Irritating To The Believer

[Yahweh]

when read in the context of you other posts seems to imply that you think that Christianity is so powerful because it is true.

Yes, and Communism is quite a powerful force as well.

 

[Christian]

I was attempting NOT to set up a strawman. Oh well...

I understand that, and I believe you. I want to make clear that is not my position.

What's your theory as to why Christianity is popular then? Personally, I think it was blind luck. The Roman's adopt it, Europe then adopts it, all social and political power ends up tied to it, Europe fends off Mongols (who, had they not enforced freedom of religion, may have made the world whatever the hell they were (animists? Buddhists?)), Europe has the renaissance, that allows expansion through new technology, and christianity is then forced at the end of a gun on the natives wherever europeans go.

Ok, I'm out of time, and I really want to make a point. I think a good point. Please wait for tomorrow.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But there are so many possible explanations. Let me give another. The facts are not correct, but the message is compelling. Why would you infer only one explanation? bias?

Why do you infer that I only infer one explanation? Let me give you another. I Infer many possible explanations but only mention the one I think most likely.

We could go 'round like this all day long.

But you are speculating. Why would this speculation be any better than someone else's saying that the message is just more interesting?

Why indeed. History is not so precise a field as science and some degree of speculation is inevitable in the field. But, in history, such speculation must always be derived from fact. Entire books could be (and likely have been) written on this subject. To simplify it as best I can, so it will fit in a post on an internet board, my speculation is based on the following facts:

• Christianity is the predominant religion of Europe and the Americas
• Europe and the US have been the most aggressive forces in spreading their culture across the globe in the last couple of thousand years
• Religion is part of that culture

Thus, Christian Religion is so powerful and widespread because it is the religion adopted by the most powerful and widespread culture of our time.

These are the facts that my speculation is based on. If you wish to speculate otherwise, feel free to post the facts that whatever alternate speculation you wish to put forward is based on.

 

[Bubbles]

It is very difficult to think objectively about the past. By that I mean that, once we know how something DID turn out, it is natural to think that it HAD to turn out that way. Paul and Constantine did convert to Christianity. Things turned out the way that they did.

Neither conversion was logically necessary. Either or both could not have happened. Had they done so (or not done so, as you wish to phrase it), things would have turned out in some way differently. Perhaps, rather than talking about the Christian juggernaut, we would be talking about some other religion. There is no way to even talk about the odds of such unique events and outcomes.

Did Christian teaching, practice, etc. contribute to the outcome that did occur? Of course! The success or failure (defined in terms of number of followers and social influence) would be effected by those things. In that sense, the poker hand analogy is simplistic. However, the analogy was simply to point out that, like a particular poker hand, the ascendency of any one religion (from a secular perspective) is tremendously unlikely. However, some hand will be dealt and some religion will be the predominant one. I offered nothing more than that.

Getting past that, what are the reasons that Christianity would have gained the dominant position in Western culture that it did, in fact, gain (I don't pretend that the following is a complte list)?

1) Christianity is true, and God has caused true teaching to triumph over false teaching. This view is, in and of itself consistent.

2) Christianity is false, and evil supernatural forces have caused false teaching to triumph over true teaching. This is equally consistent, and, if one allows the first one must allow the possibility of this.

3) Complete dumb, blind luck. On the surface, this does seem silly. However, if you honestly look at your life, how much of it is just dumb, blind chance? I can honestly say that most of the consequential things that have happened in my life were mostly chance. Events (and consequently ME), could have all very easilly turned out very differently. History isn nothing but the summary of a bunch of individual events and choices.

4) Psychological / Social relevance. The teachings and practice of the church seemed 'right' to people. I don't say that people analyzed Christianity and decided it was TRUE (that would come later), but rather that it seemed relevant and meaningful. This is, I think, a more nuanced view than #3. In the same way that I could (in theory) calculate all of the forces on a flipped coin and determine the end result, the social and psychological forces active in Roman society in the early Christian era presumably would, to some degree 'encourage' Christianity.

Naturally, the explanations are not mutually exclusive. 3 and 4 do, to some degree, coexists. 1 and 4 would as well. Of course, some of this depends on where one stands on the 'free will' argument.

Let me offer one more thought: Is it not possible that Christianity has had a great 2000 years, but that 2000 years from now it will be as popular as the New Kids on the Block? Success in the present in no way necessitates success in the future. It is difficult to extrapolate eternity from a few short milliniums of human history.

 

[AK-Dave]

To this day, it [Chritianity] has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

I would tend to agree with this statement. Chritianity has done more to hold back science and knowledge over the last thousand years than probably any other force in human history. Look at the current efforts with regards to stem cell research and teaching evolution. For past examples, look at all the books and scientists burned throughout the ages for daring to look for answers outside of the church.

 

[ceo_esq]

I would tend to agree with this statement. Chritianity has done more to hold back science and knowledge over the last thousand years than probably any other force in human history. Look at the current efforts with regards to stem cell research and teaching evolution. For past examples, look at all the books and scientists burned throughout the ages for daring to look for answers outside of the church.

