It seems self-evident that clinging to inherited faith traditions can impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
But it seems empirically true that much of what we consider critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance has been handed down to us through societies that practice(d) inherited faith traditions. That is, even critical thinking, etc. that did not originate in a particular faith-clinging society has been preserved and nurtured through multiple other societies even when the interceding societies largely clung to inherited faith traditions different than the origin.
So perhaps faith-clinging societies can be inconsistently close-minded and open-minded at the same time. Rather human.
I won't defend religion here as such, but whatever was happening in the Mediterranean basin in 1st to 3rd century wrt. the religion seems to be incredibly fascinating via the anthropological/cultural lens too.
Athenians (early AIdeologues) being too successful for their own good, then dropping the ball like Sama/PG? Their neighbors learning the wrong lessons? Surely other places before & somewhat after had to grapple (in sword & word ) with the implications of extending the "FranchAIse". Like in the Levant, forex.
I agree. It’s way more interesting to gain insight into when, why and how people in a position of power succeeded in abusing religious beliefs to project even more power. It’s quite fascinating how powerful that manipulation tactic was. And, sadly, still is.
Slightly tangential but The Economist put out a really cool interactive article a year or so back — it explores the relationships between factors like economic development, secularism, social trust, and in essence, levels of tribalism. The findings are a bit more complex than people might expect.
Excerpt:
"On the face of it, this shift suggests that people do think differently as they escape from poverty and insecurity... Perhaps. But at the moment, the WVS findings suggest this is not happening without obstacles and detours. If poorer countries were indeed converging with rich ones in terms of values, you would expect that they would be the ones where values are changing fastest, whereas the countries they are catching up with would be more stable. In fact the survey finds the opposite. Countries that are already the most secular and individualistic are changing fastest and becoming even more secular; those that are most traditional and clannish are changing less and sometimes becoming more traditional, not less."
In the Middle East it would be Muslim, India would be Hindu. Perhaps you mean China, which historically tended to be be Confucian, which could perhaps be considered more of a philosophy than a religion? But modern China is (notionally) Marxist-Communist, which is materialist/atheistic in teaching, but born out of the Enlightenment, which is certainly Christian inspired.
The idea of secularism—a separation of Church/Temple/Mosque and State, and religion being a private affair—is itself a Christian/Protestant one.
The interesting question is whether the West is succesful because of or inspite of our Christian base. There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity. Christianity has changed a lot since Roman times, and its place and expression in various societies have been affected by other ideological currents and reinterpretations.
I'm Danish, which while nominally Christian has been a fairly irreligious country for a few generations now, and it certainly seems to me that the less influence and visibility Christianity has had, the better off we've been. Most of the things that make this country a good place to live come from socialism/social democracy and feminism, whereas many strands of Christianity has mostly been a reactionary force (with some exceptions).
Christians and Christian apologists like to pretend that Christianity led to social progress, when at every turn, the church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and only then claimed the progress as their own.
English is not my native language - could you help me understand where I gave the impression that Christianity made no contributions to the development of the west?
> There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity.
Well, the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant). Which is tied in with the concept of individualism:
The modern idea of science needed certain metaphysical assumptions that weren't really present in many other religions (and to the extent they were present in philosophy, aspects of said philosophy(s) were often mainstreamed by Christianity (e.g., Aristotle)):
And where "science" (or what passed for it at the time) existed elsewhere, it often withered or was snuffed out; the invention of the telescope was transformational in Europe, but not so much in Muslim lands, Mughal India, or Imperial China:
Various legal forms were promulgated by the Church (including that the authorities themselves were not (notionally) above the law: not something you'll find with (e.g.) the Chinese Emperor), as were universities:
And if they were not due to Christianity, I'd say [citation needed] on how they developed otherwise. And more than developed, but became 'mainstream' thinking in many parts of the globe (though certainly not universally, as Chinese Uyghurs are experiencing).
> the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant)
I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
To my mind, Christianity seems incidental to the abolition of slavery as it's only been relatively recently (18th century) that Christians condemned slavery rather than just wanting slaves to be treated well (and that they had to obey their masters).
> I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
Galatian 3 would be the key statement:
> 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,[k] heirs according to the promise.
Slavery was often view as a 'natural evil' like famine or pestilence, of which we just had to live with, but it was never viewed as good; Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD) for one took this view. His (biological) brother Gregory of Nyssa took the view that slavery was inherently sinful:
> If [man] is in the likeness of God, ... who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. [...] God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since [God] himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?
