Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 11-19-2008, 09:59 AM

The book of Rodney Stark has been reviewed by Vorkosigan (Michael Turton) on an old thread of October 2004 :

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101386

Quote:

October 10, 2004, 05:21 AM
The Rise of Christianity
Rodney Stark

Reviewed by Michael Turton

The Rise of Christianity offers an examination of early Christian history from the perspective of a sociologist of religion. The result is a work of mixed effectiveness, often interesting and insightful, but also neglectful of crucial social aspects of emergent Christianity.

Stark's theoretical model is based on market-behavior analogues and rational-choice behavior modeling. Writing of martyrs, he states: "Individuals chose their actions rationally, including those actions which concern compensators" (p169), a compensator being a method for explaining how a desired reward is to be achieved. According to Stark, compensators involve rewards that are long delayed and may never appear, for maintaining certain behaviors over periods of time. Stark regards this as a "scientific" antidote to the claim that people perform bizarre acts like martyrdom because religion is "irrational." Stark instead builds a rational and testable model of behavior which shows that it might well be rational to prefer martyrdom.

This theoretical model is in turn based the understanding of religion as a social phenonomen spread by networks of acquaintances. Stark points out that conversion is most common among acquaintances and friends in all religious groups, and most easily achieved when the new religion is related to a local or previous religion. Stark then locates Christianity's spread in this model.

In Stark's view Christianity began by spreading out through the communities of the Jewish diaspora and then into the larger gentile world. The majority of early recruits were female, a point which Stark goes to great lengths to document, reflecting Christianity's superior view of the female. This had numerous advantages for Christianity, for the females not only offered superior fertility because the new religion did not practice infanticide, abortion, or birth control, but also in the form of secondary conversions. Further, Christianity also prized virginity in both sexes, not merely females, and extolled the virtues of marriage, which pagans did not. Although Stark is able to cite numerous references in the literature to the existence of such attitudes, he does not cite any data as to how they were carried out in practice. Another error he makes is extending these attitudes through the first five centuries, though by the middle of the second century women had lost their clout in Christian Churches, if they had ever had it.

This brings us to Stark's first major problem: although he is quick to reject the attitudes of bygone academics, he is entirely too credulous toward his Christian sources. For example, he cites the letter of Dionysus around 260 regarding the great pandemic in the East, which states that Christians showed "unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another." This letter is reproduced in Eusebius and does not exist independently. Stark argues that "it is highly unlikely that a bishop would write a pastoral letter full of false claims about things that his parishioners would know from direct observation" and so it must really be true that the pagans fled the plague. But anyone who knows religions knows that false claims about the reality are stock in trade for preachers of all types, which their parishioners soak up regardless of actual experience. To support his claim he cites Thucydides' claim that the pagans did not care for one another in the plague of Athens, though Thucydides says that he was an exception. One might note, in fact, that the two documents are exactly the same, showing that "we" cared while "they" did not. As accounts of Christian behavior in Black Death show, Thucydides' pagans were not alone in their flight. There is no reason to accept Dionysus' claims as historical fact. A corollary with this is Stark's overreliance for accounts of Christian history on scholars committed to conventional views of said history.

He also gives slanted presentations of his ancient evidence. The letter of Julian to the high priest of Galatia in 362 certainly does complain that Christians are more charitable than the pagan priests. Yet Stark, wishing to show that pagan culture was inferior to Christian, leaves out the admonishment of Julian to the priest to be more charitable, something his culture dictated from the time of Homer. Stark leaves the reader with the impression that the pagan world was utterly lacking in charity, when in fact charitable organizations were common. Stark also ignores any conflicts within the Christian world, though pagans often expressed exasperation at the disagreements and sectarian violence that colored Christian-on-Christian relations.

A second problem of Stark's is his complete neglect of the apparatus of authority control in religion. This stems partly, I think, from a desire to place Christianity in the best light possible, and partly from his use of neoclassical economic thinking in forming his models of human behavior. Neoclassical economic modeling of human behavior simply ignores the sociopolitical level and concentrates on individual choicemaking. Consequently, Stark manages on numerous occasions to compare Mormons and early Christianity without once ever mentioning the apparatus of authoritarian control in either. This is particularly sticky because while it can be argued (for example) that Christianity offered a superior choice for women over paganism, that is simply not true of Mormonism against modern secular culture. Mormonism is inferior to liberal culture on nearly every aspect of its existence. Therefore, to prevent wholesale defections, the Mormon religion has evolved an extensive apparatus of Leninist political control, including broad demands on time, thought control, intense social pressure, cell structures for Mormon society that allow the Church to interpenetrate to every level of society, locating itself in relative geographic isolation, and so forth. Early Christianity shows many of these same features -- a house Church is a cell structure, a bishop a political commissar -- but Stark simply ignores any of these features of early Christianity in his explanatory model.

