Or we can explore the role christians played in the Abolition Movement…
Apparently you are using some definition of "progress" that I am no familiar with. Christianity was a minor cult until the 4th century, then it increased significantly. At that time, schools were being closed, scientific progress that was occurring in Greece halted, Greek literacy went nearly to zero, smelting of iron was nearly non-existent for centuries. Please explain. I realize the cause of the so-called Dark Ages is debatable and I would not put forth any simplistic explanation. However, explanations are still required for what I just listed.Uh uh uh...I'm using your qualifiers. "Religion in general, and christianity in particular". However if you want to stick with christianity I suppose I can cite the discovery of the Americas. That happened because of two papal monarchs, catholic monarchs(who instigated the Crusades), who funded Columbus' Exploration. Let me guess, now you move to disassociate the religious connection there right? You can't do it. But of more relevance is the "religion in general" category you brought up. I don't care which religion you refer to, as long as you don't cherry pick from hundreds years of a religion and only talk about the good that happened in isolated cases. And I would like to hear some specific bit of inspiration for real progress. Something like St. Augustine being against slavery wouldn't count because his ideas not adopted in his time. Are you saying no one else would have tried to sail across the ocean if it had not been for religion? The papal monarchs were the ones who had the money. And are you familiar with what they did once they got there? I'm reading a history book at the moment that has evidence that Columbus' motivation for attempting to sail to China was to fund another crusade to convert the Muslims to Christianity. Not that it matters, the point is, how is this progress? It's just exploration. What God ever commanded, "go Ye and explore?" Honestly, I'm not beyond being convinced of what you're saying, but so far you have just made assertions.
I don't care which religion you refer to, as long as you don't cherry pick from hundreds years of a religion and only talk about the good that happened in isolated cases. And I would like to hear some specific bit of inspiration for real progress. Something like St. Augustine being against slavery wouldn't count because his ideas not adopted in his time.This is over your head. I've already made my points. You're just bloviating now. You need to realize that being an atheist doesn't mean you have to walk around wildly swinging at anything that smells like religion with a blunt instrument. This is the official part of our exchange where we end. You are classically continuing just to save face. I hate this. It's tedious.
The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.Those are your words. That's why I entered this thread.
Are you saying no one else would have tried to sail across the ocean if it had not been for religion? The papal monarchs were the ones who had the money.See what I mean? I mentioned earlier the fact that you might bring up redundant, hypothetical alternatives. And here you go! Those hypothetical alternatives didn't happen. It happened the way it happened. And religion played a big part in it. Why did the papal monarchs have the money....? Progress! That's how! It's called banking.
Not that it matters, the point is, how is this progress? It's just exploration.Do you even realize how funny this is?
Honestly, I'm not beyond being convinced of what you're saying, but so far you have just made assertions.Yes you are.
Lausten-Something like St. Augustine being against slavery wouldn’t count because his ideas not adopted in his time.This too! :lol: WTF?
If religion and/or Christianity is to be credited for the “progress” of civil society, you have to credit it with all the horrors and all the things that held progress back–the Crusades, the Inquisition, all of the wars by Christians since the dawn of Christianity, including the Holocaust. (Germany was a Christian nation and Hitler was a Catholic.) All of the invasions of countries by greater Christian powers, Communisim in Russia and the countries it conquered --Russia was by and large a Christian country before Communism, the nuclear bombing of Japan–perpetrated by a Christian country. I could go on. All of these things and worse coincided with Christianity and many of the worst horrors were perpetrated by Christians, many claiming to be doing god’s work. If you are going to credit Christianity with the “progress” of civil society, you have to be ready to blame Christianity for the horrors that happened on its “watch” too. You can’t just give it credit for what you see as good without placing blame on what was and is bad–and which held back or completely ruined the good aspects of society that had already taken place, but that’s what most Christians try to do–praise Christianity and the Christian world for “progress” and at the same time absolve it of the horrors it was just as much present for, and often the perpetrator of.
Lois
Lausten,
I do not support NOMA. I said Lemaitre would be an example it, meaning that he obviously had such ideas.
The flowering of Greek natural philosophy was about 200 BC, so declining already long before Christianity.
Natural philosophy did not influence daily technology in the Greek days, i.e. there was no strong impetus from society to develop science. The Greek and the Romans had slaves to the do the heavy and boring work, so there was not so much need for technology.
