Is ours a Christian civilization?

[arthwollipot]

*facepalm*

My thought exactly.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Whether you have any formal studies to back you opinion or not, you can still give some evidence. For example, I used the fact that in neither the Byzantine Empire nor Czarist Russia did Christianity produce all those things we cherish in Western Civilization. So, perhaps you could site something in Western Civilization that you think wouldn't be there were we not a Christian culture.

Tim, you are picking and choosing a bit here, and I think that's a mistake. Christian influence on Western Civilization isn't debatable: it is imbedded in the cultural heritage. The key word is "Western" and therein lies the once again obvious point that Christianity varies in practice.

The profound split (and IMO the great tragedy of Christendom) between the Latin and Greek churches in 1054 (which of course had been percolating for some time) informs how people categorize East and West, even into the Cold War. (Plenty of the old "you aren't the right kind of Christian" bun fights there, for centuries. See also the fun Croat/Catholics had at the expense of Orthodox/Serbs during WW II, Ustazi, etcetera.)

When you say "ours" who exactly are you talking about?

Or do you think that Christianity's influence is no longer needed?

By whom?

What do you think will or can replace it?

Thus, neither the separation of ecclesiastical and temporal powers and the rise of representative forms of government in Western Civilization owed anything to Christianity

Other than providing a set of common cultural assumptions (about which people of course quarreled) no, no influence at all.

Your assessment does not seem very accurate. Based on some recent reading I did on the relationships between Carolingian, and later HRE, imperial courts. The Defenestration of Prague, for example, sixteen hundreds ish, was in a large part informed by the clash between where and when Church and State authority was valid. (See also the Guelphs and Ghibellenes as pivotal disputes between Church and State well before the Enlightenment.) I can offer you "render unto Caesar" as a root philosophical underpinning of the separation between Church and State, but quite frankly, I don't think that stands up too well, nor do I think it was the critical meme behind it.

The other point about Western Civilization that your OP didn't address is the Reformation, a profound influence on Western thought, and for my money a necessary precursor to the Enlightenment, and from that the eventual attempt to empower the citizen. Without that necessary cultural step, no Protestantism, and thus no cultural philosophical basis for the American Experiment, part and parcel of which are freedom to worship as one pleases, or not at all, and the explicitly anti-Papist (and at the same time Anti-Anglican) doctrine forbidding an official state religion. (Memory foggy, but "How the Scots Invented Western Civilization" is a fun little romp through how patterns of philosophy and thought emerged from the Kilted ones).

Tidbit: some European countries still apply tax revenue to churches/cathedrals (Italy, France, Germany I think, I'd have to check). This is IIRC done as cultural/heritage maintenance, or perhaps, more cynically, as a way to keep attracting tourist revenue. Is that separation of church and state? Is that doctrine universally European?

Second Tidbit: IIRC, Napoleon III was the last Emperor in Europe who one could call "defender of the faith" from the Pope's point of view.

Last bit: without the American petri dish in which the European ideas were played and experimented with, I am not convinced that European Deomcracy would have arisen, although the English Parliamentary example might eventually have spread anyway, due to proximity.

DR

 

[AWPrime]

Since when does belief in Christ = happy all the time? Or even in general?

It's far more complex than that, and 18% of people is not going to make a large dent in the happiness index, if they are all indeed much happier attending church.

A person can be happy about their salvation, but unhappy because of life events. They can have a general peace about life, but at the same time unhappiness due to life circumstance.

Actually in the distant past America was far less christian then today.


Also western culture is filled with Greek/roman and Germanic influences, even our version of Christianity has them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually in the distant past America was far less christian then today.

Huh? Alexis du Tocqueville was wrong?

Also western culture is filled with Greek/roman and Germanic influences, even our version of Christianity has them.

Aye.

 

[arthwollipot]

Christianity got Greek via Aristotle.

