Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity"

[_richardMdBorn]

dark ages, a period when central government disappeared, trade came to a virtual halt resulting in poverty. A period where population was decimated by plague and invading barbarians. Result a period with no learnin no trade limited manufactoring and poverty.

None of this has anything to do with Christianity. What kind of historical dark age are our atheists mired in?

Huck, the Dark Ages in Greece circa 1200BC-800BC must have been the fault of Christianity since it was a bad thing. Likewise, the Dark Ages in Europe circa 500 AD-1000AD must have been the fault of Christianity.

[_dartagnan]

It depends on whether you mean "Christian civilization" as in a civilization wherein Christian principles are practiced, or "Christian civilization" wherein there's no separation between church and state.

I'm speaking of Western civilization (sometiems called Christian Civilization since its counterpart is Islamic civilization) which is responsible for modern science. If Christainity is the antithesis to science and reason, then why were so many Christians personally responsible for its progress?

Atheists didn't fare well for many centuries under Judeo-Christian civilization.

Please provide some examples of what you're talking about.

It was only when the separation between church and state was invented that atheists began to prosper.

This is belied by the fact that this concept was first invented by Christ, who told his followers to render to Caesar what was Caesar's and render to God what belonged to God. Christianity never made an attempt at theocracy. In fact, from the time of its birth to the fourth century, nobody was more persecuted people than the Christians. Martyrdom was their glory call. This lasted centuries until Constantine decided to adopt Christianity and make it the state religion.
Did you guys hear that? The State took Christianity for itself, not vice-versa. This is crucial for proper understanding.

I.e., less religion was what allowed atheists to flourish, not more Christianity.

You're missing the ingredients that matter here and making a silly cariacature that doesn't hold water. Science and freedom allow people to prosper and that freedom was granted only in Christian civilization. Because Christainity was made a state religion in the fourth century, it took a while to separate the two again, but it was worth the wait.

As I said, less religion is what has allowed science to flourish, not more Christianity.

I'm not saying more Christianity. I'm saying Christianity.

Otherwise the Dark Ages--when Christianity held complete and utter dominance--would've been far more scientifically fruitful than what we see today.

As Huck just noted, the DA had nothing to do with Christianity, unless you want to correspond this time to the demise of the Byzantines via Islamic conquest.

[_EAllusion]

There's actually a popular apologetic that has recently arisen in Christian fundamentalist circles to credit the advent of science to Christian theology. Like, say, Intelligent Design and Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica it is one of those apologetic cottage industries that acts in parallel to the real scholarly world - filled with bad scholarship, but aimed at the average layman. A favorite sociologist of Mormons, Rodney Stark, is one of the preeminent champions of the idea.

The most basic aspect of the argument is that Christianity provides humans with the unique insight that nature is orderly, it follows a predicable pattern, and this idea is foundational to science. Unless nature is on some level regular, then theory and prediction do not work. Kevin seems to have invoked the idea here. This really isn't true of a lot of versions of Christian theology, including any that allows caprice on the part of God to make sense of itself. But that's not too important. The orderliness of nature isn't something obviously derivable from Christian scriptures and it is an idea one can have all on its own. Indeed, the enlightenment and its immediately antecedents principally involve Christians adopting significant reinterpretations of their scriptures from the traditional views of the time in order to accommodate new ideas they were having about philosophy and the natural world. Since he was mentioned, Aquinas didn't pick up the Bible and coincidentally walk away with a highly Aristotelian interpretation. He read Aristotle into Christian theology. The enlightenment is about Christianity of the time losing its stranglehold on the public and allowing the secular to flourish. Kevin talks about Christianity opening the door for free society when in reality Christianity, with is blatant endorsement of divine right of kings, was used as a justification for tyrants for over a thousand years. Heresy was a punishable offense in most of Europe. Only after the printing press, the reformation, and some clever reinterpretations of the Bible did you see more liberal theology arising that focused on political freedom and freedom of conscience that not coincidentally entwined with secular ideas people were having at the time. It was Christians acting in reaction to a Christian society by expanding the domain of the secular. It's as if he's got it precisely backwards. There's a substantial difference between crediting Christians with the development of science and crediting Christianity. The former deserve a good bulk of the credit. The latter none.

