Pascal of the famously backpedaling and unsupportable Wager?
Lewis the apologist?
Bach the "who pays for music around here? OK, I'll get them to pay me" pop songwriter?
All of these folks living so far apart from each other in time and place that some of them would vitriolically deny being of the same religion as some of the others?
(Bach was an awesome composer, but he needed the money and catered to his audience.)
There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?
So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.
Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.
We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.
But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
The allegedly lack of progress during the "Dark ages" is a narrative constructed later on, during the Illustration/Enlightenment era. Just to mention an example, alchemical research was verly prolific in that time, and it was the basis for what we now call chemistry and pharmacology.
Historians are nowadays equivocal in saying that the "dark ages" is really a misnomer. It's the middle ages and it was more marred (in Europe) by several powers warring with each other than by any religious "darkening".
> But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all
> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".
The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
If you are trying to point out that there was something good with religion or necessasity of it, i'm aware of this argument.
We do not know what would have happened without religion.
Just because some aspects of it was helpful (perhaps) to our current state, doesn't mean you can be against the whole concept of it. I also do not have to bow down to it or see it as a positive because of it. I can easily call it an evil necessaity.
I’m not arguing for religion or that it’s good or bad only that one facet of that religion allowed for exploration (they had lots of time to think) and that along with stewardship of critical texts (books) fomented the European renaissance from which we still benefit today and likely tomorrow.
Yeah, agree. But also, how critical can you really be if you are a practicing Christian? What is it that you're critical of exactly, and why doesn't it also apply to your religion, if you're "critical"?
I'm an atheist, but hang out with plenty of Christians (protestants mostly, some catholic) and Muslims, and I have nothing against religion per se, can even see some bright and good things coming out of it, and spent most of my childhood in a church, but I know there are plenty of self-labeled Christian scientific researchers who do practice their religion yet would also call themselves "critical", I can totally see why some folks feels like that's slightly hypocritical or contradicting.
Yes, and that's always been vexing to me. I think the reason is like a combination of brainwashing (indoctrination if you must insist), and the fact that Church does offer comforts that most humans need: a feeling of belonging, a meaning to life (handwavey but real), and the perception of being loved.
I'd join the Church in a heartbeat to get those things if I thought the foundational concepts were real.
Critical thinking, by some boundaries of how you define it, was a threat to power that led to the many schisms the video demonstrates. Suppression of it I find to be endemic in monotheistic organized religions. As an outsider to Christianity, it's always seemed odd to me the fluid boundaries of what you can critique and what you can't while remaining faithful. Most Christians would argue you cannot reason your way to the will of God due to the inherent flaws of humanity. I find that a convenient way of saying 'don't rock the boat'.
As a separate aside, you may be interested to learn about the Manichean faith, which for a short period rivaled Christianity as a kind of syncretic mix of faiths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
I suspect (but am not expert enough to claim) that Christianity's suppression of reasoning-your-way-to-God is a historical artifact of this rivalry. Manichean faith borrowed the ancient Greek concept of the Great Nous and the concept of the "Five Limbs": Reason, Mind, Intelligence, Thought, Understanding.
Many recovering Christians that remain pious, in my experience, retreat to a kind of uber-faith that is not unlike this concept. "I see truth in all religions".
The Christian churches that retained power said: you don't get to determine that.
This is largely ignoring the fact that Manichaeism was uniformly and severely persecuted under virtually every empire (and respective theology, or lack thereof) it came into contact with, which the Wikipedia article portrays pretty thoroughly.
Also, this is pretty ignorant of the fact that one of the most significant theological and philosophical movements of recent western history was the Reformation, which was specifically staked on the claim that "reasoning-your-way-to-God" was a fundamental right and responsibility of all believers, not just a limited caste of priests. This had implications far beyond theology, and is arguably the foundation of most western ideas of self-determination to begin with.
I agree Manichaeism was persecuted, and not only for reasons I purport to be it hewing closer to reason. Fair play.
Also a valid argument about the Reformation. Although, by that point Christianity (via the Catholic variant) was so dominant in Europe that I daresay that it was suffering from centuries of too-big-to-fail and was ripe for disruption. Almost an IBM meeting its PC-clone moment. Which is not to dismiss that it was a profound effect upon world history. Rather that the Reformation was the backswing against a great degree of intellectual intolerance from Rome. That the Reformation succeeded doesn't negate the fundamental anti-reasoning bend of the Church at that time.
Newton, Tolkien, Aquinas, Descarte, Pascal, CS Lewis, Lemaitre, Bach. All famously uncritical humans.
Pascal of the famously backpedaling and unsupportable Wager?
Lewis the apologist?
Bach the "who pays for music around here? OK, I'll get them to pay me" pop songwriter?
All of these folks living so far apart from each other in time and place that some of them would vitriolically deny being of the same religion as some of the others?