 

[HansMustermann]

I dunno man, I thought Constantine and the gang already got so Greek with Christianity at Nicaea, that the poor thing walked funny and couldn't sit down for weeks

 

[AWPrime]

Huh? Alexis du Tocqueville was wrong?

I wouldn't call him wrong. America was always primary christian, but if one used Church attendance to rate how christian it was, (in other words how intense it is) it can be viewed in another way.

Many of the early immigrants were not religious extremists such as puritans, many were opportunity seekers. Must could be seen as 'lukewarm' Christians. Also even in the early years separation of church and state had widespread acceptance (as noted by du Tocqueville).

In the following years America became more and more religious (Second Great Awakening). The height of religion in the US was likely during the anti-communism phase.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wouldn't call him wrong. America was always primary christian, but if one used Church attendance to rate how christian it was, (in other words how intense it is) it can be viewed in another way.

Then maybe "church attendance" isn't a valid metric.

Many of the early immigrants were not religious extremists such as puritans, many were opportunity seekers.

You don't have to be an extremist to be Christian. Example? Me.

Must could be seen as 'lukewarm' Christians. Also even in the early years separation of church and state had widespread acceptance (as noted by du Tocqueville).

Lukewarm Christian is a Christian, and no, kilts not required to be saved.

In the following years America became more and more religious (Second Great Awakening). The height of religion in the US was likely during the anti-communism phase.

While I see where you are coming from, I'll point out that the expansion westward in the nineteenth century (which followed the First Great Awakening, IIRC, see American Methodism as an example) had a common cultural and practical element: the Bible as reference document.

Granted, variations in practice were significant (and remain so to this day), but what wasn't missing was the core shared assumption/guidance.

You just gave me a thought: perhaps the second great awakening was the antithesis to communism's thesis. The synthesis is ... not sure, actually.

 

[Hux]

Hux: Perhaps, had there been a way to decouple religion from the state in Islam, Islamic countries would have developed a secular side. Remember that it was the religious wars of the late 1500 and early 1600 that eventually discredited religion enough to break the hold of Christian authorities one everything from science to biblical criticism.

Also, remember that within evangelical Protestantism there is, even today, the doctrine of Presuppositional Apologetics (actually a twentieth century phenomenon), which says that one presupposes the Bible to be true in matters not only of faith, but history an science as well. Had the power of religion not been broken in the West as a result of exhaustive religious wars, we might well be living a society where they would still be debating whether the Earth is round or flat - as in the video from Iraq presented on the Islamic flat earth thread

Agreed, but of course Europe had such a bellyful of religious war that it could not help but turn away from it. The Thirty years war must have been more than sufficient to turn the stomach of all but the hardened religionist. Had Islam had a secular arm, I am not so sure it would have countered the religious side[ it might have been nothing more than tolerated. After all, these buggers still kill each other for walking into the 'wrong' Mosque and they are fighting wars of centuries ago. I cannot see any reason why a secular Islam could have arisen let alone set the tone for the rest of its history.

European history seems to be divided into adherence to the Vatican or a complete rebellion against it. Wonderfully, such a struggle has now marginalised both sides so that Christianity is almost meaningless to thinking reasonable Europeans now.

The Vatican however, seems to feel it has some right to still interfere in people's personal affairs or into the realms of science. It is welcome in neither.

Hamelekim (God help me) is right - up to a point. Christianity is on the bones of its arse in Europe - but, 'moving away from the bible' is no modern phenomena. Catholicism is not characterised by ant great adherence to the scriptures - The Poop is the ultimate authority and what he says goes. It was (and to some extent remains) the province of the Lutherans and the Protestant movement to have a greater adherence to the Babble. This was really enough to break the religious hold on Europe. I wonder if there is any coincidence that Islam managed to stay in Spain longer than elsewhere, where Spain is so terribly catholic in its attitudes?

Thank God for Henry VIII. This terrible despotic swine, in deciding he would shag whoever he wanted, took England away from Catholicism. We can be eternally grateful for that, so that there are now only around 5 million of the little buggers running around in the UK which is barely of any consideration.