AK-Dave, this is substantially a myth. For a rather detailed critical discussion of the influence of Christianity on science, please refer to this thread.

At any rate, anyone interested in an analysis of the historical growth of Christianity from the perspective of the social sciences would do well to refer to Professor Rodney Stark's volume entitled The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton University Press, 1996). It received, incidentally, a highly favorable professional review from The Skeptical Inquirer.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Seems to me a christian can't believe that their religion would be where it is without some kind of divine intervention. After all, it started as a tiny little cult. If it wasn't true, it would have died out like so many other flash in the pan religions. It HAD to survive because it's right. [/B]

Christian is forgetting that ALL religions started small. Their was a time when only a few people believed in nature spirits, Allah(the Islam version), Zeus etc.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

AK-Dave, this is substantially a myth.

Your right ceo_esq, The Church was thankful to Galieo, Darwin etc. A vacuum was never a heracy. Don't make me go on.

 

[ceo_esq]

Your right ceo_esq, The Church was thankful to Galieo, Darwin etc. A vacuum was never a heracy. Don't make me go on.

Seriously, though, I'm happy for you to "go on", but I suggest reading the thread I linked before doing so, in order to avoid reinventing the wheel.

If you had done so, you'd already know that a vacuum was a "heresy" to Aristotle, not to the Church. If it had not been for the rejection by the Church of the impossibility of a vacuum, as well as a number of other frankly anti-scientific aspects of Aristotelian dogma (see, inter alia, the Condemnations of 1277), science would be a lot worse off. As the eminent historian of science Edward Grant has written in The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. 1996) (part of the estimable Cambridge History of Science Series):

By emphasizing God's absolute power to do anything short of a logical contradiction, the articles condemned in 1277 had a curious, and probably unintended, effect: they encouraged speculation about natural impossibilities in the Aristotelian world system, which were often treated [thereafter] as hypothetical possibilities. The supernaturally generated alternatives, which medieval natural philosophers considered in the wake of the condemnation, accustomed them to consider possibilities that were beyond the scope of Aristotle's natural philosophy, and often in direct conflict with it. The contemplation of hypothetical possibilities that were naturally impossible in the Aristotelian world view was so widespread that speculation about them became an integral feature of late medieval thought.

...

[Christian theological notions of an omnipotent God creating the universe] became a convenient vehicle for the introduction of the introduction of subtle and imaginative questions, which often generated novel answers. Although these speculative responses did not lead to the overthrow of the Aristotelian world view, they did ... challenge some of its fundamental principles and assumptions. They made many aware that things could be quite otherwise than were dreamt of in Aristotle's philosophy. ... We can be certain ... that the condemnation expanded the horizons of Aristotelian natural philosophers[.]

Anyhow, the other thread is still open if anyone wants to pick up the conversation there.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

ceo, The Church taught, or should I say forced Aristotle's views on the world. I wonder if it would have lasted so long without them.

 

[Gregor]

Yes

We fought this one rather round and round. I disagree with the conclusion that it is a myth, and I recall the Stark discussion. We had those arguing that Xianity encouraged western development. We had those arguing no proof of encouragement. Finally we had those arguing for hinderance.

I seem to recall reaching some stalemate over the notion that there was nothing about the Xian religion that encouraged the development of science. I think those in the hinderance camp have tough sledding over proof to support the argument that Xianity hindered science - Copernicus and Gallileo notwithstanding.

In conclusion, I've still never read an argument that a particular Xian tenet encouraged science. The arguments about Aristotle's rediscovery & etc. are irrelevant to the tenets of Xianity. I also accept the concept that any dogmatic (and especially government sanctioned) belief in anything with out evidence (and some beliefs that are contradicted by evidence) hinders the pursuit of greater knowledge.

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo, The Church taught, or should I say forced Aristotle's views on the world. I wonder if it would have lasted so long without them.

I really have to wonder where you are getting this. According to Grant, prior to the 12th century the Western "scientific" heritage consisted of a handful of Aristotle's logical treatises, some medical works, two-thirds of Plato's Timaeus, a few works on the motion of stars, and a series of encyclopedic handbooks by authors such as Pliny and the Venerable Bede. That was basically all there was in circulation, and it provided only a meager metaphysical basis for science.

The Church's first encounter with Greek natural philosophy or proto-science was basically Platonic and Neoplatonic, approaches which the Church found relatively benign. It wasn't until the 13th century that Aristotle's natural philosophical works made their powerful appearance in the Latin West, and almost immediately came into conflict with Christian theology. Of course, in comparison to what was available before, there's a lot of good natural philosophy in Aristotle. But coincidentally or not, the metaphysical ideas of Aristotle that were rejected or modified as a result of their encounter with the Church happened to be some of the ideas that were least conducive to a scientific worldview ("final causes", the rational impossibility of vacua in the the natural cosmos, and many others).

