If athiests ruled the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Well yeah I agree. Which is why I stated it's probably not a good idea to lump all of Europe (and beyond) under one banner, and also noted that it was early Christianity that largely hindered progress.

---

Early meaning 300s to 1000s? How did it hinder progress in a systematic way during that period?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

edit: and medieval humanism was largely inspired by classical thought anyway. It's my contention that sans Christianity, Europe would have advanced at a far faster rate.

---

But the religious institutions of the period provided the means by which classical knowledge was preserved (often literally, physically preserved in fortified monasteries that could hold out against Viking/Saracen/Magyar raiders), studied, debated, taught, spread, and built upon. They set up a continent-wide, supranational network of education and intellectual intercourse. Do you think that if the church hadn't existed, then some supranational secular institution would have emerged to fulfill the same role? Given the political conditions of the period, this strikes me as extremely unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I don't think it's as simple as this. No offense, but this is kind of the "pop history" view of Christianity's intellectual impact on European history. The fact is that the intellectual history of Europe is more complicated than this, and that the church's impact varied greatly over time, and from area to area. The popular image of the church fighting against intellectual progress hardly holds true in a consistent fashion over Europe's history. For instance, there was a period from the 12th to the 14th century where Europe saw a blossoming of scientific and philosophical thought that was largely spearheaded by religious thinkers, and was certainly not opposed by the religious institutions of the day. The approaches and ideas of these thinkers would probably be pretty surprising to most modern people who associate the medieval period with ignorance or backwardness. The arrival of the plague more or less put an end to that, though, and eventually brought about the cultural shifts that would produce the conservative attitudes that predominated in the post-plague period and have lead most people to associate the European church with anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, or anti-progress zealousness. I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity in Europe has consistently been a force against progress or thought. It has played that role during some periods of history, and it has also played a very different role during other periods of history.

Again, I think the biggest single obstacle to human thought and progress has been institutional conservatism--the reluctance of people to give fair treatment to ideas that differ from or challenge the ideas that inform the institutions of the day, and the tendency of institutions to exhibit hostility towards ideas that differ from or challenge the ideas they are based on. This isn't an innately religious problem; certainly religion has been guilty of it at various points, but no more so than the institutions of secular society (economic and political institutions, for instance).

---

Okay Syme, you're obviously ignoring that facts that every liberal "knows":

• Everyone in Europe was a dirt farmer and a Catholic until the 15th, at which point a full-fledged economy, cities, and philosophical movements sprung out of absolutely nothing with no precedents whatsoever. Some guy was just like, "lol dirt farming sux imma just gonna go read plato" and BAM!-- Renaissance.
• Humanism and a liberal sense of morality clearly has its ultimate roots in the highly-stratified, strictly caste-based, and extremely misogynistic Classical social models and ways of thought. It obviously has nothing to do with the Christian synthesis various philosophical systems in which such expression as this were made: "there is no man nor woman... slave nor free... but all are one in Christ."
• The great inspirations for some of Western art's most profound works are obviously not drawn from Christianity, and those works that are were just made cynically by the artist for profit and with hidden anti-Christian messages. Like for example, Dante's Comedia Divina (which was written in the Middle Ages but is actually a work of the Renaissance duh) was clearly made for profit, even though it was mostly written during his exile and a period of profound private privation, and quite clearly the roof of the Sistine Chapel is nothing more than a lampoon of Christian belief rather than a forceful expression of personal belief completed through tortured and painful exertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Well yeah I agree. Which is why I stated it's probably not a good idea to lump all of Europe (and beyond) under one banner, and also noted that it was early Christianity that largely hindered progress.

edit: and medieval humanism was largely inspired by classical thought anyway. It's my contention that sans Christianity, Europe would have advanced at a far faster rate.

---

Bullshit. I'm not going to argue that Humanism was not influenced at all by Classical thought; indeed, it was. However, Humanism is fundamentally Western tradition that has its roots in Christian moral thought, even if it has advanced far beyond its roots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Early meaning 300s to 1000s? How did it hinder progress in a systematic way during that period?

---

Take the spread of Christianity in Europe, which was complete at roughly AD 1000. Instead of competing philosophical theories, you were only allowed to have one - Christianity. For example, several of Charlemagne's capitularies (legislation) dealt harsh penalties to those who wandered away from the church, and since monasteries and seminaries had a monopoly over education, any non-christian thought was repressed in a way it wasn't beforehand (at least under the Roman Republic). This is not to mention the papal influence on domestic affairs of Catholic states, where in all cases pagan thought was pretty much outlawed and in many cases lost. The re-discovery of Aristotle's philosophy and the emergence of Scholastic thought largely gave rise to humanism and the rise of secularism.