 

[pakeha]

...I wonder if there is any coincidence that Islam managed to stay in Spain longer than elsewhere, where Spain is so terribly catholic in its attitudes?...

In some parts, almost 500 years, as long as the Europeans in America.

As for the why, I've read it was basically because the Spanish kinglets couldn't contain their 'instinct' to kill each other off, sometimes even negociating alliances with the Moors to do it right.
Then, as everyone knows, it wasn't the Moors who killed Roland at Roncevalle, but rather the Basques.

 

[Hux]

Indeed Spain was always divided and thus could not offer a credible defence against Islam. But it would also be fair to say Spain was (and remains to some extent) a religious country that could not get its act together.

Whichever way it hangs, I suppose they are to be congratulated for offering some sort of buffer against Islam in Western Europe.

 

[HansMustermann]

Ugh. I see that the characterization of historical Islam is also moving into surrealism.

The kind of islamism you see these days, where they bomb each other even for being the wrong shade of Islam, doesn't even date earlier than the 18'th century, when Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab had his attack of nostalgia for the good old medieval days. And even then it had very limited influence outside of what nowadays is Saudi Arabia, until well into the 20'th century.

Everyone else couldn't give a flying f-word about what sect of Islam you are, or even if you're a Muslim at all. Well, not literally. There were still social advantages in being muslim in, say, the Ottoman Empire, but that was about it. Jews and Christians were damn free to practice their own religion, and christian serfs often fled to Ottoman lands when they could, because they'd actually have more rights there than in their own damned country.

The Wahhabi movement itself started as a reaction not to the West, but to the Ottoman Empire which was perceived as having become basically too western and too disconnected from the values of the Islam. Ironically, the Ottoman Empire at the time claimed the title of Caliph, i.e., head of the global islamic "nation".

Sure, it wasn't complete separation between the church and state, what with the Sultan claiming a religious top office too, but it's pretty silly to think that it was anything like the modern day Taliban or anything.

And even before it, under, say, the Cordoba Caliphate, the Jews in Spain were quite free to practice their religion and generally fared a lot better than under the Christians after the Reconquista.

 

[Hux]

Ugh. I see you ignore the historic difference between Shia and shiite Muslims who have killed each other over the slightest affront since the formation of Islam.

But this thread isn't about Islam, in so far as Islam is mentioned as being kept out of Western Europe for so long. Western Europe was indeed Christian, which is what the original poster asked. It is not now. There is more of a secular administration with political and military alliances under the umbrella of NATO and the EEU. Thankfully we will not return to religious influence which frankly made a right hash of things to say the least. Superstition is in its death throes. Watching catholics cluster around saints that officially have seven heads is now a matter for ridicule; not respect. The institution of catholicism (more prevalent on mainland Europe than the UK) is being questioned now more than ever. Latest estimates suggest (I do not know how these figures were arrived at) that the catholic clergy could be constituted of between 40 -50% homosexuals. That is fine in itself but it is pure hypocrisy. Catholics are now actively defying their doctrines with contraception (for one) and it must be a source of worry for Ratswinger to have to confirm catholic Doctrine and what you must believe. Christianity is losing its grip in Europe, but Islam must understand this is no invitation to allow their particular horrors take its place.
For better or worse, we have the legacy of Christianity in Europe and it has undoubtedly fashioned us. However, almost anything else would have done just as well; I would argue that secular humanism or similar would have brought less bloodthirst and lust for war but we can never know.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, it matters, because the damned thing ends up used not just as in "well, Christianity must have had some influence", but as in "OMG, Christianity _caused_ capitalism, democracy and freedom." You don't even have to read too far into the OP to find two references to such works of bullcrap apologetics.

And I for one am sick and tired of _that_ bullcrap.