Stark's focus on choice and not on structures leads him to neglect other features of Christianity, such as the fact that it is a missionary religion, while the pagan religions were not, and it was an intolerant, exclusivist religion, while the pagan religions were not. Christianity was able to stamp out its rivals because it was a missionary religion operating in an environment without real rival missionary religions, and because later, it was able to secure government support for its operations. One need only look at the contrast between Christianity's success in Europe and its failures in Asia, where there are entrenched missionary religions (Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism) and where it has never had government support. This is despite the fact that Asia shares many features of the pagan Roman Empire, such as low status for women, polyglot cultural environments, poor development of civic society, terribly overcrowded urban infrastructure, and so forth. Though cross-cultural comparisons are always fraught with iffy-ness, it can be seen that the factors identified by Stark as central to Christian success may well be peripheral to it, since not one of them has led to success in Asia. One might also point out that Mormon success has also come without any of those factors -- Mormonism is most popular in the US, where it offers lower status for women than society at large, compels participants to donate additional income over and above US taxes, restricts their social freedom in a society that emphasizes freedom of movement and speech, and reduces their individual expression in a society where individualism is celebrated. Further, information on the completely bogus career of Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, is widely available. Clearly, the success of Mormonism cannot have anything to do with its values or its presentation of reality. And neither does Christainity. The stark fact is that any religion will be successful, so long as it is missionary, manages to maintain a coherent message, and manages to maintain control over the minds and bodies of its converts. Those who doubt that need only consider Scientology, which makes a nice living for its leaders on steady growth in converts.

A third problem of this work is Stark's simplification of the problems and issues. Stark comes very near to building two diametrically opposed and simplistic worlds, one Christian and the other pagan, paying no attention to the complexity of either. Because of this, and because of his neglect of the sociopolitical structures of nascent Christianity, he is able to write a completely fatuous final chapter which argues that the central doctrines of Christianity "prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and organizations." When one thinks of the diversity of social relations in the pagan world, and the iron authoritarianism of Christianity, especially in the later medieval period, one wonders what Stark is talking about.

Ultimately this book, although interesting and sometimes insightful, is simplistic and ignorant of the history it purports to explain. Explaining the growth of Christianity must await another author, one more willing to confront the problems of Christianity and the possibilities of paganism, and committed to a broader and more inclusive explanatory regime.

Vorkosigan

Doug Shaver · 11-19-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Exactly what evidence do we have for the existence of the Christian movement prior to the fall of Jerusalem?

Paul's writings satisfy me on that point.

Not that I think Christianity at that time was anything like what it later became, since I don't accept Jesus' historicity.

Doug Shaver · 11-19-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

And we just have to trust that the catholic church did not fudge some of these writings by their so-called "fathers"?

No, I don't think so. But neither do we have to assume that the documents are entirely worthless as evidence for Christianity's origins.

Transient · 11-19-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

And we just have to trust that the catholic church did not fudge some of these writings by their so-called "fathers"? I have no reason to trust the catholic church and every reason not to trust them.

Such a conspiracy theory would apply equally to every piece of literature either of us have ever read.

A: "Julius Caesar was Jesus"
B: "But we have Caesar's works"
A: <gleefully> "Ah, yes, but clearly the Jews/Catholics/Masons/Establishment/Communists/Nazis/They have hidden the facts."

To which B will reply, if he is wise:

B: "If all the facts that would support your assertion have been hidden, on what solid evidence can your theory possibly rest?"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yes but you miss the point: I could not care whether anyone from the past existed or not - it simply does not impact my life.
What does impact it is whether a guy called "Jesus" existed as written. The likelihood of that I now rate as virtually zero.
That is why the actions and outward appearance of the catholic church is important because they supposedly were the custodians of the so-called "holy scriptures". They failed miserably in both and show that either god does not exist or he cares little for the integrity of "his" writings.
So you see it matters little really to most people whether Caesar existed, whether merlin existed etc - only to historians.
Therefore we demand greater proof for the existence of "Jesus" and the occurrence of these so-called miracles.

patcleaver · 11-19-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

And we just have to trust that the catholic church did not fudge some of these writings by their so-called "fathers"? I have no reason to trust the catholic church and every reason not to trust them.

Such a conspiracy theory would apply equally to every piece of literature either of us have ever read.

A: "Julius Caesar was Jesus"
B: "But we have Caesar's works"
A: <gleefully> "Ah, yes, but clearly the Jews/Catholics/Masons/Establishment/Communists/Nazis/They have hidden the facts."