So right from very early times there was a strong anti-slavery leaning and desire in Christianity. The above referenced book Inventing the Individual goes through the history of constantly increasing individual freedom starting in the late-Roman period:
> His thesis is simple: the origin of secular liberalism, - conceived of as the intellectual current and attitude that puts the individual at the centre, as a unique acting object and as fundamentally equal to other individuals -, its origins don’t lie in the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, but much earlier, in medieval Christianity. "Secularism is Christianity's greatest gift to the world", he states. Christianity, through Paul and Augustine, put the freedom and equality of the acting man first, in contrast to ancient Antiquity, where inequality determined the character of society and each individual found its place in a certain, natural hierarchy. It took centuries for Christian intellectuals to focus on freedom and equality in their thinking and to make it a natural starting point for people and society. The major breakthrough took place between the 12th and 14th century, in the high Middle Ages. That is the central thesis of this book.
I'm not convinced that the Galatian 3 quote shows a strong anti-slavery sentiment - I interpret it as equating slave/free with male/female i.e. a natural state that people are in (similarly, the Jew/Greek dichotomy).
Gregory of Nyssa shows a strong anti-slavery view which is commendable, but I feel that he was ignored by a lot of Christians (it's the first time that I've heard of his name, but then I'm an atheist).
But if these things are because of Christianity, and it is often implied that western modernity is present in it from its beginning, almost an unavoidable consequent of it... then why are they not universal in Christendom? Why can I point to just as many Christian movements who are anti-science, pro-slavery, anti-individual?
> Why can I point to just as many Christian movements who are anti-science, pro-slavery, anti-individual?
Because people have free will,† and can choose to accept or ignore orthodox teaching.
This is especially true after Protestantism came about which caused a splintering into (tens of?) thousands of denominations,[1] rejecting even some tenets that were present since the beginning of Christianity (e.g., the Real Presence).
Whereas if you look at Catholicism (and Orthodox churches), they generally have consistent teachings going back to their beginning.
† Which of course some Christian denominations (and some modern materialists like Sapolsky) deny.
I just don't see how it holds water at all to say that Christianity was what caused the abolition of slavery, when just as many Christians were in favour of it.
What I find fascinating is that people seeking their roots and historical family tree always stay within their religion.
Almost all Muslim Pakistanis and Christian Indians somehow trace their family tree back to Middle East during the time period of their prophets. Many times it is obvious that even if they have any middle eastern DNA, it is negligible compared to rest of it. Why not learn about your ancestors who were not of same religion as you.
And why stop at 1400 or 2000 years back. Why not trace it further back.
And in the west, with superiority complex of European culture, many serious Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern.
> ...Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern
Many atheists make this claim but I've never met one of these Christians in my life. At least in my experience Judaism and Middle Eastern history were taught as part of my religious tutoring.
It’s difficult to measure religion’s overall impact, since it has had both positive and negative effects, and I’m not interested in engaging in speculative “what if” scenarios. From my perspective, moving beyond a singular religious influence has been beneficial because it allows individuals and communities to develop norms and policies based on wide-ranging human needs and evidence-based reasoning rather than strict dogma.
If you believe a particular group is inherently superior and that anyone can join it simply by following arbitrary rules, then our discussion ends here. Such a view indicates an unwillingness to seriously consider broader philosophical questions.
Christianity as a individual religion maybe not, but christianity as a state religion, controlling all debates, power structures and research very much was a negative influence, stopping progress in Europe for centuries, until their powerhold could get broken.
Or unluckily. Europe has Christian roots, values, and dreams. Cutting that out without also destroying or transmuting Europe is not necessarily possible.
It seems to me that the rise of woke ideology is an attempt to replace a religion sized hole in the fabric of society.
That objection aside, Europe is well below replacement birth rates. Should that continue, it will be replaced by cultures which reproduce. Is religion required for that? Maybe
In a society less influenced by religion, you might not be as concerned with these particular issues. Many secular countries, for example, demonstrate strong overall well-being and social outcomes, suggesting that emphasizing shared human values over religious or cultural divisions can benefit society as a whole. Rather than prioritizing one specific group, focusing on the common good can lead to more equitable solutions for everyone.
Equitable is a terrible goal. Taken to extremes, it's communism. Where everyone ends up equally poor.
It's a noble goal and idea in theory, but put into practice it causes great misery and poverty.
Because fundamentally it's at odds with reality. People are not equal, and do not bring equal value to the table. For a system of organizing a society and economy to be successful, it has to acknowledge that and empower the out-performers, who then pull everyone else along for the ride.
> Equitable is a terrible goal. Taken to extremes, it's communism. Where everyone ends up equally poor.
How you go from a society that focuses on the common good to communism is beyond me. One is a moral goal, the other is a form of government. Most Christians in this thread boast that they are somehow morally superior. I guess not.
> It's a noble goal and idea in theory, but put into practice it causes great misery and poverty.
Again. The secular countries are all doing much better than the USA and that gap is getting wider rapidly. Why are you denying obvious truths?
