Is ours a Christian civilization?

[TimCallahan]

In recent years, theistic apologists, among them Rodney Stark and Dinesh D'Souza, have asserted that our Western Civilization is not only inherently Christian, but as well that all its great hallmarks derive specifically from Christianity. that is, democracy, capitalism, science and even romantic love are all part of Western Civilization thanks, specifically to Christianity.

There are two issues here. First, is our civilization Christian? Second, if it is a Christian civilization, does Western Civilization owe its science, democracy, capitalistic economic system, and the institution of romantic love to Christianity? When we speak of Christianity here, it should be remembered that what we are dealing with is the institution of the Christian religion in all its European forms, not the Bible or any particular interpretation thereof.

As to the first question, Christianity certainly was integral to the formation of Western Civilization. It is one of the elements, along with Greco-Roman civilization and the traditions of the Celtic, Teutonic and Slavic peoples, that were merged to form Western culture.

As to the second, I assert that this proposition is easily tested. Had Christianity alone been the source of democracy, science and capitalism, rather than these institutions springing rom a mix of the cultures listed above, along with the effects of geography, then we should reasonably expect democracy, science and capitalism to develop over the centuries in any culture that was Christian and reasonably stable of a number of centuries.

As it turns out, we have two cultures, besides that of western and central Europe, in which Christianity flourished for centuries. These are the Byzantine Empire and Czarist Russia. Both were Christian and reasonably stable for centuries. While Czarist Russia started out at a disadvantage, being rather backward in culture compared to the west, the Byzantine Empire started out with a distinct advantage compared to western and central Europe through the Middle Ages. Yet neither the Byzantine Empire nor Czarist Russia developed democracy, science or capitalism.

Thus, I would assert, the triumph of democracy, science and capitalism in the West is the result of an eclectic cultural mix,a favorable geography and historical contingency.

I wonder if DOC, Edge or Avalon XQ - or for that matter, anyone else - would are to dispute my conclusions.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I thought romantic love arose from the concept of courtly love seen in poems and epics from the medieval age? Chaucer satirized it in one of his Canterbury Tales. I certainly remember talking about it enough in "Beowulf to Malory," a survey course I took in college, and in the medieval Spanish course I also took.

But then we have medieval scholars on the board so I'll bow to their expertise.

 

[Humes fork]

Democracy does not come from Christianity - what a preposterous claim! Democracy comes from ancient Greece. In addition, the Germanic and Celtic tribes had somewhat democratic forms of government. The king was elected (not that there was universal suffrage, though) and at least among Germanic peoples, the king was more of a symbolic religious leader. The people consisted of farmers who mostly managed their own lives. Western civilization is in much greater debt to Solon than to the crude Hebrew tribal rules.

Capitalism does not come from Christianity either.

And neither does science, as science has existed in many pre-Christian civilizations (Greece, India, China, Babylonia, Egypt).

Romantic love comes from human nature. To claim it for Christianity is the most ridiculous of the claims.

 

[Minoosh]

"Christianity" isn't one thing and I often don't know what people are trying to say when they use it generically. I'd say it's true that certain ideas about social justice stem in part from Christian belief. When the Declaration says "our Creator" has endowed us with certain rights, the fathers would have been conceptualizing from a generally Christian viewpoint. It would be sharply in contrast with, say, Confucian tradition. I don't know if any other culture started with the premise that all men are created equal.

I'm aware of slave-owning and the disenfranchisement of women, Indians, etc., but the concept is still quite bold. I don't know enough about the interface of Christianity and the Enlightenment to confidently attribute the concept to Christianity; however it's a sturdy thread in some Christian thinking.

Differences over which brand of Christianity one practiced fueled a lot of development, given the numerous wars and waves of immigration resulting from conflicting interpretations. Perhaps any religion would have done, but maybe not.

The Renaissance, colonialism, the discovery of calculus, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution are key factors in our civilization and don't seem particularly Christian to me. Differing opinions gave people lots to fight about, though, and competition could have spurred innovation.

 

[TimCallahan]

You can find a positive review of Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason here. Perhaps that will clear up some of his thesis.