To which B will reply, if he is wise:

B: "If all the facts that would support your assertion have been hidden, on what solid evidence can your theory possibly rest?"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

We do not have to choose between a crackpot theory that Early Christian Writing is relible and a crackpot conspiracy theory.

The reliability of early Christian writing is simply not true for exactly the same reason that it is not true that Mithra rose from the dead and its not true that Jesus ever existed.

Things are not true until someone offers reasonable evidence to determine that they are true.

There are tens of thousands of examples of religious writings from hundreds of religions and they are filled with fraud and fiction and are not reliable. All you have to do is read the Mormon scripture or read about Scientology beliefs regarding Xenu and thetans, or read “The Lives Of The Saints”, or read the writings of Mary Baker Eddie, or read about the development of the spiritualism movement, or read the fraudulent claims that have not come true in the watchtower, or read the sermons of Jim Jones where he claims to resurrect the dead and to walk on water, and all of his followers were so convinced that they were willing to kill their own children and then themselves.

The fact is that many religious people lie to themselves and lie to others in order to justify and defend and spread their religious beliefs, and that religious organizations regularly perpetrate fictions and frauds to try to spread their beliefs. There is no reason to believe that early Christian Writings are any more reliable then the early writings of any other religion.

We know for a fact that Catholics revised Early Christian Writing to manufacture fraudulent evidence to justify their dogmas. How is that a conspiracy theory?

mountainman · 11-19-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Exactly what evidence do we have for the existence of the Christian movement prior to the fall of Jerusalem?

Paul's writings satisfy me on that point.
(I don't accept Jesus' historicity)

Dear Doug,

You do not accept the historicity of Jesus yet you do accept Paul's first century historicity (despite the known forgeries in the name of the author called "Paul")?? Can you clarify your position?

Best wishes,

Pete

gstafleu · 11-20-2008, 06:28 AM

The Power Structure
According to Michael:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Turton

A [...] problem of Stark's is his complete neglect of the apparatus of authority control in religion. [...] This is particularly sticky because while it can be argued (for example) that Christianity offered a superior choice for women over paganism, that is simply not true of Mormonism against modern secular culture. Mormonism is inferior to liberal culture on nearly every aspect of its existence. Therefore, to prevent wholesale defections, the Mormon religion has evolved an extensive apparatus of Leninist political control, including broad demands on time, thought control, intense social pressure, cell structures for Mormon society that allow the Church to interpenetrate to every level of society, locating itself in relative geographic isolation, and so forth. Early Christianity shows many of these same features -- a house Church is a cell structure, a bishop a political commissar -- but Stark simply ignores any of these features of early Christianity in his explanatory model.

First of all, I'm not so sure the comparison between Mormonism and early Christianity holds. To compare a small institution like a house church to an elaborate one like a Mormon church seems dubious.

Second, Michael's appeal to the power structure ignores an important aspect of all religions: the difference between elite religion and the religion of the less privileged. The importance of this distinction has been emphasized in other context as well (e.g. Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints by Brian Hayden), but Stark also supplies some sociological findings:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stark, p.35

[N]egative correlations were found between social class and accepting traditional religious beliefs, having religious and mystical experiences, and the frequency of personal prayers [IOW the less privileged are more likely to do this]. In contrast, there are positive correlations between social class and church membership, participation in church activities, and saying grace before meals.

In other words, the poor are more likely to search for a personal god providing them with boons, while the privileged place more emphasis on the social rituals. Stark formalizes this as follows (the formalizations are in italics, the roman paragraph following contains some of his explanatory remarks):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stark, p.36

First: The power of an individual or group will be positively associated with control of religious associations and with gaining the rewards available from religious organizations.
[This] explains the relative absence of the lower classes from more conventional religious organizations, for it captures the religious expression of privilege. We can call this the worldy or churchlike dimension of religious commitment.

Second: The power of an individual or group will be negatively associated with acceptance of religious compensators for rewards that actually exists [wealth, health].
[This] captures the long tradition of deprivation theories of religion: the poor will pray while the rich play. We may call this the otherworldly [...] form of religious commitment.

Third: Regardless of power, persons and groups will tend to accept religious compensators for rewards that do not exist in this world [e.g. victory over death via the afterlife].
[This] can be called the universal aspect of religious commitment, since it notes that in certain respects everyone is potentially deprived and in need of the comforts of faith.

