I'm moving these posts from another thread for being off-topic. I'm going to remind everyone here that personal attacks are not allowed in RGT, so please direct your ire at the arguments and ideas being offered rather than the person making them. I'll also remind people that the Terms of Service for posting on 2p2 include:

RGT allows vigorous debate and criticism of different religions, but it doesn't allow racist or "hateful" posts. This is a difficult line to police sometimes, requiring finding a balance between free discussion and a welcoming forum culture. I'll try to be as fair as I can in moderating people's posts, and I'll ask you guys to please try to post with these considerations in mind as well.

lol when christards claim the enlightenment happened because of christianity and not in spite of it

I'm as atheist as they come, and yet I believe Christianity was central to the Enlightenment. Most Enlightenment values are Judeo-Christian values; the same values don't exist elsewhere. There's not a culture on Earth that has held Judeo-Christian values that we now believe are inevitable and righteous (mostly because they're backed by fearsome weapons and economic success).

Do you believe the enlightenment would have happened under Islam, for example?

Why did the Enlightenment happen?

Before dismissing Christianity as a key part of the tapestry necessary for the Enlightenment, I'd be interested to hear what your explanation is for why it happened and what was needed for it to happen.

Can you specifically detail which values you are referring that aren't held by any other culture on Earth?

Given we dont even know all the other cultures that have existed on earth that would be hard.

The enlightenment claim is extremely dubious. Mosaic law wasn't even enlightened when it came about, the codes of Hammurabi predate it by a millennia and contains pretty much the same soup, but it is more advanced when it comes to statehood (presumption of innocence, constitutions etc).

The Archaic and Classic period of Greece took place in the same period we saw the expansion of Judaism, these civilizations were undoubtedly miles ahead when it comes to the development of principles we see as important to our modern civilizations.

New Testament law is certainly more enlightened than Mosaic law, but the it doesn't offer much new; even the Golden Rule we have in writing from Egypt 2 millennia before. When it comes to societal development, the Roman principles of law, state and administration must be said to be far more weighty cornerstones to our modern societies.

We could argue that the Catholic Church did a lot when it came to influencing principles of law and academia that we now see as important to our civilizations, but remember that most of these principle stem from the Roman Empire - not Christianity itself. If you read the bible, the legal processes it describes doesn't exactly come of as civilized.

Christianity would at some points in history come to play a pivotal role in the ending of slavery (around year 1000 in Northern Europe, and 800 years later in many other regions), which is (to me) the most enlightened things it has contributed to. Though even this is clouded somewhat by the role Christianity would also play when it came to advocating for slavery.

On many issues, Christianity has played a detrimental role. The rights of women, secularism, free courts... to name a few.

Islam never ended slavery. Slavery flourished under Islam to become a gigantic industry, including vast hordes of child sex slaves, many as young as 10. Slavery including widespread socially endorsed child sexual slavery is the core of Islam.

Islamic slavery was so widespread that depopulated much of southern Europe. The only reason they stopped is because more enlightened Christian nations conquered the Muslim slavers (after endless warnings and attempts at treaties) and forced them to stop. Have a read of this, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

Christianity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam when it comes to slavery. The ending of slavery is a direct consequence of Christianity.

Then why are Christian nations the ones that created secularism? Why are Christian nations the ones where women played the greatest role in public life? Where they first gained emancipation? Where they participated in court life? Christianity is almost gender neutral except for a few passages. Compare with Islam, for example, where the role of woman as entirely subservient to her male keepers is central to Islam and the Koran.

Christianity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Islam when it comes to women. Western female freedoms are impossible under Islam; they could not arise in an Islamic society.

As for secularism, it ultimately it came out of the protestant reformation that led to the flowering of Europe, and that came directly from biblical teachings - specifically what Jesus taught about where authority lay and didn't. Such a thing would not be possible under Islam, for example, or Hinduism.

Then you look at things like xenophobia - Islam at its core is a horrifically bigoted, xenophobic religion. Hatred and violence against non-Muslims is actively encouraged in Islam, if they do not convert. Their status as second and third class citizens under Islam is codified right into holy Sharia law, and goes all the way to the court system, where non-Muslims cannot bring charges and have no status as witnesses (their word is considered worthless, even below that of a Muslim woman, who is worth half that of a man).

The Christian view of the everyone as "one of God's children" is central to Christianity's tolerance of outsiders and different viewpoints. The open inquiry and acceptance of difference and tolerance for dissent and other religions you see in Christian nations arose from Christianity; it is impossible in (for example) Islam.