Kevin - Most of Europe for literally centuries made atheism a criminal act carrying up to the death penalty. Thousands of atheists were executed during the inquisition. I would say that is a good case of atheists "not faring well" under Judeo-Christian (well, Christian) civilization.

----------------------

And now, a little making fun of DCP. When the nonreligious point out that religion isn't needed to provide the world with all that is good - art, science, philosophy, etc - DCP will point out examples of all of these done by Christians or about Christian thought. Without Christianity, there would be no Sistine chapel! Surely you must acknowledge such good that Christianity has uniquely brought us! How can you say there's no unique value in religion.

Well...

Oddly, during the era of Soviet hegemony, much of the great art to come out of Slavic countries explicitly supported communism. It's almost like those in power were shaping what kind of art could be produced by holding significant control over the available commissions and using censorship. Clearly this means communism is an awesome force for good. We wouldn't have all this great art without it.

image

Thank you Communism for all the good you have brought us. Where would we be without you?

(I wrote this on another message board. In a reply to someone criticizing the implied argument, there is a less snarky explanation:

Indeed, almost all the most praiseworthy art from the Soviet bloc is to the end of supporting the Communist government. That's because the Communist government had a stranglehold on the financial resources to pay for commissions and also used its influence to penalize people for producing art it did not like.

You know, just like the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church wasn't around, great art still would've been produced. People with artistic talent are born the world over. The financing would have come from elsewhere, as people tend to like art. Moreover, the Catholic Church had a stifling effect on art production because it used its power to restrict the range of artistic expression. This is easy enough to see in timeperiods and lands where the Church did not hold a quasi-empire. It's not like Japan lacks beautiful architecture because it lacked the Catholic Church. Heck, the Renaissance, as the name suggests, involved a rebirth of classical art that developed before the Catholic Church even existed.

There'd be art with or without religion in general and the Catholic Church in specific. So to point to the goodness of either because of the art it inspired strikes me as myopic. )

[_dartagnan]

There's actually a popular apologetic that has recently arisen in Christian fundamentalist circles to credit the advent of science to Christian theology. Like, say, Intelligent Design and Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica it is one of those apologetic cottage industries that acts in parallel to the real scholarly world - filled with bad scholarship, but aimed at the average layman. A favorite sociologist of Mormons, Rodney Stark, is one of the preeminent champions of the idea.

Dismissive rhetoric.

The most basic aspect of the argument is that Christianity provides humans with the unique insight that nature is orderly, it follows a predicable pattern, and this idea is foundational to science

Yes, and when compared to its counterpart, Islamic civilization, it is no wonder modern science erupted from the former. This is the force of my argument and I already have all the evidence I need which is primarily the fact that modern science did erupt from Christian civlization, and not Islamic civlization. Scientific advancement by Muslims was reduced drastically when Al Ghazali rendered the Quran the ultimate source of truth and all philosophers blasphemers.

All the atheists have been able to do is try to detract from this fact just suggesting that maybe modern science would have erupted without Christianity. Oh really? In what part of the world? Freedom and human rights is to be attributed to Christian influence. This is the simple fact of the matter.Without it you would not have had the freedom for scientific advance to flow its current course.

The orderliness of nature isn't something isn't something obviously deriviable through Christian scriptures

It was for the dozens of Christian scientists who felt science was in accordance with biblical principles. And their point of view is what matters.

Indeed, the enlightenment and its immediately antecedents principly involve Christians adopting significant reinterpretations of their scriptures from the traditional views of the time in order to accomadate new ideas they were having about philosophy and the natural world.

And scientific theories were easier to adopt in a Christian context as opposed to an Islamic context. Again, this is my point. Modern science emerged from Christian civilization, and from nowehere else. Why? Well, atheists don't like to ponder these questions because it invokes uncomfortable answers. I find it disturbing that so many atheists cannot seem to set aside their personal resentment of religion for the sake of expressing a touch of appreciation for something that was so obviously foundational to modern science, to say nothing of modern social values that have allowed you to operate as freely as you do.