In the Middle Ages the intellectual life was in the monasteries and the (Christian) universities. One strain of thought developed there is that one could get better knowledge of God by studying its Creation, i.e. nature. Greek philosophers were a great help in this project. Of course, it was only one school of thought in Christianity, and many other theologians might not have agreed with this project.
Under the influence of protestant labour ethics, in which labour was a way to get closer to God, and richness was a sign that God was rewarding you, technology got a strong impetus: science became less and less playing ground of some eccentrics, but the basis for improving on our labour and power over nature. Of course this movement had the seed of the total emancipation of science from Christianity in it.
So there were definitive positive influences of Christianity on the development of science. Of course, there were also negative.
But it seems you are on a kind of crusade to show us that all developments that lead to science had nothing to do with Christian thought. If there were positive impacts, then it was not Christian per definition. That is why I called your way of thinking ‘essentialistic’: if some strain of thought was a predecessor of science, then it cannot be Christian, and if it was Christian, it suppressed science. You define science and Christian thought in such a way that you are always right.
If religion and/or Christianity is to be credited for the "progress" of civil society, you have to credit it with all the horrors and all the things that held progress back--the Crusades, the Inquisition, all of the wars by Christians since the dawn of Christianity, including the Holocaust. (Germany was a Christian nation and Hitler was a Catholic.) All of the invasions of countries by greater Christian powers, Communisim in Russia and the countries it conquered --Russia was by and large a Christian country before Communism, the nuclear bombing of Japan--perpetrated by a Christian country. I could go on. All of these things and worse coincided with Christianity and many of the worst horrors were perpetrated by Christians, many claiming to be doing god's work. If you are going to credit Christianity with the "progress" of civil society, you have to be ready to blame Christianity for the horrors that happened on its "watch" too. You can't just give it credit for what you see as good without placing blame on what was and is bad--and which held back or completely ruined the good aspects of society that had already taken place, but that's what most Christians try to do--praise Christianity and the Christian world for "progress" and at the same time absolve it of the horrors it was just as much present for, and often the perpetrator of. LoisGood point Lois. Unfortunately that turns this into a debate about "is Christianity (or some other religion) a force for good or evil" and I don't think adding up good and bad and giving it some sort of score is a valuable exercise. Also, you run into the problem of the "real" motivation for those actions. Something VYAZMA and I are not seeing eye to eye on. Also, if you are doing things by coincidence, then we wouldn't have rockets if it weren't for the Nazis. That of course is absurd, just like we wouldn't have discovered America if not for the Catholic Church. By progress, I mean things like "I think therefore I am" or "let's look at the stars and ask them how our solar system works" or "let's tolerate all religions". I find no religious inspiration for things like that. Instead, I find religions resisting that type of progress. Go all the way back to Socrates and Aristotle. One was given the death sentence and the other had to flee Athens. On the other hand, I know of no scientific organization that burned a church or enslaved anyone if they didn't accept their ideas. They may ridicule religion, but they do it using reason.
I’m not trying to be right, GdB. I thought differently in the past, then I read some books, now I think this way. That you have to attack my personality weakens your argument.
I wonder what goes through your head as you type “The Greeks did X and Y" then skip to “In the Middle Ages…“. Does 1,000 years of history just not matter? Apparently you didn’t look at the article that I linked during the discussion with kkwan. <a href="http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2444/science-gods-philosophers-and-the-dark-ages”>. It addresses the monastic universities among other things. You apparently aren’t interested in the influence of emperor of Theodosius and his predecessors and all the Catholic councils that set the philosophy of Western Europe for 1500 years and are still at the root of our problems with fundamentalists.
I’m not going to address statements like “science became less a playing ground for eccentrics", there’s just too much fiction in it. But I do wonder how you can, while defending the idea that Christianity inspired science, say there was a movement of it’s total emancipation from Christianity. Why would it need such an emancipation?
I’m not trying to be right, GdB. I thought differently in the past, then I read some books, now I think this way. That you have to attack my personality weakens your argument.I did not attack your personality, but your method: define science and Christianity in such a way that your standpoint becomes an analytical statement.
I wonder what goes through your head as you type “The Greeks did X and Y" then skip to “In the Middle Ages…".Not so much. I gave a few remarks about your suggestion why Greek philosophy ended, and what the Christian elements in the Western development towards science were.