Its like you nothing of Islam or history.

It's like you can't put together a coherent argument.

Look at the role of women in bringing the Enlightenment in the salons of Europe - and ask yourself if that could ever have happened in a culture following the example a polygamous, ridiculously patriarchal prophet, from a culture with the mainstream acceptance of the widespread sale of little girls as sex slaves for Muslims, and a holy law that gives the worth of a woman's word as half that of a man's.

You think that culture - with deeply ingrained misogyny far beyond the worst in Christianity - would have developed the same attitude toward the equality of women.

lol @ you bro. It's almost like you know nothing or Islam or history.

Ive done that before and was met with no response and silence only to have you repeat the same diatribe. Lol at thinking i would put any effort in with you.

Attacking the messenger and then pretending you've debunked something is a weird way to try and win an argument. I guess it's what you do when you've got nothing to bring to the debate. I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.

So it is your considered view that Islam was just as likely to lead to say, female equality, as Christianity? There is no difference whatsoever between them when it comes to likelihood of say, enduring female equality?

That a religion where even in the 21st century, 1/3 of adherents believe in MURDERING someone who leaves the religion, is as likely to have reformed as one in which the holy book, and particularly the last prophet, is far less fanatical?

That a religion that deifies a prophet who murders poets for mocking him, is going to be the same of kind of religion as one in which the prophet let himself be nailed to cross, as an act of forgiving piety?

Do you want to defend that position? Or do you agree with me, that the latter is more likely to lead to enlightenment and tolerance than the former?

Its my considered view your not worth putting much effort into. Understand?

Other posters seemed interested. Why not post with them instead of skipping their posts.

I was posting at tame_deuces until you decided to be butt in and be a zero-content troll. What is the point of that? To throw shade without the courage to back up your arguments? Weird, man.

Teach me more about the evil Islam and blacks and their brains and lynching. Least im not that kind of man. Ill take weird.

And there was content. It was laughing at yours. And i meant you skipped uke_master post.

I fail to see the relevance of most of this post. What Islam did or did not do doesn't have much bearing on your original claim about Christianity bringing enlightenment.

I think he answered your question adequately as to the position of Christianity to the enlightenment beginning at post #69. Short of repeating the history of the world I suspect you don't care and would have us believe that the enlightenment [popped out of the maelstrom without the Christian scholars who wore the dark robes and funny hats to which you wore upon graduation from your school of learning.

The "Academia de Cimento" was an early scientific society which is related to Galileo and fostered in the Christian community. Of course if the difficulties Galileo had with the pope makes him non christian then what's the use ? I believe that the Jesuits even now are well known for their advocacy of science and at this academy they were leading (could be wrong here0. None the less men of robes were totally involved with the movement of the west culturally , politically artistically and of course scientifically.

Walk through any large European city (small too)See with your own eyes. and note the works of art and institutions offered up to comprehension and feeling of Christianity.

Hammurabi is no different than for example the tenets of Confucianism vis a vis a culture but they are quite different than the Decalogue which brings the Power and Glory to Man through the Hebrew people. I suppose that with your approach Spinoza would not be Hebrew since he was cast out of the Amsterdam Temple.

There were and will always be impediments along the way but to stick to the talking points of one sided mania is marginal and poor form.You don't have to like Christianity but to obfuscate the history of the West because of personal pique is not worthy . Gotta go.

Also, a comparison across cultures which was referred to by others is well within the range of this topic of discussion. Its real and cannot be poo pooed.

The constant comparison to Islam is a weak use of a strawman.

What it shows is that elements specific to the religion of Christianity, and not shared by other religions, contributed to the Enlightenment.

In this thread we have people saying that the Enlightenment happened in spite of Christianity, not because of it. By contrasting with the practices in the world's other major (and just barely the second largest) religion, I'm showing some of the ways in which Christianity paved the way for enlightenment in which other religions could not have. So there are elements either in or not in Christianity that allowed a Christian culture to foster the Enlightenment.
Yeah. My opinion as an English speaking Westerner used to be that the Enlightenment was in spite of Christianity. After spending a couple of years seeing many dozens of European towns and cities all over Europe, reading about their history, philosophers, trial and tribulations, I've reversed my view completely. Christianity was a central part of the glue and philosophies that held together the variety of towns and cities, formed the worldviews and worth ethic and philosophical direction of inquiry, that fostered the Enlightenment.