Of course, insofar as Christianity can be blamed for the dark ages, it's no coincidence that the decline of the western Roman empire and the rise of separate, competing Christian nations led to a decline in literacy thanks to the almost complete lack of secular institutions.

Quote:

---

But the religious institutions of the period provided the means, on a continent-wide, supranational basis, by which classical knowledge was preserved (often literally, physically preserved in fortified monasteries that could hold out against Viking/Saracen/Magyar raiders), studied, debated, taught, spread, and built upon. Do you think that if the church hadn't existed, then some supranational secular institution would have emerged to fulfill the same role? Given the political conditions of the period, this strikes me as extremely unlikely.

---

A lot of the classical documents kept by monks wasn't kept for its intrinsic value. For example, Cicero's works were kept as good examples of prose and oratory, not because De Re Publica was a good example of secular republicanism. Aristotle's works only re-emerged in the 1100s thanks to Islamic scholars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Bullshit. I'm not going to argue that Humanism was not influenced at all by Classical thought; indeed, it was. However, Humanism is fundamentally Western tradition that has its roots in Christian moral thought, even if it has advanced far beyond its roots.

---

Of course it did. It got its cues from Scholastic thought, which just mixed Christianity and classical philosophy.

edit: and humanism was indeed rooted in Christian moral thought, but I'd argue that without Christianity that moral thought would not have changed much. Were ancient laws hugely different from medieval laws? Or even modern laws? If anything moral thought regressed and become more insular during Christianity's dominance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Of course it did. It got its cues from Scholastic thought

---

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Of course Scholasticism derives much from Classical thought. So did Christianity. However, Scholasticism is not simply an offshoot of Classical thought; it is a branch of philosophy that is essentially alien to Classical philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Thank you for agreeing with me.

---

I guess my point was that humanism wasn't all that different from classical thought which predated it by several hundred years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

A lot of the classical documents kept by monks wasn't kept for its intrinsic value. For example, Cicero's works were kept as good examples of prose and oratory, not because De Re Publica was a good example of secular republicanism. Aristotle's works only re-emerged in the 1100s thanks to Islamic scholars.

---

Regardless of the reasons monks had for preserving classical works, they were preserved. I repeat: You say that Christianity retarded European intellectual development, but Christian religious institutions were essentially the only forum for the preservation, teaching, or discussion of scientific, philosophical, etc. ideas in medieval society. So again: Do you contend that if the Christian church hadn't existed, a secular institution would have emerged that could fulfill the same roles? On a supra-national, continent-wide basis? In the medieval political climate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Regardless of the reasons monks had for preserving classical works, they were preserved. I repeat: You say that Christianity retarded European intellectual development, but Christian religious institutions were essentially the only forum for the preservation, teaching, or discussion of knowledge and ideas in medieval society. So again: Do you contend that if the Christian church hadn't existed, a secular institution would have emerged that could fulfill the same roles? On a supra-national, continent-wide basis? In the medieval political climate?

---

I can't really speculate. One would assume that some kind of polytheistic superstitious religion, like that in Rome of Greece, would have been dominant, both of which were opposed to atheism but neither of which retarded creative intellectual thought outside of that. It's very difficult to say 'what if..' in this instance, but I think it's quite clear that Christianity imposing itself, as you say, as the only forum for discussion, then weighing in with its own philosophy, certainly did not help progression, and in comparison to previous and later years (between AD 400 or so and AD 1200) probably did hinder it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Christianity exclusively, but it was a major element in the slowing of intellectual development.

edit: And I'm unsure the 'they WERE preserved' thing is particularly relevant. On the contrary to your statement, I think that the intent of the monks is supremely relevant. Documents which did not have value in terms of prose, letter writing, poetry, whatever, simply were not copied, even if they did have intrinsic intellectual value. Unless, of course, they supported Christian thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

I guess my point was that humanism wasn't all that different from classical thought which predated it by several hundred years.

---

The Classical period, like every period of human history in every continent, is complex and so full of self-contradition that it's not easy to pin it down.

However, much of Classical thought was dominated by the idea of a strict caste-based society with a large, servile mass as its base and leadership mostly coming from a small elite. Most of the Classical era made even Medival Europe seem like a fluid society by comparisson.

Also, I may be full of shit here, and if so someone please correct me, but aside from Stoicism and some of the mystery religions that fluorished in the late Roman Empire, what strong expressions of humanism were there in Classical thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

The Classical period, like every period of human history in every continent, is complex and so full of self-contradition that it's not easy to pin it down.

