Vorkosigan

That's because the freethinkers see more deeply than you. The charitable face of Christianity, like the charitable faces of Nazism, Facism, and Communism, is about extending its power and influence in the world. When help occurs, it is secondary to that primary purpose of power and control. This does not deny that individual Christians can be overcome the inherent anti-human nihilism of their religion and practice love and caring for others. Rather, it recognizes that authoritarianism, however gilt the corpse, is still authoritarianism. Sadly, this "equation" does not have two sides, but only one, and that is power.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I think it is dismissing Stark too readily to just describe him as "shallow," although his comment on church state separation is not a good sign. He is a sociologist, not a philosopher.

What I do find intriguing after googling his name, is that he is considered to be a cult apologist. He studied the Moonies in a friendly fashion, and accepted money from them, without thinking it notable that the Rev Moon was promoting a bizarre combination of religion and politics. (See Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith by Charlotte Allen.)

This article claims he is an agnostic, although positiveatheism has a scary side of Rodney Stark section along with a lot of positive quotes (scroll down to Stark).

Bede

Thanks for the links Toto. It seems Stark won't fit into any particular box.

What he says about church/state separation is just an example of what looks like the paranoia on both sides of the debate. To us, in England, where we have a state religion and no one goes to church, we think of church/state separation as the main reason Americans are so religious.

Vork, I'd be interested in your comments on Eisenstein. She was mentioned at length in a class on printing as the start of any discussion on the subject. But she has also come in for some heavy criticism for not realising some effects she puts down to printing were already happening. She seems a bit like Kuhn - vitally important even if not everyone agrees with her.

BTW, while you found my attack on NOGO and contracycle annoying, it was only made because no one called him on his clear mischaracterisation. It gives a bad impression if he is allowed to talk rubbish but when he gets a polemical reply, that is jumped on. As for your marxist explanation of Christianity, nope, I'm not convinced and neither are any historians I know off. To paraphrase one analysis of Christian power, how many divisions does the pope have?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Me too. And frankly, separation of Church and State in the US was accomplished in large part by the efforts of Christians, for example, it is one of the four pillars of the Southern Baptist belief stance. But Stark's comment shows that he is not thinking about this issue in any kind of sophisticated way. Instead, he simply feeds the prejudices of his audience with complete nonsense. He is a prominent scholar who had an opportunity to strike a blow for rationality and unity. But....

That's an interesting criticism. I am only on the first couple hundred pages, but she spends a lot of time document what went on beforehand. Her main thesis, at least in that part, is that she is attempting to document that printing initiated revolutionary not evolutionary change. I thought it was pretty damned exhaustive in its review of things. One thing I frowned at -- writing in 1979, she still writes as if Gutenburg invented printing, a phrase she uses over and over. One thing I like so far is her heavy emphasis on networks and links between various types of intellectuals with the printing shops serving as nodes where these types met, and another is her ability to ferret out interesting nuggets and ask good questions. Copernicus and science is at the end, so I won't be able to report until next week -- have 35 pages of translation due on monday, and another hundred econ quizzes to grade. <sigh>

You know perfectly well what I am talking about. I am not explaining history, but commenting on what Christianity is about.

Vorkosigan

contracycle

Hmm. What would that be?

"Cruel avarice has so seized the hearts of some that though they glory in the name of Christians they provide the Saracens with arms and wood for helmets .... There are even some who for gain act as captains or pilots in galleys or Saracen pirate vessels. Therefore we declare that such persons should be cut off from the communion of the church and be excommunicated for their wickedness, that Catholic princes and civil magistrates should confiscate their possessions, and that if they are captured they should become the slaves of their captors."
Third Lateran Council

"With regard to the Brabanters, Aragonese, Navarrese, Basques, Coterelli and Triaverdini, who practise such cruelty upon Christians .... on all the Faithful we enjoin, for the remission of sins, that they oppose this scourge with all their might and by arms protect the Christian people against them. Their goods are to be confiscated and princes are free to subject them to slavery." Third Lateran Council

"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture. It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this."
[Leander: Quaestiones Morales Theologicae, Lyons 1668 - 1692,
Tome VIII, De Quarto Decalogi Praecepto, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Q. 3.]