I’m not going to address statements like “science became less a playing ground for eccentrics", there’s just too much fiction in it.Science, like the study of electricity and chemistry were partially amusement for the rich. Where it was not, there is a continuous line from theologians/philosophers/scientists who wanted to understand Creation/nature. Descartes believed in God and took many of his arguments from middle age philosophy, yet he counts as one of the grounding fathers of modern, scientific thinking. Locke refers to the 'Maker':
He that believes without having any Reason for believing, may be in love with his own Fancies; but neither seeks Truth as he ought, nor pays the Obedience due to his Maker, who would have him use those discerning Faculties he has given him, to keep him out of Mistake and Errour.
But I do wonder how you can, while defending the idea that Christianity inspired science, say there was a movement of it’s total emancipation from Christianity. Why would it need such an emancipation?Sorry Lausten, if you see just black and white then I cannot explain that. It is only impossible when you artificially distinguish science and Christianity with your modern eyes, in which we of course have a clear idea about what counts as science and what as religion. But then you reduce history to the struggle of scientists to emancipate from religion. And I did not say that all of Christianity inspired science, did I? Edit: or are you looking for something that is originally Christian, that inspired science? However, you then have the burden of explaining what counts as originally Christian. One of the distinctive characteristics of modernity is the clear distinction between different human areas like science, religion, art, work, politics, philosophy etc. When you look back on history to a time in which these distinctions were not yet clearly made, you create a distorted view of the past.
If religion and/or Christianity is to be credited for the "progress" of civil society, you have to credit it with all the horrors and all the things that held progress back--the Crusades, the Inquisition, all of the wars by Christians since the dawn of Christianity, including the Holocaust. (Germany was a Christian nation and Hitler was a Catholic.) LoisNo. I don't have to do any of these baby games. Listen to how obtuse and childish your argument sounds. I entered into this thread to refute the ridiculous statement that: The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined. Is there someone still who wishes to refute that religion in general and christianity specifically aided progress toward a civil society?
Also, if you are doing things by coincidence, then we wouldn't have rockets if it weren't for the Nazis. That of course is absurd, just like we wouldn't have discovered America if not for the Catholic Church.Anyone can research the history of rocket development and plainly find that the Nazis were only part of the history. A small part of the history. It would be a history that went back hundreds of years probably to China. What are you talking about coincidences for? That's your's and Lois' argument. That religion and society developed separately alongside one another coincidentally right? :-) That's how it happened right? :lol:
If religion and/or Christianity is to be credited for the "progress" of civil society, you have to credit it with all the horrors and all the things that held progress back--the Crusades, the Inquisition, all of the wars by Christians since the dawn of Christianity, including the Holocaust. (Germany was a Christian nation and Hitler was a Catholic.) LoisNo. I don't have to do any of these baby games. Listen to how obtuse and childish your argument sounds. I entered into this thread to refute the ridiculous statement that: The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined. Is there someone still who wishes to refute that religion in general and christianity specifically aided progress toward a civil society? I'm pretty much doing that with every post. I made a slight attempt to define "progress" and "aid", but I'm not sure you saw that. Let me attempt to be conciliatory. There are great thinkers throughout history. The early Christians, whomever it was that wrote the gospels, were among them. They were an oppressed group in one of the most brutal empires in history. And they wrote about loving their enemies. Pretty cool really, and that alone is enough reason for their writings to have endured. The Jews have a similar story. Exodus is fiction, but archaeology shows some evidence of a small group of people throwing off the chains of their oppressor and starting a society based on a higher law. But other's did similar things in different ways. To point solely to those stories doesn't answer the question of what the motivation really is. We are a social animal. The degree to which we care about our grandchildren and strangers is pretty unique in the animal kingdom. Religion seems to co-opt that and usually turns it into tribalism. The progress of reason recognizes it and looks for evidence of ways to treat each other better and rise above our tribalistic nature. I don't see how attributing progress to the need to handle larger cities or to just natural curiosity is faulty analysis. Any attempt to attribute it to a specific religion would require finding something specific about that religion that makes it special, something that the religion has that no other one has or was never thought of by any other society. I've never seen someone successfully do that. GdB's very general historical thesis is all there is, and when you examine the details, it falls apart.