Here's an interesting quote from the link above:

In his conclusion Stark notes that many in China - which is now embracing the West's capitalism, if not its democratic institutions as yet - have been converting to Christianity. According to a leading Chinese scholar, among other things, it is because Christianity is inseparable from modernity - something no other world religion or secular creed can claim.

Let's examine this claim. Looking up various websites, I found one that claimed an "explosive" growth in Christianity in modern China. It noted that if 35% of the Chinese are Christian and are in positions of influence, then Christianity could have a decisive role to play there. So, how close are Christians with their "explosive growth" to achieving this goal? There are now about 23,000,000 Chinese Christians, out of a total Chinese population of about 1,340,000,000, meaning that Christians comprise under 2% of the population. So, don't hold your breath.

 

[Ladewig]

You can find a positive review of Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason here. Perhaps that will clear up some of his thesis.

Thanks for the link.

I liked:

In his conclusion Stark notes that many in China - which is now embracing the West's capitalism, if not its democratic institutions as yet - have been converting to Christianity. According to a leading Chinese scholar, among other things, it is because Christianity is inseparable from modernity - something no other world religion or secular creed can claim.

.................

As for democracy, I would think that the absence of democracy in the Roman Catholic Church would be a sticking point in this theory. Yes, the College of Cardinals does vote on the Pope, but when 175 people out of 1,100,000,000 have a vote, then it is pretty much as far away from a democracy as one can get.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Considering every aspect of our society existed in one form of another prior to Christianity, I don't think it follows. The only difference today is the merging and flourishing of these concepts. The role that Christianity played in the last 2000 years is one of coincidence, science and technology and reason has always been in struggle and tension with religion.
I think most of the arguments Christians propose in this topic are based on taking credit for modern morality.

Superstition has set us back again and again. The scientific method in the ancient world was swallowed and obscured by the mysticism of Pythagoras, and look what Islam did to the science and tolerance of Persia. It's been a struggle against Christianity and mysticism that led to the flourishing society of today. The deists of the American Revolution reversed the inhibition of reason championed by the puritans and the pilgrims.

 

[Complexity]

No, ours is not a 'christian' civilization.

We are civilized in spite of religion, not because of it.

 

[Minoosh]

What is the difference between a theist and a deist?

I certainly wouldn't use Chinese conversions to argue that Christianity is "inseparable" from modernity. Tolerance of the free practice of religion may indicate some degree of "modernity," whatever that is.

 

[Minoosh]

We are civilized in spite of religion, not because of it.

The Neanderthal had religion. It's interlinked with civilization. I'm not sure why this should be, but didn't most civilizations have underlying religious beliefs?

 

[Halfcentaur]

What is the difference between a theist and a deist?

I certainly wouldn't use Chinese conversions to argue that Christianity is "inseparable" from modernity. Tolerance of the free practice of religion may indicate some degree of "modernity," whatever that is.

Before concepts like natural selection and the idea of self replicating algorithms, it was difficult to conceive of a world without a creator. Many deists of the last 500 years would have been atheists had they found a way around this problem, and have been quoted in so many words saying just this, I'll dig up some.

Yet there were men in the ancient world who suspected the world and reality, through whatever means, somehow existed completely through material and natural processes.

 

[Arunk3001]

The Neanderthal had religion. It's interlinked with civilization. I'm not sure why this should be, but didn't most civilizations have underlying religious beliefs?

Most of them did because it's a very easy way of uniting the people. Rome was one of the few civilizations highly tolerant of new beliefs and that's only because they readily integrated them into their established rituals. Most large religions choose to isolate themselves and turn any conflict into an "Us or Them" situation, which is very pleasing to anyone in doubt about the 'enemy'.

As far as the original question goes, it's my firm opinion that the modern western civilization is a child of Greek philosophy, not christian ones. The dark ages were a christian civilization and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman art brought the old classical ideas back to the modern world.

So, from a scale of 1 to 10 how bad was my first post?

 

[Humes fork]

Most of them did because it's a very easy way of uniting the people. Rome was one of the few civilizations highly tolerant of new beliefs and that's only because they readily integrated them into their established rituals. Most large religions choose to isolate themselves and turn any conflict into an "Us or Them" situation, which is very pleasing to anyone in doubt about the 'enemy'.