The conditions were so different between the countries compared (e.g., Turkey not being somewhere with easy access to colonies, or China being in the middle of a devolution due to Qing idiocy) are so vast, that singling out Christianity as the only difference, or even as the _main_ difference, strikes me as idiotic. Yet that's what that kind of apologist does.

And here's one more factor that I don't see mentioned often: the scientific method. Essentially Galileo is when we stopped going by Aristotelian bullcrap semantic games, and started actually making predictions and measuring if they fit. It gave a brutal kick in the pants to a thoroughly broken model, and replaced it with something that actually worked.

Soon afterwards Europe starts building increasingly complex mechanisms and even gets an industrial revolution.

Coincidence? Maybe not.

And it's something that wasn't really either due to religion, nor against religion. The whole conflict between the Pope and Galileo had to do only with Galileo's being a flaming troll and alienating a Pope who was actually on his side in the beginning.

 

[Hux]

I am not, for one , singling out Christianity. I am thanking it for being the lesse of several evils, which is not saying much. it also happens to be a fact that Europe was controlled by Christianity for centuries; thankfully no longer.

The Renaissance could not have come quick enough. Science and humanism had to fight Christianity all the way. It would have died completely under Islam, just as Islamic scholarship dies under Islamic theocracy. But Christianity did not end with Galileo; it has taken years of enlightenment to get to where we are now. Sure, I cannot disagree with the geographical argument put forward by the likes of Jared Diamond. But other continents had their treasures, their deposits; their assets. Only Europe has managed to shake off religious interference and this shows in its overall prosperity. I wonder if that will work in the USA?

But yes, once again, ours is a Christian civilisation - how could it be otherwise?

 

[uruk]

~snip~Church attendance is way down.

~snip~

Do you think that one possiblity that church attendance is down is because people are becoming disillusioned with the church or that the church no longer holds what people need or are looking for?

There seems to be a presumption that religion and church is necessary for individual fulfillment or happiness. Or that religion and church has answers that all people are looking for.

Is there any evidence or causality proved that happiness and church going are linked?

 

[cgordon]

Oddly enough, Hamelekim, similar studies have shown that some of the least religious countries have much higher happiness ratings ...

 

[Hux]

There have been definite figures produced to show that the 'secular' countries fare much better than the religious. (Don't ask - google it) Is there not for instance, a singularly strange correlation between the religius US states and the chances of being killed?

The 'church' is not giving people what they want any longer. in terms of Catholics, very many of them are forced to ignore many of the doctrines outlined, just to live a reasonable life. In fact, if you follow the immutable doctrines only recently restated by Benny the Poop, there will be a considerable amount of people who call themselves Catholics, that cannot be Catholic. The Protestant religions, C of E and its derivatives are just ineffective and harmless, confining their Jihad to Marmalade making and Beetle Drives.

None of this would make sense to a Christian in the US, I would imagine. However, once you try out secular life, its difficult to go back. Perhaps Fundies realise this and realise they could never get back what had been lost? Not that it is saying much. People in Europe live their lives just fine without religion, whilst we have to keep one eye on burgeoning Islam that is spreading by other means. If they get a real toehold in Europe it will make Christian wars look like minor disagreements.

 

[TimCallahan]

Hah, well, it's true. Of course, I don't see the age of reason as the motive behind it.

People want to do do their own thing, so they have just turned away from the Bible. They pick and choose what they want to follow, and society has suffered for it.

People are less happy now than they have been in half a century, and there is a reason for it. Human nature has screwed everything up, and will continue to do so.

I know you would like to think we are headed towards some sort of technological humanist utopia, but I think that is as much of a fantasy, as you do the second coming.

Look at the rise of depression in society, this world where we just strive for thing, and we become dead inside, and it's no wonder we turn to drugs, porn, mass consumerism, and narcissistic self satisfaction.

People are becoming more and more unhappy with this life, and nothing they do will fill the hole left by God.

I have seen nothing to lend credence to the idea that we will ever have any kind of better world outside of a God ruled one.

