Thread: If athiests ruled the world

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.