---

Wouldn't disagree. Since we're not writing academic papers here, I couldn't be arsed being amazingly specific.

Quote:

---

However, much of Classical thought was dominated by the idea of a strict caste-based society with a large, servile mass as its base and leadership mostly coming from a small elite. Most of the Classical era made even Medival Europe seem like a fluid society by comparisson.

---

Perhaps. Classical philosophy largely didn't advocate this... but it often worked out the other way. For example, Polybius' and Cicero's opinions on the Roman Republican constitution were not actually fully realised in practice.

Quote:

---

Also, I may be full of shit here, and if so someone please correct me, but aside from Stoicism and some of the mystery religions that fluorished in the late Roman Empire, what strong expressions of humanism were there in Classical thought?

---

The Stoics were strong of course, as well as Epicurean thought. Then the civic thought was developed from ancient Athenian politics (Plato, Aristotle, even some derived from Thucydides). The classical influence on humanism is pretty broad.

edit: i assume we're talking about Renaissance Humanism here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Perhaps. Classical philosophy largely didn't advocate this... but it often worked out the other way. For example, Polybius' and Cicero's opinions on the Roman Republican constitution were not actually fully realised in practice.

---

Well, maybe, but

Quote:

---

The Stoics were strong of course, as well as Epicurean thought. Then the civic thought was developed from ancient Athenian politics (Plato, Aristotle, even some derived from Thucydides). The classical influence on humanism is pretty broad.

---

Still though, is there any basis for tolerance of difference and of moral law treating all subjected to it equally, regardless of state or esteem? These two things are the cornerstone of modern humanism, and yes, Stoicisim and Epicureanism (Stoicism in pariticular) held viewpoints that pointed in this direction, but none to with the same degree of influence nor with the same enduring power as Christianity.

Speculative history is always a dangerous and quetionable practice to engage in, but it's not so clear to me that humanism would have been successfully developed under some alternative religion than Christianity.

Also, even though it's rather off-topic, it's possible that without Christianity's strong uniting power, Europe might have beome Islamic in the 7th century or later, or maybe some other mystery religion would have filled in the gap (Mithraism, anyone?). It's entirely possible, nay even probable, that the stodgy old system of gods which few had any love by the time of Constantine's peace would have found much vitality among Europe's people after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Still though, is there any basis for tolerance of difference and of moral law treating all subjected to it equally, regardless of state or esteem? These two things are the cornerstone of modern humanism, and yes, Stoicisim and Epicureanism (Stoicism in pariticular) held viewpoints that pointed in this direction, but none to with the same degree of influence nor with the same enduring power as Christianity.

---

They didn't have the same influence as Christianity, or they didn't have the same influence with regard to free thought as Christianity?

Quote:

---

Speculative history is always a dangerous and quetionable practice to engage in, but it's not so clear to me that humanism would have been successfully developed under some alternative religion than Christianity.

---

Of course it wouldn't have. It wouldn't have even been relevant had Christianity not been dominant. A lot of the central tenets of humanism (development, human endeavour etc) were already evident in classical Greek thought. The most progressive part of renaissance humanism was that it brought Christianity out of its self-imposed isolation in intellectual terms.

Quote:

---

Also, even though it's rather off-topic, it's possible that without Christianity's strong uniting power, Europe might have beome Islamic in the 7th century or later, or maybe some other mystery religion would have filled in the gap (Mithraism, anyone?). It's entirely possible, nay even probable, that the stodgy old system of gods which few had any love by the time of Constantine's peace would have found much vitality among Europe's people after the fall of the Roman Empire.

---

Christianity's uniting power was limited. England and France have been at war for years, and Charlemange's union of Gaul and Germania didn't last very long thanks to the Holy Roman Empire. The various Italian city-states were also Catholic, yet warred almost constantly. It's easy to overstate Christianity's unifying influence, but between the varying Christian states it did very little.

edit: although it is interesting to note the power of Islam in some parts of Mediterranean Europe. It should also be noted that in many respects, Islam was more advanced than Christian Europe at the time. But, as you say, speculative history is pretty dodgy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

They didn't have the same influence as Christianity, or they didn't have the same influence with regard to free thought as Christianity?

---

I should have prefaced that with "In the time of their blossomings during the Classical period." Maybe that would make it clearer? Well, Stoicism was very widely embraced by the Romans, but even still...

Quote:

---

Of course it wouldn't have. It wouldn't have even been relevant had Christianity not been dominant.

