than what came before.’, is actually operative. More capable of assimilating competing tribes. The emphasis on charity even for those not your kin. Things like that.
Well you were asking me to comment on speculative fiction. What else can I say? ‘Yes if all the proper parameters were met in your imaginary society then of course it would work out the way you are saying it will since it’s a fictional world that you created?’ I mean what do you want in that regard? You made up an imaginary, ‘What if history happened differently?’ argument. The argument isn’t compelling because it’s based off of a fictitious environment.
How so?
My grandfather smoked, got emphysema, and died from it. My great uncle smoked and is still going strong at age 86. Does the wide variety in outcomes suggest that smoking played only a minor role in my grandfather’s health?
Well I don’t see burning people at the stake as an inherently Christian notion. Ultimately still Christian societies abandoned the practice. Certainly it is barbaric. Just as crucifixion or lethal injection are barbaric. The ideas that I am pinning my argument to are the notion of charity and universality in Christ. That the religion itself provided a framework for belonging to a common religion outside of the tribal framework, and as such can be viewed as a technological advance, if we consider social structures to be forms of technology.
So when I say universality, I mean Christian universality in that anyone can join, not that it is universal to everyone alive. This advance in and of itself allowed for structures such as nation-states to form. The idea of a pan-European consciousness is tied in with the Christian world. Western Europe is arranged based on the Latin church and Eastern Europe on the Orthodox Church, but ultimately the European identity follows the lines of ‘Christendom’ fairly well except for a few Asian nations like Armenia, Georgia as well as Russia. So the current European Union follows the lines approximately.
After the fall of the Roman Empire contrary to the notion that the church kept the people ignorant, it was the only trans-fief identity that worked to keep the knowledge of the past alive. Yes, they sought to control it but they did create libraries and universities. Thinkers like Origen, Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas regular referred to classical thought so there is no reasonable argument to be made that the church was seeking to suppress the ancient Greek philosophers.
I don’t buy arguments that we’d be more advanced without the church. I think that without the church there would be no unified European identity, thus no West, and no Science as you know it, because Europe would have descended into pure feudalism and not have the overarching entity fomenting a common cultural identity.
It looks like it’s time for some myth-busting.
First, as Thomas Lessl explained in the article I already linked to, there is no case of the Catholic Church (or any other church) executing or torturing anybody for “free scientific inquiry”. Not one. Nada. Zip. The entire idea is a prime example of atheist myth-making. The first example of a scientist being executed was Lavoisier, who was not killed by the Catholic Church, and not for his scientific findings. (When atheists took over most of Europe in the 20th century, executions of scientists started to proliferate, but that’s another thread.)
Second, the Inquisition did not wield power over all Europe. It was limit to Spain, Italy, and some parts of France and the low countires. It could not possibly have had a chilling effect across all of Europe.
Thirdly, burning at the stake was not a common Catholic practice. It was a common practice among those enlightened and rational Pagans; the Ancient Romans burned traitors at the stake. (Though in their defense they did so because it was less painful than some of the other modes of execution they used on their subjects and slaves.)
Now in 12th century Europe burning was common, but not because the Church ordered it. It was common in areas where Church control was weak, as were mob violence, death by stoning, and other charming practices. Emperor Frederick II of Germany, one of the church’s strongest enemies, loved a good at-stake-burning. The Church created the first Inquisition to prevent this sort of thing, and to establish a more fair, uniform, and humane system of justice. (And now atheists bash the Church for doing so–no good deed goes unpunished.)
Fourth, the Inquisition was not needlessly cruel or inhumane. Since the whole purpose was to prevent abuses that ran rampant among secular rulers, great attention was paid to laying down rules and following them carefully. At least one Inquisitor, Robert de Bourger, was sent to prison for life for breaking the rules.
In fact, torturing people to force confessions never happened. Trials for witchcraft never happened. Trials of Jews or others outside the Church never happened. (Only those who chose to be members of the Church were subject to prosecution.) Those who were accused were always allowed to defend themselves, to have counsels for their defense, to see the evidence presented against them, and had a grace period in which to confess. If they confessed, they were given a penance and that was it–no further punishment. Only about one percent of people who faced the Inquisition were ever executed.
Here’s an article that covers Inquisition History. It’s somewhat long but well worth reading. Suffice to say, the idea that the terror of the Spanish Inquisition somehow squelched science, blocked progress, and spread terror all over Europe for centuries is wrong on several grounds.
I know the emphasis of Christianity, but how well did that translate to the effects of Christianity? Were all displaced cultures less compassionate? Were there times when Christians weren’t particular compassionate at all? The Arawak seemed like a pretty decent bunch, until the Spanish showed up.
Sure, by the emphasis of Christianity, places that are Christian should be near-idyllic. They aren’t, for some reason.
I’m not sure how many different ways or many times I need ask: is it possible that a religion with methods similar to Christianity (but that was specifically not Christianity) could have led Europe down a similar evolutionary path? If your answer is “no” or “it’s impossible to say”, then we have nothing to discuss because the sociopolitical impact of Christianity on Pagan Europe is what it is, no other impact is possible or worthy of discussion. Even entertaining a discussion is, in your word, masturbatory. Exactly what kind of discussion are we supposed to be having, here?
Most likely he did, since a classical education was the norm for English gentlemen in his time. I’m disputing the claim that his philosophy came from those classical sources. In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, his Christian beliefs are woven into the argument to a degree where they could not be removed without the whole thing collapsing. (And that’s the only Locke writing I’ve read, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the same were true for his other writings.)
Yes, agreed, the reality and the idealism are different. However, a philosophical ideal has some impact on the society in which it is inculcated no?
My answer is ‘impossible to say’. Yes if in your fictional account all the right conditions were met the the hypothetical situation where it did happen without Christianity, yes it could happen hypothetically. Well it’s entertaining but we can define things any way we want. The great thing about being a fantasy author is that the society works exactly how you say it does.
I have to disagree with this conclusion. When, if ever, was there a “unified European identity”? Such identity certainly didn’t stop them from engaging in near-continuous warfare for the last 2000 years. And I’m having some trouble reconciling Christian “anyone can join” inclusiveness with the rise of the nation-state. The concepts seem contradictory to me, and the nation-state owes quite a bit to improvements in weapons technology whereby territory could be defended by peasant-armies with force multipliers like the bow, the crossbow, gunpowder etc.
ITR has a charmingly cheery view of church inquisitors, I must say. I’m sure the Knights Templar would’ve gotten good chuckle out of it.