This shows that one cannot just refer to the influence of the power structure for the whole religion. This, influence, via the social rituals (of which enforcement is one) is found more in the elite layers of the religion than in among the less privileged: in order to be outcast there needs to be something to which it is important to belong. This holds more for the privileged than for the less privileged. It is hard to see how "broad demands on time, thought control, intense social pressure" can be effective among the poor, who don't have time to spare, who, because of lesser education, don't need thought control and who, because they stand outside the worthwhile structures of the privileged, are much less subject to social pressure from above.

Missionaries
According to Michael:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Turton

Stark's focus on choice and not on structures leads him to neglect other features of Christianity, such as the fact that it is a missionary religion, while the pagan religions were not, and it was an intolerant, exclusivist religion, while the pagan religions were not.

First, Christianity is "a missionary religion, while the pagan religions were not". Well, of course. Pagan religion was the prevalent one, so to whom would they send missionaries? Missionarism (if that is a word) is more important for new religions then for existing ones, so this doesn't say much more than that Christianity was new at the time--which we already knew.

Second, Christianity "was an intolerant, exclusivist religion, while the pagan religions were not." This is true, but the question is: intolerant towards whom? In order to maintain an open network, Christianity could not impose requirements that would tend to keep new converts away, and that is of course precisely what Paul is about: no circumcision (and more generally an emphasis on belief rather than acts/works). On the other hand being intolerant towards "lost causes" like the library of Alexandria does not negatively impact the openness of the network when it comes to recruiting: recruiting among lost causes (i.e. those firmly committed to the established religion) is not a very fruitful enterprise.

Finally, Michael points out that, when it comes to providing boons, Mormonism is generally inferior to the surrounding American culture. While this may be true, he also points out that one of Mormonism's achievements is "locating itself in relative geographic isolation". The question, in other words, is to what extent the surrounding American culture is available to Mormons and their prospective converts. While I have no definitive answer to that, I would suggest that one cannot assume unfettered availability.

Gerard Stafleu

The Dagda · 11-20-2008, 06:30 AM

Is the OP trying to say religion is a disease that is exponential in its growth and cares not what colour or creed you were to begin with? In other words its like the plague only more deadly?

Roger Pearse · 11-20-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Such a conspiracy theory would apply equally to every piece of literature either of us have ever read.

A: "Julius Caesar was Jesus"
B: "But we have Caesar's works"
A: <gleefully> "Ah, yes, but clearly the Jews/Catholics/Masons/Establishment/Communists/Nazis/They have hidden the facts."

To which B will reply, if he is wise:

B: "If all the facts that would support your assertion have been hidden, on what solid evidence can your theory possibly rest?"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yes but you miss the point: I could not care whether anyone from the past existed or not - it simply does not impact my life.
What does impact it is whether a guy called "Jesus" existed as written. The likelihood of that I now rate as virtually zero....
So you see it matters little really to most people whether Caesar existed, whether merlin existed etc - only to historians.
Therefore we demand greater proof for the existence of "Jesus" and the occurrence of these so-called miracles.

The connection of all this with my post escapes me, tho. I think that perhaps you saw the word "Caesar" and trotted out a standard excuse to something you read elsewhere?

Do think for yourself, hey?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon · 11-20-2008, 01:27 PM

The growth rate used by Rodney Stark is the same exponential growth rate used by Thomas Malthus. An S-curve (sigmoïd) would be more accurate. When 90 % of the population are christians, the growth rate decreases to nearly zero. I think that the christian population of the Roman Empire around 290/300 was far from 50 % of the total.

Another supposition : when a warlord of the Antiquity gathered an army, he could enrol at most 4 % of the men. An army of 20,000 christians would correspond to a christian population of 1 million. Constantine's army did not need to be 100 % christian. A small majority could be enough. At the battle of the Milvian Bridge (312) the historians say that Maxentius was the leader of an army with very low spirits, and that they disbanded almost at once.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-20-2008, 06:30 AM	#18
The Dagda Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: England, Portsmouth Posts: 5,108	Is the OP trying to say religion is a disease that is exponential in its growth and cares not what colour or creed you were to begin with? In other words its like the plague only more deadly?

11-20-2008, 01:27 PM	#20
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The growth rate used by Rodney Stark is the same exponential growth rate used by Thomas Malthus. An S-curve (sigmoïd) would be more accurate. When 90 % of the population are christians, the growth rate decreases to nearly zero. I think that the christian population of the Roman Empire around 290/300 was far from 50 % of the total. Another supposition : when a warlord of the Antiquity gathered an army, he could enrol at most 4 % of the men. An army of 20,000 christians would correspond to a christian population of 1 million. Constantine's army did not need to be 100 % christian. A small majority could be enough. At the battle of the Milvian Bridge (312) the historians say that Maxentius was the leader of an army with very low spirits, and that they disbanded almost at once.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.