> Because fundamentally it's at odds with reality. People are not equal.
Ah. There you have it. You somehow feel superior to the people around you and think that if we take care of "underperformers", it somehow disadvantages you.
I just argue that we should take care of people who aren't able to bring value to the table (anymore). And that is a net benefit to society. Less crime, less suffering, better life expectancy, more social mobility. Basically every index where the US is underperforming, reflects societal efforts to care about the poor.
Again. Where are your superior christian morals?
> For a system of organizing a society and economy to be successful, it has to acknowledge that and empower the out-performers, who then pull everyone else along for the ride.
Nothing about a secular government is incompatible with capitalism, as long as the government takes their job as a regulator seriously, which hasn't been the case in the US for a long time.
You seem triggered. You’re attacking me and assuming lots of things.
I’m secular and don’t live in the US.
Europe is struggling economically, having been left in the dust by the US in the last decade. On top of this it is suffering major societal problems with the influx of refugees. Essentially being conquered by religious zealots from the Middle East who don’t share and don’t care for their values.
I’m completely onboard with having good social programs that make society more fair, but the model demonstrated by Europe is not clearly a success - in fact it appears to be slowly dying.
Jesus is fundamentally interesting because the moral teachings of the cult in his name have persisted as the dominant state morality for European societies for about a millennium and a half since Julian the apostate’s death to the present day.
Even Marx owes a huge amount of his philosophy to Owenite socialism and Christianity. The teachings of Jesus turn ideas of power on their head.
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
This idea is so deeply ingrained in western morality at this point that most cannot even see it but Christianity is the bottleneck through which all egalitarianist thought in the west has passed through.
You talk about faith impeding critical thinking while in the same paragraph talk about secularism as though it arose out of nothing.
The moral philosophy of the earliest of christians is profound and is the foundation of everything good in western society. The fanatical purism and reaction in what followed is instructive in terms of the cruelty that can exist in people professing empathy and the pitfalls of expecting a state to somehow act morally.
If we are talking about Jesus the same way we are talking about Zeus it will be the end of history there will be because there is no power in the idea that everyone is equal.
It would be interesting if the moral teachings started with Christianity, but they did not. There are plenty of other philosophical teachings from that time that had great impact on morality without feeling the need to subjugate others. For example, Greek philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle taught about virtue and justice centuries before Christianity. Confucius in China emphasized benevolence and duty long before Christian doctrine existed, and Buddha’s teachings focused on compassion and nonviolence without forcing conversion. These traditions show that moral ideas thrived in many places independently.
Yeah but none of the thinkers you listed came close to saying something as radical "the first shall be last and the last shall be first".
Like any moral philosophy professed Christianity has it's flaws, is professed by many a hypocrite, and worn as a cover for many a wicked person but its message on equality goes further than pretty much all moral philosophy I know from any earlier time.
Diminishing sectarian hierarchy and placing the church above everything else is a clever strategy for an organization seeking to control your thoughts, your actions, your relationships, your financial obligations, and even your eternal fate.
You have to acknowledge that in our current time, atheism largely exists within christian societies. That's the basis for humanism and social justice and such. Before and after christianity you have master morality. The best thing I can say about atheist and prechristian societies is that they are "interesting".
If the success of secular societies is attributed to their Christian roots, it raises the question of why nations with large, active Christian populations aren’t even more successful.
Perhaps the key isn’t Christianity itself, but rather the move away from any one religious framework.
By broadening our focus to the well-being of all citizens, guided by compassion and inclusivity rather than a singular religious authority, societies can foster more equitable systems.
This shift encourages diverse perspectives, evidence-based policymaking, and a shared commitment to improving everyone’s quality of life.
But you can also attack school teachers because your kid read a book you don't like. That will surely help.
You do realise morality is fundamentally logic and predates Christianity by a fair bit? Christianity has an extrapolation over the basic tenets and certainly didn't stick to most of them over the years, or today based on The Lord's Resistance Army...
Morality is not fundamentally logic, and the “fundamental tenets” are not universal but baey between moral systems, but, yes, it predates Christianity by quite a bit.
> I can’t wait till we talk about Jesus and God in the same way we talk about Hades and Zeus.
> When societies cling too tightly to the faith traditions they’ve inherited—by accident of birth—they often impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
It's pretty clear he's talking about atheism.
And a secular state is definitionally a state without a state religion. Sweden and Norway both had state churches until very recently. A closely related country, Denmark, still has an official state church.
You can also look to Belarus, a secular state with a high rate of non-religiosity.
If your point is that they're doing good because they still pay some ceremonial tribute to their religious past, or that they're doing good because they had a strong religious foundation at some point, how do you square that with the correlation between these countries doing better and the decrease in the influence of religion?