Since he was mentioned, Aquinas didn't pick up the Bible and coincidentally walk away with a highly Aristotlian interpretation. He read Aristotle into Christian theology.

This is your version of things which may or may not be true. But he could have just as easily seen a correlation between the two and embraced it as such. But nothing changes the fact that Aristotle and the Bible can be seen in harmony, whereas Aristotle and the Quran are not. And yes, there are different versions of Christainit, but that just goes along with its beauty. Christianity is dynamic and allows for a multiplicity of possibilities, including scientific advancements.

The enlightenment is about Christianity of the time losing its stranglehold on the public and allowing the secular to flourish.

You truly have a skewed understanding of history. Christianity was being strangled by the State. The State was not being strangled by Christianity. It was the State that adopted Christianity as a symbol, not vice versa. Once we understand this then it becomes clear that the opposite is true. The fall of the Roman Empire in the 15th century marked one of the greatest moments in Christian history, in my opinion. However, it marked the fall of the state, not the Church. So there is no such thing as "less Christianity" during this era when scientific advances took off.

The fact is most fo the crimes you point to were not crimes against the Church, but rather crimes against the State. For example, the inquisition was responsible for determining crimes against the state. The Church sent out clerics to do the judging because the locals had no training to determine guilt or innocence. But whenever cases were abused, the Pope demanded they be stopped, but the Kings would contionue with them anyway because they were successful in removing threats against the state (not the Church). The King of Spain for example, after the Pope demanded the inquisition be stopped, he ignored him and continued on with them.

Kevin talks about Christianity opening the door for free society when in reality Christianity, with is blatant endorsement of divine right of kings, was used as a justification for tyrants for over a thousand years.

Yes, but you have to understand it in its proper chronology. Constantine grabbed Christainity and used it as a political tool. Christainity didn't grab the state nor did it seek political control. For its first few hundred years in existence, Christinaity steered clear of political aspirations and remained an underground, persecuted faith, just as much as the atheists were. Christianity was merely a symbol for the Roman Empire to be used against the people who were mainly Christians. But as I said, things changed when the Pope's sought justice for the Kings to be held accountable for their crimes. For example, the Magna Carta was born because of arguments between the Church and State.

Heresy was a punishable offense in most of Europe.

As a crime against the State. You don't seem to get it. It wasn't a crime against the Church and the Church didn't make it Christian law that atheists be killed. This has never been true. The same goes for Jews. In fact, as difficult as this may be to acknolwedge, only in Rome were the Jews safe from persecution for 2000 years, because the Church has always had complete control over Rome. Nobody dared attack Jews because they would have to answer to the Church. All throughout Europe however, the hand of the papacy didn't extend far, and where he couldn't reach, there was always the local state authorities, and that authority trumped the Pope every time.

Only after the printing press, the reformation, and some clever reinterpretations of the Bible did you see more liberal theology arising that focused on political freedom and freedom of conscience that not coincidentally entwined with secular ideas people were having at the time in reaction to their Christian overlords.

No, only after the kings lost their control and the Magna Carta did things begin to look brighter for Europe. And a printing press is worth nothing if one hasn't a freedom of speech.

Kevin - Most of Europe for literally centuries made atheism a criminal act carrying up to the death penality.

Again, Christianity as a Church is rather limited in power and it always has been. To balme it for these atrocities is patently absurd. Atheism was a crime long before Christianity hit the scene. It was a crime against the state. When Constantine adopted Christianity as the state symbol, he simply replaced the pagan religions with Christianity, but you can't blame Christainity for the existing laws against atheists. Sometimes I wish you guys would devote a little attention to history. It can be just as informative as science.

Thousands of atheists were executed during the inquisition.

Call for references please. The entire purpose of the inquisition was to try stopping unjust executions. Yes, you heard me correctly.

I would say that is a good case of atheists "not faring well" under Judeo-Christian (well, Christian) civilization.

Again, Judeo-Christian civilization is responsible for the human rights you and I and every other atheist can now enjoy. You only want to snag a few legends and myths that are negative throughout history in order to recreate an image suitable to your preferred understanding; namely that Christianity is the cause of all that is wrong and responsible for nothing that is good. To me, this makes you guys no more admirable than the LDS who also live in their own fantasy land of Book of Mormon tales. History doesn't seem to mean much to either of you.