---

So are you saying that Humanism is a recovery from Christianity of the liberally moral and humanist (in a modern sense of the word) Classical socities?

Quote:

---

Christianity's uniting power was limited. England and France have been at war for years, and Charlemange's union of Gaul and Germania didn't last very long thanks to the Holy Roman Empire. The various Italian city-states were also Catholic. It's easy to overstate Christianity's unifying influence, but between the varying Christian states it did very little.

---

Oh no, of course you're correct. But let's use the city states of Greece as an example. There was little love between Athens and Sparta, who engaged in war with each other frequently enough. They identified even less with each other than did the entities that would later become the European nations during the Middle Ages. However, they still found enough in common with each other to be able to unite under the Hellenic League and repel the Persians.

Likewise, the warring states of Europe were able to unite under the banner of "(Western) Christendom" to be able to defend themselves against the Muslim invaders and to later engage in those unfortunate Crusades. Spain fell early to the Muslims only because it was outside of Charlemagne's empire, which he did defend succesfully and which was able to find some justification for its unity through Christianity.

In response to your EDIT, let me add that I'm not saying that Christianity was "better" or morally "more advanced" than Islam at the time. My point was merely that it lended some sense of unity to otherwise warring states that allowed them to repell a common invader.

I was wrong about homophobia being a purely religious thing. Mr E's example isn't really good enough, but there are ones, like in mainly secular Asian countries which place enormous emphasis on family.

But abortion, not so much. You may be killing a living human, but without an idea of the "soul" and without the black-and-white commandment from on high not to murder, what's happening is akin to the killing of an animal. A foetus may be a human, but it is no more sapient than a crab (and probably less). It is certainly not a human person. I'm not saying nobody would argue against abortion, but I'm saying that without the religious arguments against it, it's really a fairly simple discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

I can't really speculate. One would assume that some kind of polytheistic superstitious religion, like that in Rome of Greece, would have been dominant, both of which were opposed to atheism but neither of which retarded creative intellectual thought outside of that. It's very difficult to say 'what if..' in this instance, but I think it's quite clear that Christianity imposing itself, as you say, as the only forum for discussion, then weighing in with its own philosophy, certainly did not help progression, and in comparison to previous and later years (between AD 400 or so and AD 1200) probably did hinder it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Christianity exclusively, but it was a major element in the slowing of intellectual development.

---

You say you can't speculate, but then you DO speculate; you are saying that Christianity made European intellectual development slower than it would have otherwise been. That's speculation, because it speculates that European intellectual development would have been more rapid in a speculative history where the Christian church didn't exist.

I do agree that the Church's domination of the intellectual sphere stifled some intellectual activity even as it facilitated other intellectual activity. I'm not saying it was all positive. What I'm saying is that I think you're on very thin ice to speculate that intellectual development would have been more rapid without the church--which, again, is exactly what you have speculated despite saying "I can't speculate".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

edit: And I'm unsure the 'they WERE preserved' thing is particularly relevant. On the contrary to your statement, I think that the intent of the monks is supremely relevant. Documents which did not have value in terms of prose, letter writing, poetry, whatever, simply were not copied, even if they did have intrinsic intellectual value. Unless, of course, they supported Christian thought.

---

Nevertheless, large quantities of material were preserved. The reasons that the monks preserved materials did of course play a role in determining what specific materials were preserved, but I don't see how it's relevant to the basic fact that these religious institutions DID preserve knowledge which might otherwise have been lost, which can only be a good thing. How is the intent of the monks relevant to the fact that their activities--religiously motivated activities--preserved writings that otherwise might have been lost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

You say you can't speculate, but then you DO speculate; you are saying that Christianity made European intellectual development slower than it would have otherwise been. That's speculation, because it speculates that European intellectual development would have been more rapid in a speculative history where the Christian church didn't exist.

---

No, I can't speculate as to an alternative history. I can't say whether or not, for example, Islam would have taken over most of Europe and done x, y or z. I am saying overall Christianity's impact on development was a hinderance due to its very nature.

Quote:

---

I do agree that the Church's domination of the intellectual sphere stifled some intellectual activity even as it facilitated other intellectual activity. I'm not saying it was all positive. What I'm saying is that I think you're on very thin ice to speculate that intellectual development would have been more rapid without the church--which, again, is exactly what you have speculated despite saying "I can't speculate".

---

In fields such as literacy and philosophical richness, the rise of the early church pushed civilisation backwards for some time. In comparison to surrounding eras.