The upshot is that that the Church encouraged its scholars to take a much more critical look at Aristotle's metaphysics than Aristotle himself ever did. The Church obviously didn't embrace Aristotle wholesale (unlike the Islamic world). I'm not sure why you think the Church "forced Aristotle's views on the world". The opposite is probably closer to the truth. Please provide some sources for this contention. I suspect you still haven't looked at the other thread, because you would have found this explained in at least a dozen places.

Originally posted by Gregor
In conclusion, I've still never read an argument that a particular Xian tenet encouraged science.

If I recall correctly, I did advance arguments in that vein in the other thread. One of the most important such ideas was the notion that the universe was formed and tends to operate according to a rational order imparted to it by its Creator, and that it is not only theoretically possible for human beings to discern that order through observation of the natural world, but theologically desirable as well. Now that concept may not have received varying degrees of attention at different times and places in the Christian world, but certainly it was a major preoccupation of the Scholastic natural philosopher-theologians after the 12th century, and you only need to read Isaac Newton's works to see what an enduringly powerful motivating force it was.

Also, one should bear in mind the ramifications for science of not having such ideas deeply rooted in your culture (as in pre-modern China; see the other thread).

 

[ceo_esq]

We fought this one rather round and round. I disagree with the conclusion that it is a myth, and I recall the Stark discussion.

By the way, there are a number of things that AK-Dave said that I think are indisputably myths: among others, the notion that the Church "burned" many scientists for pursuing scientific activities. Do you remember in the other thread how DialecticMaterialist pulled out all the stops trying to come up with examples of this? In the end, he couldn't adduce even a single instance of the Church having executed a scientist for his scientific pursuits.

To his credit though, at least DM had a fairly good sense for when it was time to hit the books and do some actual research, rather than parroting bogus received notions about the history of Christianity, as AK-Dave apparently prefers to do.

 

[evildave]

What? Me?

I never have anything 'irritating' to say.

OK, maybe one or two little things... but people are generally just so sensitive about the tiniest little details, and become offended at the drop of a pin. I've usually mortally offended the person just for not being what they want me to be: A mindless, drooling zombie who worries about make-believe things. I've got plenty of other real stuff to worry about, thank you.

I'm not always gentle or polite. Why bother, sometimes? You'll pray for me? Gre-e-e-eat. Thanks a lot. Will you dance in circles and make oo-oo sounds, too?

Heck, you think it's weird to see someone compulsively clean things before touching them? Then you see a really badly afflicted religious type, and it's the same thing. Watch out! The cooties/demons will getcha! Boogedy-boo!

Of course, I just avoid these sorts. They tend to have explosive temperament, and they've always got something black and rectangularand heavy to hit people with.

I really like it when people tell me "God says so". Really? When did he (sorry, 'He' - gotta capitalize those deity related pronouns, or people get miffed) email you about this?

Answering the question "Do you know Jesus" with "Heysoos? Yeah, he welded my muffler, man!", "No, have you let him in you heart?", "Ah, no way, I don't go that way!"

Of course, calling Jesus 'Mary's Bastard', the 'Savior on a Stick', 'Jehova's Love Child', 'Pilate's Whipping Boy', 'Cracker Bod Christ', 'The divine that bleeds wine', the 'Treeminator', and various other SNL copier machine guy names usually doesn't win friends among the believers who take all that religion stuff a little too seriously.

Other mildly irritating things.

 

[triadboy]

Again, isn't this simplistic. Why has that boost lasted for so long. Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

Because the fear of hell is a strong convincer.

 

[Beerina]

I just answered your PM, but I'll respond here anyway


John 18:20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."


False. Jesus taught in boats, on mounts, to his disciples in private, etc.

Dude, that's pretty weak...

 

[Beerina]

> Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the
> most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?


Because Europeans were more successful at conquering and spreading their culture. Duh.

This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity. The "Western Tradition", is science, not Christianity-and-science, though it's hard for some to accept.

 

[ceo_esq]

This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity.

Please provide some citations in support of that statement.

Preferably from, shall we say, at least two major pieces of reasonably contemporary scholarship dealing with the history of science during that period?

 

[triadboy]

Please provide some citations in support of that statement.

Preferably from, shall we say, at least two major pieces of reasonably contemporary scholarship dealing with the history of science during that period?

The science of cartography was raped by xian leadership. Map-making was making real progress until the edict came down from the Vatican to change all the maps so Jerusalem was at the center.

 

[Bubbles]

This in spite of the thousand-year dark ages caused by that very same Christianity. The "Western Tradition", is science, not Christianity-and-science, though it's hard for some to accept.

Actually, Christianity saved western culture during the dark ages. When society fell apart, it was the church (specifically monasteries) that preserved the achievements of the past. It is because of the work that the church did (though, admittedly it wasn't what they set out to do) that western Europe recovered instead of becoming a footnote in history (of course, then it would be someone else's history).

Also, if you want to blame someone for the failures of post-Roman / pre-Middle Ages science, I think Plato would be a better target. It was, as much as anything, Western Europe's switch from Plato to Aristotle that spawned the scientific achievements.