If you have evidence that says otherwise please show it.

1. As to people turning away from the Bible, those who did so in the Age of Reason were reacting against the atrocities of the religious wars. People continued to turn away from the Bible as a result of Darwinian theory, the Documentary Theory and the Four Source Theory for the origin of the Synoptic Gospels, among other things.

2. As to the rise in clinical depression, this may be more the result of diagnosing it properly. Clinically depressed people were - previous to the understanding of brain chemistry and neurotransmitters, such as serotonin - simply dismissed as having a melancholy disposition. Remember tha in the middle ages melancholia was one of the four types of temperment, based on bodily "humors." Thiswould seem to indicate that depression was quite common back then.

 

[HansMustermann]

People want to do do their own thing, so they have just turned away from the Bible. They pick and choose what they want to follow, and society has suffered for it.

People _always_ picked and chose what they want to do. It doesn't matter if they're modern day Christians or medieval Christians or ancient Sumerians or whatever.

E.g., if you think today is bad, here's a bit of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about the situation during King Stephen of England: "When the traitors saw that Stephen was a mild good humoured man who inflicted no punishment, then they committed all manner of horrible crimes. They had done him homage and sworn oaths of fealty to him, but not one of their oaths was kept. They were all forsworn and their oaths broken. For every great man built him castles and held them against the king; they sorely burdened the unhappy people of the country with forced labour on the castles; and when the castles were built they filled them with devils and wicked men. By night and by day they seized those they believed to have any wealth, whether they were men or women; and in order to get their gold or silver, they put them into prison and tortured them with unspeakable tortures, for never were martyrs tortured as they were. They hung them up by the feet and smoked them with foul smoke. They strung them up by the thumbs, or by the head, and hung coats of mail on their feet. They tied knotted cords round their heads and twisted it until it entered the brain. They put them in dungeons wherein were adders and snakes and toads and so destroyed them. Many thousands they starved to death."

People are less happy now than they have been in half a century, and there is a reason for it. Human nature has screwed everything up, and will continue to do so.

Human nature always screwed things up, in all ages. And we've always had people decrying it as some kind of new development. In reality we've been screwed for thousands of years, and that's it.

I know you would like to think we are headed towards some sort of technological humanist utopia, but I think that is as much of a fantasy, as you do the second coming.

I for one find the techno-rapture just as stupid a concept as the fundie rapture. That's not why I'm a humanist, and I don't think it's much of a factor for most secular humanists either. The question isn't what wonders can technology do, but how we live with each other.

Look at the rise of depression in society, this world where we just strive for thing, and we become dead inside, and it's no wonder we turn to drugs, porn, mass consumerism, and narcissistic self satisfaction.

You mean unlike, say, Renaissance where the whole culture turned depressed and morbid and obsessed with death and final judgment? Yeah, depression has got to be soo new a thing

Also:

- drugs: why do you think wine and beer were major industries in all ages?

- porn: why do you think all those nudes were painted and erotic sculptures sculpted? Sorry, whoever could afford a quick representation of a naked woman, did so for thousands of years.

- mass consumerism: mate, ever heard of the Silk Road? Or of the fortunes of Phoenicians based on a unique kind of purple dye? Just a colour for your clothes had got to cost a lot more than its weight in gold, just so people can show off what they can afford to buy. If you think the whole phenomenon is new, you haven't thought it through.

- narcissistic self-satisfaction: ... used to be a drive in all ages. If you think all those pyramids and palaces got built out of selfless altruism... heh.

People are becoming more and more unhappy with this life, and nothing they do will fill the hole left by God.

You mean unlike the major mass-depression during the God-filled Renaissance?

I have seen nothing to lend credence to the idea that we will ever have any kind of better world outside of a God ruled one.

Mate, wishful thinking does not make anything true. Yes, your ideal world would be ruled by God, and mine would be ruled by a sex goddess But neither is more than a dream.