I have always been impressed by people who can take a highly complex topic and summarize it very concisely. It’s a rare skill - since it is hard to do well without leaving out too much, becoming trite or even being offensive. I am asking Dopers of their opinion of these religious summaries since I have limited knowledge and interest in the subject.
In Buddhism, Brahmanism, Taoism and Judaism the ultimate aim is not the right belief but the right action or way of living. This is echoed in modern thought by Spinoza, Marx and Freud. The consequence of this is greater tolerance since if there is no one right thought, there is less reason to fight others.
In mainstream Western religion, there was much more emphasis on the right thought or belief. This led to much more dogma and endless arguments about the correct formulation. Though this led to much intolerance and emphasized the importance of believing in God (more so than right actions), the idea of finding truth in thought also led to science where the correct thought is all that matters.
In Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish. In Paul, it became half Greek. In Catholicism, it became half Roman. In Protestantism, the Judaic emphasis was restored. Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter, and Fundamentalism the triumph of Paul over Christ.
Re #1: Judaism does have required beliefs, and they are among the required actions, which makes it difficult to separate the two categories. Moreover, although Jewish thinkers may disagree over relatively minor details, there certainly is a difference between right thoughts and wrong thoughts. Any tolerance you perceive is due more to practical considerations than to a “believe whatever you want” attitude.
Be careful with words like “truth” and “correct”. My view is that science investigates things as deeply as possible to understand the physical world, and to describe it with no contradictions. As long as these descriptions are logical and consistent, that is the kind of “truth” science is interested in. Morality is meaningless to science, and that makes use of the word “correct” murky. [Morality is not to be confused with efficiency, which is meaningful to science.)
Those are fair points. But would you agree Judaism has largely avoided schisms over belief? (This is discounting differences largely due to social classes, such as between Pharisees and Sadducees).
I’d have to give a ‘no’ on the first two, at least. For one, Judaism would map to your “right thought” and intolerance descriptor. But, more importantly, you can find a large number of intolerant and accepting communities among almost any religion. Those are really aspects of people more than religion.
It would probably be fair to catalogue some specific religions, based purely on their official texts, under some headings - except that the practitioners of those religions will outvote you on correct interpretation, so there’s limited value in doing it. Not to mention that the “official texts” can and also do often change between different groups within a religion. Ethiopian Judaism, for example, has a different set of texts than the Judaism that you and most people know. Likewise, within Buddhism, Zen uses different texts than Mahayana, and there are distinct differences between those.
The first secret to being able to write a small summary of something is being at least something of an expert in it. The second is being a big enough egotist to write your shortened form. And the third is having sufficient authority to have others buy into it.
I’m not sure that you’ve succeeded in the third, which puts into question the first.
Pharisees and Sadducees are just one example. The Essenes and Boethusians too. In more recent centuries we have Sabbateans, Karaites, Chassidim, Reform, Conservative, and others.
And, of course, you yourself already mentioned the largest group of them all, the Christians.
While the other parts seem way overgeneralized, I can’t speak with authority on them. But these don’t make sense to me at all. They even seem contradictory.
Protestantism has nothing at all to do with a Judaic emphasis. I don’t have any idea where that idea comes from. If I had to laconically describe the split, it was over the idea that “faith alone” was enough for salvation, though you could also say it was a response to Catholic corruption.
I guess you could say that Protestants put more emphasis on Paul than Peter, since they generally do not hold that Peter was the first Pope (or that Christ said he should be), and thus put the Bible above that idea, and Paul wrote a significant part of the New Testament. He was the one who most prominently preached “faith alone.” However, in what way would Paul be more Judaic than Peter? And in what way did Protestantism “triumph” over Catholicism, when there are more Catholics?
I also don’t see anything Pauline about Fundamentalism. And inasmuch as they put things above Jesus, it’s not Paul’s teachings. It’s their conservatism. Paul was all about embracing change, as he coined the “when in Rome” concept. He said he tried to be “all things to all people.” And he was very much against sectarianism.
And, again, in what way did Fundamentalism triumph over Protestantism?
1 is (as Keeve preceded me in posting) quite wrong about Judaism. Classic Jewish texts (i.e., the Talumd and its commentaries) make it clear that the actions are all reflections of proper belief, and actions without proper belief/thought behind them are only ever significant as a gateway to proper belief. While there may be minor differences that all fall within the realm of “proper thought”, there is no tolerance for improper thoughts/beliefs. Spinoza, Marx and Freud are certainly not examples of the religion’s tolerance, Spinoza was excommunicated from his community, Marx had converted to Christianity, and Freud’s family belonged to a movement whose founders had been excommunicated.
If I had to make a one-sentence precis of Protestantism*, especially wrt the differences from Catholicism, I’d include this, the primacy of the Bible over tradition, and the “priesthood of all believers”, the idea that anyone can experience God directly, without need of an intermediary (i.e., a priest). That latter is one reason for the multiplicity of Protestant denominations.