Confucianism is another good example of a philosophy that shaped a culture very diffferently from how Christianity shaped the west. The Chinese do not have or share Enlightenment values, even in a world dominated by Western power. The Enlightenment could not have happened in China as Confucianism is deeply collectivist philosophy of family loyalty and obedience to one's masters, which is very different from the deeply individualist view inspired by the bible/Jesus' teachings, that came out of the Reformation.

It seems that you're generally guilty of overfitting the data.

If you disagree with something, or have your own view, then by all means offer it. That piece you quoted is true. Unless you think that the Chinese are mentally/behaviorally genetically different (a possibility, we have no idea), then what is the reason?

Offer a rationale for why Europe advanced into new philosophies, talents and principles of justice, and the Islamic world and China didn't, despite an economic and population head start for both. And do it without invoking Christianity.

What's true is that the Enlightenment didn't happen in China. There's a lot of work to be done to say that it *couldn't* happen in China.

The argument put forth is incredibly simplistic and narrow-minded. To take a complex sociological phenomenon such as the Enlightenment (complete with an ill-defined starting period) and boil it down to such a specific assertion just shows a level of naivete about history and historical movements.

In order for your argument to be successful, you would first have to come up with some sort of argument that "the deeply individualist view inspired by the bible/Jesus' teachings" was a pivotal linchpin in the Enlightenment. You also need to distinguish "THE Enlightenment" (the actual thing that happened) from other types philosophical/intellectual movements that could have reached similar levels but be of a different "type" (so to speak). For example, it's not difficult to imagine that there could have been a scientific revolution of a similar sort coming out of China, though it may not have looked EXACTLY the same as the scientific revolution in Europe.

I'm not saying you can't be successful, but right now the statements you're putting for are being put forth with great confidence and bravado, but upon simple inspection appear to not be driven by any deep understanding of the movement itself. Maybe it's there, but the simplistic argument put forth looks pretty much like data overfitting. You believe that "individualism" played a role in the Enlightenment, and so anything that points either towards or against individualism becomes *THE* thing that made the Enlightenment happen. I think the argument just fails as it is currently presented.

You really have tremendous trouble following an argument. You have clowns above asserting as a certainty that Christianity hindered the Enlightenment rather than helped/was the caused of it.

I am providing counterpoints to those absurd assertions.

It's their position that is utterly ridiculous, not mine. Christianity was a major part of the fabric of Europe, central to its culture and much of its philosophy. Just like Islam and Confucianism were central to their cultures and philosophies. To assert that it had no part in bringing something as complex and multifaceted and delicate as the Enlightenment is a ridiculous position. That is the starting position.
That they didn't didn't happen anywhere else says a great deal.
The fact that it didn't happen despite a large head start (thanks largely to having much of the globe's population, and much more political stability owing to geography and racial homogeneity), says a lot.
On the contrary, it's precisely through deep understanding that you come the conclusion that Christianity was central.
Well let's go through a list:

- The anarchist individualism/anti-authority of the Anabaptist movement (and other protestant movements) changed society profoundly. These came directly from the bible and the teachings of Jesus; such movements are nigh impossible in Islam or Confucian ideology.

- Equity in law arose from Christian considerations of fairness and justice and the very idea of "do unto others", which has no parallel in any religion save maybe Buddhism. The clergy in fact provided a parallel system of equitable relief, based on principles of Christian fairness. This in turn formed the basis of all eventual freedoms. The idea that all men should be treated equal is a Christian ideal that arises from Christian principles of all being equal under God, and no man should judge another lest he be judged himself. Islam has nothing comparable, which is why it has horrifically bigoted and misogynist laws against and women and non-Muslims that have survived to this day. Hinduism has nothing comparable. It is tribal rather than individual. Confucianism favors loyalty to the family and obedience of ruling classes over the purity of principles or morality or answering only to one's conscience in a deeply personal relationship with God.

- There's a good argument to be made that the salons of Europe, particularly France which then spread elsewhere, were a huge part of civilizing society, and that the participation of women in those salons and in public life generally was an enormous civilizing and humanizing force. Such a thing would be impossible under Islam for example, which has women as owned chattel of men. The bible has one of the mildest views of women, it has a few bad phrases, but nothing like the detailed prescriptions of their second class status in the world's other major religion.