[_Sethbag]

I personally believe that our modern science was developed by people for whom Christianity had become so "ho hum" and almost meaningless in their lives that they were freed up to think outside the box. By, say, the 18th and 19th centuries, in England for example, I believe the church had significantly weakened in its hold on power over peoples' lives to a great extent, at least compared to preceding centuries.

What would you guys say to this idea? Were British subjects in the 1800s less under the thumb of religious leaders, and compelled to render at least outward obedience to religion, than muslims were at that time, or today? I rather think so. Just go to Europe today. Churches exist. There's still Catholocism, Lutheranism, the Anglican church, etc. But by and large, most people don't really give a crap about it anymore, and go on with their lives unburdened by a need to justify themselves to their local vicar.

If we could go back and examine the lives of the scientists who really gave us what we have today, would we find people who had to justify their thoughts and theories to priests and bishops - at all - or would we find people more or less free from religious requirements and able to think and theorize as they would?

In this sense it may have been the stagnation of Christianity, in terms of its power over individuals' lives, rather than Christianity itself, which fostered the development of modern science. If we must identify which traits of Christianity most resulted in science, it might well be those traits which lead to Christianity's practical irrelevance.

[_MishMagnet]

I say thank to Bhuddism for our electronics and most abundant buffets!

[_EAllusion]

Dismissive rhetoric.

It's an introduction for those unaware. It's become a popular trend in modern fundamentalism to credit Christianity with capitalism, democracy, and science. It operates much as the similar "America is a Christian nation" stuff does, only is larger in scope. Fun stuff. Don't get me wrong. It is dismissive in tone, but there's more to it than that.

Yes, and when compared to its counterpart, Islamic civilization, it is no wonder modern science erupted from the former.

It's like over half the world doesn't even exist to you. The interactions between Islamic scholarship during its zenith in the early Middle Ages and the development of science out of natural philosophy in the West is more complex than this, but it's fairly clear that science in the modern sense developed out of nations with predominately Christian populations, sure.

This is the force of my argument and I already have all the evidence I need which is primarily the fact that modern science did erupt from Christian civlization, and not Islamic civlization.

Your argument is a causal one and the mere fact that science developed among Christians is a far, far cry from showing a causal link between the two. Formal logic developed independently in Greece. They understood their religion in terms of their views on reason. That doesn't mean their religious views provided the necessary intellectual framework to understand logic. It just means they managed to come up with logic.

All the atheists have been able to do is try to detract from this fact just suggesting that maybe modern science would have erupted without Christianity. Oh really? In what part of the world? Freedom and human rights is to be attributed to Christian influence. This is the simple fact of the matter.Without it you would not have had the freedom for scientific advance to flow its current course.

Freedom in what sense? Science developed during the same era in which the European absolute monarchies developed. It grew in an environment that was hotly oppresive of ideas considered unacceptable, far less tolerant than today. Freedom only really took off when theocratic influences were pushed back by revolutions, and that was well after science had come into existence. How it was anymore "free" than China during the same timeperiods is unclear.

It was for the dozens of Christian scientists who felt science was in accordance with biblical principles. And their point of view is what matters.

Yes, a sufficiently motivated Christian can see just about whatever it is they wish to think from their scriptures. We're on a Mormon message board, so you know, case in point. What matters is if this idea is something obviously found in Christian scriptures and it is not. It is found in some Christian theology, though. If anyone can come up with this idea and then read it into their religion, that's not a big boon for Christians. Do you think that science could not arise in a secular world, much like some naïve people think that without Christianity, there would've been no art in the Middle Ages?

You truly have a skewed understanding of history. Christianity was being strangled by the State. The State was not being strangled by Christianity. It was the State that adopted Christianity as a symbol, not vice versa. Once we understand this then it becomes clear that the opposite is true. The fall of the Roman Empire in the 15th century marked one of the greatest moments in Christian history, in my opinion. However, it marked the fall of the state, not the Church. So there is no such thing as "less Christianity" during this era when scientific advances took off.