Also, if you are doing things by coincidence, then we wouldn't have rockets if it weren't for the Nazis. That of course is absurd, just like we wouldn't have discovered America if not for the Catholic Church.Anyone can research the history of rocket development and plainly find that the Nazis were only part of the history. A small part of the history. It would be a history that went back hundreds of years probably to China. What are you talking about coincidences for? That's your's and Lois' argument. That religion and society developed separately alongside one another coincidentally right? :-) That's how it happened right? :lol: Alright, I reviewed the thread and I mis-remembered how the word "coincide" had been used. You had a sarcastic response about it, but that isn't an argument, that's just scoffing. You did say, "Yes. In as much as history is an examination, a running empirical examination with record, the idea of religion being a prime mover of society and civility and progress has been examined and dictated for the record. " but that's just an assertion. So, that's all I got, sarcasm, assertions, and an example of a religious monarchy (when there were only religious monarchies) funding exploration. How about comparing the progress of the world under religious monarchies to what happened after the people got tired of them and started forming modern nations with religious tolerance. Lookup "The Peace at Westphalia" that came at the end of the wars with the Catholics and Protestants. That's when the Pope was stripped of his power and right after that we got Isaac Newton. That's a little more than a coincidence.
So you are saying that religion in general, and christianity specifically, never aided in the development of society and progress?
And you are still maintaining that the “question” remains unexamined?
So you are saying that religion in general, and christianity specifically, never aided in the development of society and progress? And you are still maintaining that the "question" remains unexamined?Those are such absolute statements. Only an unreasonable person would take those stands. There are examples, like Erasmus, who was called a Christian humanist, a very early influence on the enlightenment and a devout Catholic. But look how he was treated. Was he welcomed by the Popes and Kings? Were his writings published widely and supported by the Catholic Universities? No, he even had trouble with Luther. Same with Spinoza who is considered one of the originators of modern thought, excommunicated by the Jews. Same thing happened in Islam when Al-Ghazali reversed the enlightenment movement there. I think I already clarified, although you said you didn't finish that post, that I meant the question was unexamined by the average person. The cause of the Dark Ages is not widely agree on, thus it is not taught in High School. I already said it is debatable. I put these things out there because I want to know if I'm missing anything. Telling me it's obvious and already "dictated" into the record is not helpful. What record? Which historians?
We are a social animal. The degree to which we care about our grandchildren and strangers is pretty unique in the animal kingdom. Religion seems to co-opt that and usually turns it into tribalism.Oh. How far back does this social-family group behavior go back? How far back does religion go? Pretty far back. It goes back before recorded history. Just like the behavior of social-family groups goes back into evolution before Homo-sapien. So I would like to know where exactly a religious concept came along(Maybe it was like the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.) and began running alongside proto-humans and humans coincidentally and concurrently. Wow that would be fascinating. Except for the fact that very concept is ridiculous. So realistically science can easily observe that religion(fear of the unknown in the beginning.) was a natural motivator, a by-product, a mechanism by which society, or humankind advanced or progressed. Then religion became a part for social organization. Leadership. Customs. Rules. Another dynamic that would be essential for the progress of civilization. Religion was without a doubt a proto-science early on. It's relevancy slowly and steadily diminished over time. It would not be until the Age of Enlightenment or shortly thereafter that we could definitively say that religion was 99% obsolete. Before that religion was not obsolete. It was the opposite of obsolescence. It was a naturally occurring force or dynamic of human social evolution. That by it's very nature aided and advanced humans in progress.
Those are such absolute statements. Only an unreasonable person would take those stands.Well you made them. I suppose you can start backtracking now alongside your backfilling.
Those are such absolute statements. Only an unreasonable person would take those stands.Well you made them. I suppose you can start backtracking now alongside your backfilling. Your posts lack any charity, making conversation difficult. Your broad brush of history was unhelpful and lacking the slightest detail. Leadership, custom and rules came from religion? How? You use terms like “without a doubt" and “by it’s very nature", then accuse me of making absolute statements. And you admit its relevancy diminished and became obsolete but give no analysis of how that happened or why. You make it sound like there was some peaceful transfer of culture where the Pope said, “okay, we’ve done our part, now you scientist guys take if from here".
Your posts lack any charity, making conversation difficult.You're looking for charity now? That's fine. I'm confident that you have seen the error in your statement.(100% confident) And I'll accept that for you, admitting it is difficult.
Lausten I’ll make this easy for both of us.
Do you believe that humans were or are hardwired for religion?