- Christianity tolerates dissent in a way few other religions do. There are blasphemy laws, sure, but they are superseded by a kinder view of the world from Jesus. A prescription that we should not judge others, lest we be judged. That we should turned the other cheek to slight and insult. Contrast with the world's second largest religion, where criticism of the religion is met with murder, even today. Where merely leaving the religion is met with shunning and murder. Or contrast with Confucianism or other Asian religions, where veneration of elders is a holy principle that goes far beyond that in Christianity. Thus Christian societies were always going to have a greater flowering and variety of ideas - including heretical ideas - than other religions. And it was heretical ideas and their ability to flower that was part of what led society to new ways of thinking.

- Christianity tolerates outsiders, unlike the world's second largest religion. Islam has basic and deep precepts of convert or be murdered. Christianity believes we're all God's children. People are always cruel to outsiders, but a Christian worldview tempers that, putting all men equal before God. Ultimately those principles even made it into the US constitution.

- Christianity has a work ethic (it requires faith as well as works) not shared by other religions. The bible has many passages that make it clear that salvation requires both faith and works. And works include doing things for others, being selfless, not being lazy, taking responsibility, avoiding things like sloth and gluttony. I don't think I need to explain the benefit of such a belief in both civilizing society and moving forward its economy.

- Christianity is largely free from ritual control of daily life. You don't have to pray 5 times a day, facing Mecca; you don't have to go and meditate, you don't have to do bizarre rituals like in Hinduism. Rituals have built up around various denominations, but individuals are free to ignore them, unlike in many other religions. These leads to diversity of thought and action, and freedom to adapt and develop a culture of work.

- Christianity is a concerned with one truth, and a singular God who we can imperfectly know in a personal relationship. This lead to a large and rich body of idealist philosophy, which, as it was broken down, lead to a flowering of alternative and derivative philosophies. It was in a way the bedrock from which modern philosophy was built. Contrast that with say, Hinduism, or various third world religions, in which there is no eternal truth, just warring powerful beings who you can petition. Contrast that with Islam, with its focus on daily life and proper behavior within that daily life, and on political life. The influence of ethereal ideals and monotheism on the development of idealism and philosophy is powerful, imo. If the path to power is internal, if people search for power and knowledge of God inside themselves, rather than through rituals or by petitioning a powerful being, it leads to a more intellectual culture.

- Christianity was apolitical. This is enormous, compared to something like Islam. An apolotical religion allows the possibility for separation of church and state. Indeed, Christianity explicitly exhorts: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from the world". This is a world apart from Islam, which describes in detail how law and politics should be handled. Thus political diversity and separation of Church and state (and religion and daily/political life) could be developed in Christian nations, in a way that wasn't possible in something like Islam, or in religions that explicitly stated as a matter of theological truth, the unquestioned divinity of the Emperor, like some Japanese religions, for example.

- Christianity focuses on one life, on which we are judged, and no other. This has an enormous motivating effect on living a good lie and doing good works. Contrast with, for example, many strains of Buddhism, which teach eternal rebirth and thus remove the urgency from action.

There are lots more reasons why Christianity was a uniquely civilizing force. There's no point getting into them as no one here has the historical knowledge to discuss them intelligently.

Pedantic and whatever. he doesn't have to prove a thing to you taking into consideration "what if" or "what if"; its a good lead and to attack the purveyor personally appears to be the modus operandum. He speaks to insight, not some caterwauling logicum which will offer nothing. This is not about being logically sound , though it is, but about understanding and insight into the western ethos and dynamic movement of individual men who through art, science, politics and more displayed an expressed a mood of soul and that includes all men no matter what house of worship; its beyond this.

After all, wasn't it Augustine who said that Christianity existed before Golgotha and he included Plato as one of the ancient Christians. Where's the logic here ?

Perhaps seeing this Christian ethos as "monolithic" within politics is the stumbling point as apposed to the "community" of men.

You always inspire me to become more learned, carlo.

Indeed, Christianity is not a monolith, although the Catholic Church to make it so, stunting development for hundreds of years. I'd argue that the diversity that Christianity allowed, and the way in which is helped build good willed, hard working communities of free men was ultimately what led to it outdoing all other religions in cultural, economic, intellectual moral, artistic and philosophical achievements.

I'd argue the teaching of Jesus itself were central to that happening, and that Europe would very likely not have developed as it did without them.

Okay. But that's not what I was addressing. You made a very specific and narrow claim:

The Enlightenment *could not* have happened in China because of this specific thing ("deeply collectivist philosophy of family loyalty and obedience to one's masters").

You're the one who is getting pretty ridiculous. And it's only getting worse. (I don't even think you're *wrong* that Christianity played a role in advancing the Enlightenment. But your argument looks really, really overfitted.)