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, large quantities of material were preserved. The reasons that the monks preserved materials did of course play a role in determining what specific materials were preserved, but I don't see how it's relevant to the basic fact that these religious institutions DID preserve knowledge which might otherwise have been lost, which can only be a good thing. How is the intent of the monks relevant to the fact that their activities--religiously motivated activities--preserved writings that otherwise might have been lost?

---

It's relevant because they were merely copied, not used for any intellectual endeavour. It's symptomatic of the insularity of early Christianity. Yes it's a good thing they were preserved, but if you look at the eras before and after early Christianity, on balance less was done


edit: sorry scyld, I'll get back to you tomorrow. Going away for the weekend etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

In fields such as literacy and philosophical richness, the rise of the early church pushed civilisation backwards for some time. In comparison to surrounding eras.

---

You don't think this is attributable instead or at least in part to the collapse of the Western Empire after it was overrun by the Teutonic Tribes, whereas the Eastern Empire was able to survive throughout the so-called "Middle Ages"?

Speaking of which, what about Byzantium? It was Christian too, you know. If anything, I would contend that the Western Church as essentially the only pacifying force in the West helped to speed up recovery. Yes, we fell behind the early Muslim world, and maybe that has something to do with the hegemony of the Church, maybe not, but I think it's a bit more complicated an issue than the Western Church merely acting as only a retarding force from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire up to the 13th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

You don't think this is attributable instead or at least in part to the collapse of the Western Empire after it was overrun by the Teutonic Tribes, whereas the Eastern Empire was able to survive throughout the so-called "Middle Ages"?

Speaking of which, what about Byzantium? It was Christian too, you know. If anything, I would contend that the Western Church as essentially the only pacifying force in the West helped to speed up recovery. Yes, we fell behind the early Muslim world, and maybe that has something to do with the hegemony of the Church, maybe not, but I think it's a bit more complicated an issue than the Western Church merely acting as only a retarding force from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire up to the 13th century.

---

I'm referring mainly to regional development in Western and Central Europe. Yeah, I know Christianity isn't the only factor at work... ironically the fall of the very institutions syme (perhaps rightly) blames for slowing progression was probably the main reason for the general decline in the 'dark ages'. But based on everything I've seen from the era, Christianity did its best actively to stifle any non-Christian thought. Was it the only hindrance? No. Was it solely to blame? No. But I'd judge that its overall effect on progression was limited and initially quite damaging.

I'm not going to disagree with you that the later church was a pacifying force of sorts and in some cases actively encouraged non-Christian (eventually secular) development. The Eastern Empire by virtue of its connections to Rome actually did hold onto some secular Graeco-Roman advancements, as evidenced by the Justinian Code, which I would argue was an advancement in itself. The very same emperor was partly responsible however for the massacres that ensued during his attempt to 'liberate' Italy from the Ostrogoths. I wouldn't praise or blame Christianity for either of those things.

edit: forgot that earlier post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

So are you saying that Humanism is a recovery from Christianity of the liberally moral and humanist (in a modern sense of the word) Classical socities?

---

I'm saying that, in a sense, renaissance humanism picked off where classical philosophy ended. Everything in between was barely philosophy, even if there was some interesting theology. I can't speak for modern humanism because I suspect it means something slightly different.

Quote:

---

Oh no, of course you're correct. But let's use the city states of Greece as an example. There was little love between Athens and Sparta, who engaged in war with each other frequently enough. They identified even less with each other than did the entities that would later become the European nations during the Middle Ages. However, they still found enough in common with each other to be able to unite under the Hellenic League and repel the Persians.

Likewise, the warring states of Europe were able to unite under the banner of "(Western) Christendom" to be able to defend themselves against the Muslim invaders and to later engage in those unfortunate Crusades. Spain fell early to the Muslims only because it was outside of Charlemagne's empire, which he did defend succesfully and which was able to find some justification for its unity through Christianity.

---

It's an interesting paradox, isn't it? I've looked into the problem of 'state' and 'nation' and it seems that many peoples can identify themselves under the same banner, culture or, as we'd call it, 'nation' - like the Greek city-states, Christendom or even the modern Anglosphere - but the states they organise themselves into can, and often will be, perpetually at war. Yet, in most cases they will band together against an enemy who opposes their collective cultural values. This doesn't mean that the culture is conducive to peace, it just means the culture is conducive to a collective defence. Still an interesting point though that many scholars wrestle with.

Quote:

---

In response to your EDIT, let me add that I'm not saying that Christianity was "better" or morally "more advanced" than Islam at the time. My point was merely that it lended some sense of unity to otherwise warring states that allowed them to repell a common invader.

---

It did to an extent, but it didn't really stop the Christian states fighting wars with each other.