(Bach was an awesome composer, but he needed the money and catered to his audience.)
The most depressing thing of all is when ppl encounter "bootstrapping" and only see "control"
What do you mean?
There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?
So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.
Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.
We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.
But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
The allegedly lack of progress during the "Dark ages" is a narrative constructed later on, during the Illustration/Enlightenment era. Just to mention an example, alchemical research was verly prolific in that time, and it was the basis for what we now call chemistry and pharmacology.
1 reply →
> religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible.
thank God the world has moved past this kind of 2010s New Atheism.
7 replies →
Historians are nowadays equivocal in saying that the "dark ages" is really a misnomer. It's the middle ages and it was more marred (in Europe) by several powers warring with each other than by any religious "darkening".
> But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all
1 reply →
> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".
The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
3 replies →
I was referring to the analysis of Christianity's spread and evolution as amazing. I was not making a subjective judgment about Christianity itself.
Yes i know. I still think its depressing.
Perhaps we use the sentiment differently?
Like the spread of the black death? I would say its depressing how fast and easy it spread.
It's a bit disingenius to equate spread of a religion to a disease.
1 reply →
It is a mistake to anthropomorphize large groups of people.
There was a time when monks were the few who had time to dedicate to learning and discovery eventually leading to the renaissance.
If you are trying to point out that there was something good with religion or necessasity of it, i'm aware of this argument.
We do not know what would have happened without religion.
Just because some aspects of it was helpful (perhaps) to our current state, doesn't mean you can be against the whole concept of it. I also do not have to bow down to it or see it as a positive because of it. I can easily call it an evil necessaity.
I’m not arguing for religion or that it’s good or bad only that one facet of that religion allowed for exploration (they had lots of time to think) and that along with stewardship of critical texts (books) fomented the European renaissance from which we still benefit today and likely tomorrow.
[flagged]
Yeah, agree. But also, how critical can you really be if you are a practicing Christian? What is it that you're critical of exactly, and why doesn't it also apply to your religion, if you're "critical"?
I'm an atheist, but hang out with plenty of Christians (protestants mostly, some catholic) and Muslims, and I have nothing against religion per se, can even see some bright and good things coming out of it, and spent most of my childhood in a church, but I know there are plenty of self-labeled Christian scientific researchers who do practice their religion yet would also call themselves "critical", I can totally see why some folks feels like that's slightly hypocritical or contradicting.
Yes, and that's always been vexing to me. I think the reason is like a combination of brainwashing (indoctrination if you must insist), and the fact that Church does offer comforts that most humans need: a feeling of belonging, a meaning to life (handwavey but real), and the perception of being loved.
I'd join the Church in a heartbeat to get those things if I thought the foundational concepts were real.
Critical thinking, by some boundaries of how you define it, was a threat to power that led to the many schisms the video demonstrates. Suppression of it I find to be endemic in monotheistic organized religions. As an outsider to Christianity, it's always seemed odd to me the fluid boundaries of what you can critique and what you can't while remaining faithful. Most Christians would argue you cannot reason your way to the will of God due to the inherent flaws of humanity. I find that a convenient way of saying 'don't rock the boat'.
As a separate aside, you may be interested to learn about the Manichean faith, which for a short period rivaled Christianity as a kind of syncretic mix of faiths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
I suspect (but am not expert enough to claim) that Christianity's suppression of reasoning-your-way-to-God is a historical artifact of this rivalry. Manichean faith borrowed the ancient Greek concept of the Great Nous and the concept of the "Five Limbs": Reason, Mind, Intelligence, Thought, Understanding.
Many recovering Christians that remain pious, in my experience, retreat to a kind of uber-faith that is not unlike this concept. "I see truth in all religions".
The Christian churches that retained power said: you don't get to determine that.
This is largely ignoring the fact that Manichaeism was uniformly and severely persecuted under virtually every empire (and respective theology, or lack thereof) it came into contact with, which the Wikipedia article portrays pretty thoroughly.
Also, this is pretty ignorant of the fact that one of the most significant theological and philosophical movements of recent western history was the Reformation, which was specifically staked on the claim that "reasoning-your-way-to-God" was a fundamental right and responsibility of all believers, not just a limited caste of priests. This had implications far beyond theology, and is arguably the foundation of most western ideas of self-determination to begin with.
I agree Manichaeism was persecuted, and not only for reasons I purport to be it hewing closer to reason. Fair play.
Also a valid argument about the Reformation. Although, by that point Christianity (via the Catholic variant) was so dominant in Europe that I daresay that it was suffering from centuries of too-big-to-fail and was ripe for disruption. Almost an IBM meeting its PC-clone moment. Which is not to dismiss that it was a profound effect upon world history. Rather that the Reformation was the backswing against a great degree of intellectual intolerance from Rome. That the Reformation succeeded doesn't negate the fundamental anti-reasoning bend of the Church at that time.