The Romans were not always very tolerant of differing religious beliefs. Ask the druids.

As far as the original question goes, it's my firm opinion that the modern western civilization is a child of Greek philosophy, not christian ones. The dark ages were a christian civilization and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman art brought the old classical ideas back to the modern world.

The popular notion that Christianity brought a dark age is false.

So, from a scale of 1 to 10 how bad was my first post?

From a literary point of view, not bad at all. From a factual point of view, it leaves room for desiring more. And welcome!

 

[Halfcentaur]

The Romans were not always very tolerant of differing religious beliefs. Ask the druids.



The popular notion that Christianity brought a dark age is false.



From a literary point of view, not bad at all. From a factual point of view, it leaves room for desiring more. And welcome!

The Romans were still unusually tolerant of the religions they conquered, even if there were exceptions.

I don't think the poster literally stated the Christians brought about the Dark Ages either, rather they pointed out the state of civilization during a great span of the Catholic theocracy. The exceptions you raised help for clarification, but I would not go so far as to say the post you're replying to necessarily disagreed.

 

[Humes fork]

The Romans were still unusually tolerant of the religions they conquered, even if there were exceptions.

Fair enough.

I don't think the poster literally stated the Christians brought about the Dark Ages either, rather they pointed out the state of civilization during a great span of the Catholic theocracy. The exceptions you raised help for clarification, but I would not go so far as to say the post you're replying to necessarily disagreed.

It's still a myth that Christianity brought a dark age. You'd be hard-pressed to find a serious contemporary historian siding with that idea.

 

[Complexity]

The Neanderthal had religion. It's interlinked with civilization. I'm not sure why this should be, but didn't most civilizations have underlying religious beliefs?

Most (feral) cats have fleas.

We don't credit the fleas with the magnificence of cats.

We recognize the fleas for the health-damaging annoying bloodsuckers that they are.

We do our best to kill the fleas.


Interpretation aid:

• 'cat' = 'civilization'
• 'flea' = 'religion'

Those that require further assistance should watch Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. You'll know the line when you get to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Second, if it is a Christian civilization, does Western Civilization owe its science, democracy, capitalistic economic system, and the institution of romantic love to Christianity? ....

Owe our science?


Don't forget to also look at all the 'Christian' nations that did not develop democratic governments, and, look at democracies over time. I don't think you can consider the Catholic Church much of a democracy. I doubt early Christian countries weren't any more democratic than Rome was before Christianity was adopted. It's my understanding democracy came to Rome before Christianity did.

 

[MG1962]

Tim I dont think there is any direct way to answer your question. At best I think Christianity had both a positive and negative effect at the same time. In the 13th and 14th Centuries the Catholic Church was at the for front of a lot scientific advances, but at the same time though it often guided those advances so as not to contradict the Church's dogma.

In the 17th and 18th Century we saw a lot of social advances based on Christian values, and often the clergy was one of the loudest supports while at the same time hell bent on converting or eliminating those seen as savages

 

[Ladewig]

Well, there's Christianity and there's Christianity. More precisely, there's Christianity as described in great detail in the Bible and there's U.S.-style, twenty-first century Christianity. The former is not so conducive to capitalism. The Bible admonishes us to not charge interest when lending money to our brothers; it is the very antithesis of capitalism. Paul talked of sharing resources and allowing people to take what they needed. Jesus spoke against coveting money - rich men , needle eyes and all that.

I'm really not seeing the Bible/capitalism link here.

 

[Leumas]

Well, there's Christianity and there's Christianity. More precisely, there's Christianity as described in great detail in the Bible and there's U.S.-style, twenty-first century Christianity. The former is not so conducive to capitalism. The Bible admonishes us to not charge interest when lending money to our brothers; it is the very antithesis of capitalism. Paul talked of sharing resources and allowing people to take what they needed. Jesus spoke against coveting money - rich men , needle eyes and all that.

I'm really not seeing the Bible/capitalism link here.

In fact Peter and the desciples formed the FIRST EVER COMMUNIST society. Full fledged communism even with TERRORIZING the members into obedience and compliance.

Acts 4:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
​

Acts 5:

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
​