Ahh, so when Christians develop science, that's due to Christianity itself. We an talk about Christian peoples and Christianity as if they were one in the same. But when Christian rulers, reading Christian scriptures in far more obvious ways, justify their actions directly through Christianity we just talking about individual Christians not not Christianity or Christian society. So we can't credit Christianity with that. So Christianity gives us science, but it doesn't give us vicious blasphemy laws. Christianity gives us freedom, but not slavery or tyrannical rule. And mind you, the Bible doesn't provide any direct support of modern ideas on liberty, but it does have direct, unambiguous support of slavery and divine right of tyrants. It's an interesting world.

What there was was "less Christianity" in the sense of less theocracy and pressure to comport ones ideas with the dictates of current Christian dogma. The people who got together and executed people for being atheists or witches were inspired by Christianity just the same as people who got together and talked about experiments. And the Bible doesn't talk much about scientific methology. It explicitly endorses executing blasphemers and witches. So it's not even quite right to pretend it is just the same. But in the case of former that's just the State, and in the case of the latter that's true Christianity. So we have ourselves a no-true-scotsman fallacy protecting a weak causal connection between Christianity and science.

And when we have a situation where atheists are flogged, executed, and pilloried for being atheists according to laws written and enforced by Christians, that's "atheists faring well in Judeo-Christian society" because that doesn't count because that's the State.

namely that Christianity is the cause of all that is wrong and responsible for nothing that is good.

I don't think this.

To me, this makes you guys no more admirable than the LDS who also live in their own fantasy land of Book of Mormon tales. History doesn't seem to mean much to either of you.

If you are going to make that comparison, it's both Book of Mormon history and Christianity being responsible for science that contradicts the standard academic views and is published and consumed primarily among conservative religious types as apologetics on the fringe.

[_huckelberry]

Christrianity is not sole cause of science.

This would seen likely to be a true observtation. It does not seem likely to be able to tie longterm social developements to one cause alone. Allusion is so entheusiastic about this obsevation that he is close to saying that we cannot consider possible contributing causes to the rise of science because science like matter just is a given. Prior to explanation.

It can be proven that science has some start all over the world with without and before Christianity. It can be noticed that people all over the world understand cause and effect and have serious motivators to deiscover more about that relationship. People are smart all over the world.

It seems almost proven that science should be developeing equally in the many locations where these contributing factores exist.

Is it possible to wonder why science prospered where it has? I think Kevins question is interesting and the various efforts to push him into some fundamentalist box do not do much to clarify his question even if they maintain a barrier to a hypothesis not to everybodies taste.

allusion also notes the ambiguity in what is the Christianity to be considered. Obviously an impossible question. I do not consider divine right of kings to be Christian at all but I realize that the idea was quite popular with Christian kings. I do not think the impossible problem helps clarify the question Kevin has posed. Instead it further avoids it.

Lets here a counter hypothesis.

[_huckelberry]

poster picture of Lenin, is this to suggest a thread on why communism produces drag lackluster art? We could make a comparison to positive artistic creation by Christianity. But the problem would be if we limited to 20 century Christian art would be seen as having lost its edge.

I am not sure if you were serious in proposing that art just happens when talented people are born. That is a long way short of undrestanding how art happens. Cultural possiblities ideas and desires come to gether with talent to make some times and places very productive of art while other times a derth of usable ideas, cultureal indirection and no inspiration resluts in littel art. Painting in the US in the last 30 years is an example, There is money support and people doing art stuff but piddle is the result. (big contrast to 1945-1970)

[_huckelberry]

Sethbag, since when was the Christian church trying to controll peoples lives?

You have suggested that certain times lacked the normal control. I am not able to correlate your proposal to specific time periods. I cannot think of anytime when peoples lives were controlled nor any time when control was lost.

Consider the times period dark ages or subsequent medieval period were times when monistaries were important to the church where poeple adopt a christian way of life, seperate from the world which continued to go its own way.

It could be argued that the period reformation, begining of modern period, time when church polical unity started to fracture was a time when church influence in lives of ordinary people increased not decreased.

But you might not have been thinking that way, leaving my mind back with being unable to find particular times when the churches influence was stronger, which time was that?