*with the caveat that Protestant churches cover a wide range of theologies and practices, some contradictory to others.
I would point out these glib summaries are not my own, I am very far from an expert or authority. Some of them come from Will Durant who was a Christian (though losing faith) and was both an expert and authority on history more than religion. I accept there are many inaccuracies in the statements, but they were made by sone much more knowledgeable than I, and far from naive. I was curious how well they held up.
I think I have the micro-version of his history on a shelf somewhere, but I’ve never gotten to it.
Based on a quick Google review of his Magnus Opus and the bits you quote, I would say that he’s a historian in much the sense that a Hollywood period piece is a historical recreation.
Fundamentally, there’s a difference between deducible history and history where the principal goal is to create a compelling story.
Durant seems to have been more of an author than a historian. The latter served the former. Maybe there are good lessons in there for life - I haven’t read it, so I couldn’t say - but it’s probably not much like a true history.
Not at all. Durant may have been popular (but never basic) but his works and scholarship remain excellent in comparison to most histories. More focused work is required for a specific interest in a person or event or some topics but it would be wrong to minimize his contributions written over sixty years. Naturally, such an ambitious work would attract criticism, some valid. He and his wife were able historians as well skillful writers, with a deep knowledge of philosophy, decent humour and hunanism, and at least a moderate understanding of culture and religion.
They do not cover modern events after Napoleon such as world wars. There are a few better historians (Plutarch, Thucydides) and better ones covering a very specific thing. I don’t think the Durant got their due. They are very good.
I’ve never read anything by Durant, but I browsed through the online previews of a few of his books and read a few pages here and there. They had me shaking my head at the sheer quantity of nonsense in them.
Besides being totally outdated, his works seem bear about the same relationship to history as Mills & Boon does to literature.
I can only suggest that you read some good modern history books by reputable authors to have something to compare them to.
Again, an opinion offered by someone who has not read anything by the Pulitzer Prize winner. A Reddit thread is not really a substitute for that, as a Doper knows.
Indeed, I would say his works have aged well, are not on the whole Eurocentric (especially his first volume), and that many of his critics are inaccurate or fail to quote specifics. That is not to say he depended a great deal on secondary sources, was not exclusively a historian, that general approaches can leave much to be desired or that later scholarship can be illuminating. The statements in the OP likely leave something to be desired.
In searching “best historians” and “best history books” I find I have read many of the ones recommended by several of the websites. But they often are not better than Durant and they are never more comprehensive.
Assumes that these religions are each monolithic, which they’re not.
#1. I’ve heard this belief-action distinction expressed as “orthopraxic” vs “orthodoxic”. Orthopraxic means, do the rites correctly. Orthodoxic means, you must believe the right things, and not only that… but say them out loud, like the Catholic Credo (or the Pledge of Allegiance).
There’s plenty of rigidity and intolerance in both Judaism and Buddhism. Can’t speak to Brahmanism (what’s this? is it Hinduism? Have you never heard of Hindu orthodoxy?) or Taoism. Taoist practice is a lot more than Lao Tzu: it has elaborate rites, pantheons, belief systems.
#2. Hadn’t thought that Christian belief would lead to a search for scientific truth but even in science there are orthodox thinkers. It’s a human trait to want everyone to think the same, it means they’re “safe” somehow. Like you can trust them, they’ve got the password.
#3. I’ll have to think about that one some more. For sure, religions that spread tend to be subject to cultural accretions. I don’t know that Protestants restored a Judaic emphasis. I agree with the suggestion that Fundamentalism is fundamentally anti-Christian, though. No Lamb of God for you, only lakes of fire!
I was never taught that I had to believe anything as a Jew raised Reform. For sure, being an atheist is odd, but as long as you keep it to yourself and say the prayers, keep a kosher home, go to shul, observe Shabbat… outwardly, you’re OK.
As a Jew posting on Friday night, I feel I’m on some shaky ground. However, that’s what I wanted to say- we are commanded to do and not to do. We are not commanded to believe or disbelieve. We’ve had threads on atheism and Judaism before. I’ve met an ordained (this is not the right word I know. He has a smicha- a laying on of hands in an unbroken line leading back to Moses) rabbi who is an atheist. He was a great guy and a fine Jew.
This conclusion puzzles me, as it seems obvious that right actions are even more of a reason to fight others than right thoughts are, since you can hide your non-thinking of the right thoughts, but you can’t really hide your non-performing of the right public actions.
That and Buddhism, at least, has been very fractious at times. You just have to look at rival sects in Japan fielding armies of sōhei over both political and doctrinal disputes.
That’s an unusual account of the origin of modern science, which has got squat to do with correct thought and everything to do with practical proof.
The first sentence contradicts the last. If the Judaic emphasis was restored (not that I’m agreeing it was) then that would be a win for Peter, not Paul, by your own account.