In 1685, the Spanish Government's Council of the Indies reported to the King: "The can be no doubt as to the necessity of those slaves for the support of the kingdom of the Indies....; and [that] with regard to the point of conscience the trade may continue because of the reasons expressed, the authorities cited, and its long lived and general custom in the kingdoms of Castile, America and Portugal, without any objection on the part of his Holiness or ecclesiastical estate, but rather with the tolerance of them all"
Elkins: "Slavery" (1968) pp 68-72

In 1866, the Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement that read: "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.' "

I note by contrast:

"A man came to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and said: 'Guide me to a deed that makes me close to Heaven and far from Hell.' The Prophet replied: 'Free a person and redeem a slave.' "

Toto

Bede - if you think that there was a "clear mischaracterisation" please note it and say why it was clearly a mischaracterisation. Please do not stoop to replying with personal remarks. The mods are not omnipresent and cannot catch every violation of every rule, and it would help if things did not escalate.

PS - I would really appreciate it if you avoided the term "rubbish." I doesn't tell me anything except that you are upset by something.

contracycle - did you mean for this reply to go into the thread on slavery?

Bede

When it comes to theist violations the mods, you in particular, make a very good impression of onmiscience.

lpetrich

It must be said in response to contracycle that many Islamic societies have been very big on slave-owning.

But back to the main subject, one curious question is the origin of classical-Greek science. It started off a few decades after 600 BCE, with the Ionians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) and the Pythagoreans. They invented something very important: the mathematical proof. Most previous work on mathematics had been content with asserting their results; the Ionians and Pythagoreans went beyond that.

Why they had been the first to invent that important concept is an important question; has anyone tried to find out?

And also on mathematics, in the early 600's CE, the (Asian) Indian mathematician Brahmagupta understood the properties of zero and negative numbers; he called positive ones "assets" (or "goods" or "fortunes", depending on the translator) and negative ones "debts".

However, that knowledge did not travel far. European mathematicians had trouble with zero and negative numbers until the 1500's or thereabouts; the word "negative" suggests some belief that negative numbers were not really numbers. It's curious that they did not use Brahmagupta's analogy to assets and debts.

Also, no mathematician of the Greco-Roman world ever conceived of zero or the negative numbers; negative numbers could have been called reverse-direction numbers, and zero could have been called the coincidence or static number.

Bede

Contracycle,

Please could you tell us where you got those quotes from. It is immoral to make out you have researched primary sources when others have done the leg work.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

NOGO

Just stating that my post does not contain a word of truth is truly just worthy of you. I aked you a question and you have yet to answer it. All that you can say is, I am right and your wrong". Wow!, that really convinces.

When it comes to blaming Christianity I base my opinion on certain criteria.

Witch hunting I blame on Christianity because Christian doctrine contains direct statements which can be linked to the burning of people accused of being witches. As a "world view" as Nomad puts it we can definitely see a cause and effect relationship between what the Bible says and the burning of witches. The fact that others have done the same does not absolve Christianity. Burning witches is not "human nature". Burning witches must be blamed on belief systems. So all that you can say is that Christianity is no better than others. They are all to blame. Your inspired word of God is also to blame.

Slavery has been existing side-by-side with Christianity for so long that it is simply not credible to state that CHristianity led to its abolishment. Also there is another reason which is far more credible. The abolishment of slavery has to do with the use of fossil fuels and other sources of energy which made it possible to distribute wealth in a way that was not possible before. To me that is what brought the abolishment of slavery. Another thing to look at is simple the cumulative effect of rebellions throughout the ages. Even the rich love stability and in the industrial age stability means more for everybody.

I do not see anything in Christianity which can possibly lead to science. This is just wishful thinking on you part. Neither you nor Nomad has yet to make a clear statement on exactly what Christianity has contributed to science.