Christianity on Trial

Lewrockwell.com via WorldNetDaily ^ | Sept. 14,2002 | Ryan McMaken

[Torie]

Read the book. It won the Pulitzer prize. I really think you would enjoy it.

[Torie]

My actual position is that I don't think it mattered much one way or the other, and its acting as an impediment fluctuated over time and between place. We are talking about pre Protestant Christianity here I assume.

[Tribune7]

OK, I'll put it on my list. But I think I'll read Christianity on Trial first. :-)

[Tribune7]

My actual position is that I don't think it mattered much one way or the other, and its acting as an impediment fluctuated over time and between place.

Again, I'll disagree. Religion may be the most important influence on a society. If something is done by Christians taught by Christians, it's rather hard not to give credit to Christianity.

We are talking about pre Protestant Christianity here I assume.

No, Francis Bacon was a Protestant. I'll leave the Orthodox out, though.

[Cleburne]

Religion is one of the primary, if not the primary, component of any culture. Whether or not individual scientists were Christians or not, they were influenced by the culture they existed in. To divorce the concept of a society built up around largely Christian morals and thinking from the advancements and developments of that culture is not possible, in my opinion. Now, as a Baptist, I would argue that a good deal of the Church in medieval times- and beyond- was in error, and considerably far from my own faith- however, their esentiall morals were the same by and large, and the cultural impacts were largely inclined upwards. If nothing else, Christianity had a civilizing influence- and this was not always done rightly, or Biblically, but it still existed. At any rate a Christian city in medieval times was considerably better suited to cultural advancement that the average Muslim city of the time. And most ipmortantly, Christian society has continued upwards, whereas many other cultures have stagnated or declined- some of which is not the fault of any inherent flaw in the culture, but from external forces, to be fair. But one must compare the West to other cultures with similar external influences, and reckon why we differed. I believer that much of it has to do with the influence of Christianity.

And I would note that in the Enlightenment, for example, many of the esentially diestic and athiestic philosophers were heavily influenced by Christian thought- though perhaps it was largely subconscious and a product of wider cultural ingrainment: all the same many of the ideas (for good and bad!) that ahve arisen here in the West would not have developed were it not for the thought patterns and ideas laid down by Christianity.

[Torie]

Christian society has continued upwards

You have penned a thougthful post, for which I thank you. But you don't really believe the above do you? There were periods where matters slipped disasterously downwards, and some were religiously related, although perhaps the majority were not. The dark ages come to mind, when things unraveled to an amazing degree, and the population in Europe dropped by 90% (that is not a typo), and well, more recently we have the 20th century, in all its ugly aspects, as well as happier moments.

[Torie]

I might add that Guns, Germs and Steel suggests that Europe broke out from the pack after lagging seriously behind in the 1500's et seq because of national competitive pressures, which China did not have. The belt that was in play for technological breakout was the temperate belt across Eurasia. Why that was is another story.

[rdb3]

...much as how Christ predicted they would.

Exactly. This is why I no longer get upset, even when I come across it at this site.

[rdb3]

"if it were to become illegal to be a christian would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

Yup. Then I'd be sentenced to death.

[Cleburne]

The Dark Ages- if by that you mean the period after the fall of the Roman Empire- were not predominately Christian. The hordes of invaders retained their pagan beliefs by and large- and for that matter not all areas of the Roman empire had fully accepted Christianity. And even in these "Dark Ages" learning and advancement were hardly dead. Though I might qualify (ye got me!) my statement by saying society has inclined upwards, as opposed to other societies that have inclined steadily downwards. To be sure, Western society was quite stagnant in some periods, particularly in early medieval times- but it is unfair to suggest Europe was some dark abyss of barbarianism and utter benightedness.

[Cvengr]

Just a few simple notes regarding science and Christianity during the "Enlightenment".

One point rarely noted pertains to Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum! Consider Scriptural significance attached to the phrase "I am" and "I will". God is frequently simply stated as the Great "I am". Lucifer, though met the fall as Satan upon declaring the 5 "I wills" as evidence of his will to substitute for Divine Will.

I think, therefore I am! to a great extent is contrary to the foundations placed within Scripture. It further might be argued that such a position even goes further to promote a Satanic agenda. Namely, to substitute God's will with any other. Although a number of stipulations might be made in such an argument whcih might keep 'science' as simply an exploration and discovery of His Creation, there does seem to be an incredible slippery slope where one might fall to worship an alternate god by following personal knowledge rather than obedience to His will.

On another note. Consider Berekley's argumentative query, If a tree falls in the forest, will it make a sound if nobody is there to hear it? Place this argument in conjunction with gnosticism and modern SciFi plots such as The Matrix. Is it possible that the many things we attribute to an independent reality, simply might have been formed as faith developed alongside by a multitude of souls?

An interesting study is to deduce scientific consequences after making observations in areas where no other man has considered an area. It's rather eyeopening to stumble across blatently contradictary phenomenon from all elements of conventional science. Amazing also is how science today would still be challenged to explain simple miracles such as turning water into wine, feeding a multitude with loaves and fishes from a simple bag, or turning sticks into snakes or walking on water.

But these really don't matter if one isn't able to simply muster enough courage to accept Him into their lives on His grounds.

[EternalHope]

Thanks for posting a great article, and doing such a great job supporting it on this thread.

The book is on the "must read" list.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I studied Descartes's philosophy a long, long time ago. To the best of my recollection, Descartes intended "Cogito Ergo Sum" to be nothing more than a philosophical proof of his existence. In his philosophy, the fact that he thought proved that he existed. He did not appear to be hostile to the idea of God being the controller of creation; in fact for the sake of argument he entertained the hypothetical possibility that God was an "evil genius" who would fool him about his own existence (a hypothesis which he quickly and sanely rejected because he refused to believe that God could be such a hideous thing).
If Descartes intended "Cogito Ergo Sum" to be a foundation of a system of moral self centeredness, I sure missed it.

[gore3000]

That is the first statement I have seen on this thread that made any sense at all, but when you have FChristian and The man in blue on the same thread, that's not too surprising.

Just around the time of Roger Bacon, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had to make a pilgrimage to beg forgiveness of the Pope. That's how strong the Church was. In addition for some 600-800 years after the barbarians invaded and destroyed the Roman Empire, practically the only people who could read and write in the West were priests. In addition to which, if it had not been for the monks copying of ancient manuscripts we would not have any ancient works. If you bother to go to the library and look at the sources used in the Loeb or Oxford Classics you will see that they come from manuscripts of the 900's and afterwards in almost all cases. Paper perishes very easily and without the copying of the monks we would not have those treasures.

[Tribune7]

Good post!

[Tribune7]

A welcome point!

[Tribune7]

Here's something for your ping list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Dakmar]

I hope y'all enjoy this article as much as I did. JMJ, there's even a bit about how Jefferson was wrong :-)

[EODGUY]

Sounds like an interesting book.

Thanks for the ping.