For Carroll and Shiflett, the prevailing belief....that Western history is the history of brave "free-thinkers" working against the tyranny of Christianity, is little more than self-satisfaction based on historical ignorance.
The book explores accusations commonly levelled against Christianity...for instance, the notion of Christianity as a foe of science, human creativity, originality and intellectualism
Quote:
...the most technologically advanced civilization on earth emerged not from the Far East or from the Americas, but from Christian EuropeChristian Europe.....The Christian monasteries maintained libraries, copied ancient manuscripts, employed astronomers and preserved the knowledge accumulated through the centuries of western civilization. The Franciscan monk Roger Bacon wrote in the eleventh century that "it is the intention of [natural] philosophy to work out the natures and philosophies of things." He encouraged his fellow scientists to adopt empirical methods using controlled experiments and observation.
This strikes me as an illuminating book for anyone who has strong feelings for or against Christianity to read. It seems fair to presume that the authors do have a Christian bias before they would be motivated to write such a book - but bias on the part of an author doesn't automatically negate factual arguments that they present.
I thought I'd post this on the board because we've heard quite a bit lately from the anti-intellectual, fundamentalist Christian perspective. Not that I want to discourage anyone from posting - but it would be interesting to hear some thoughts (about the arguments this book presents) either from those those who are knowledgeable about - and take a dim view of - Christianity, or from Christians who believe in combining their faith with creative and independent thinking. Obviously, it would be particularly good to hear from anyone who's read the book as I've added it to my "to read" list.
You have camps in the Christian community who deeply espouse education and seek to promote its spread. In fact, some of the greatest, most reputable schools in North America and in the world are Christian (Notre Dame, Loyola, the Jesuit order etc). I would never say that Christians as a whole don't believe in education.
However, there definitely are fundamentalists who are anti-education or pro-dogma. That's not a Christian problem, but a problem with any organized religion.
__________________ Should have been dead on a Sunday morning bangin' my head, no time for mournin', ain't got no time -- My Own Prison, Creed
I've not read the book, but Religion, in general, is on the defensive in secular societies--Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.--and on the offensive in many developing lands.
Christianity has been around for so long with so many different adherents, streams and branches that anyone can find examples in History where Christianity was anti-knowledge and pro-knowledge. That's easy.
The difficult task is to question whether people who believe in something that cannot be proven--God--based on ancient texts authored by an unknown collection of fallible scholars has the right to tell the rest of us how to live, when to die, whether to terminate a pregnancy and what to believe.
With the exception of the liberal protestant denominations, which matter less and less, I question all religions--including Catholicism, Islam, fundamentalism--that want to tell me how to live, or else.
A pox on all their houses. I'm godless and religionless, and this unapologetic secular humanist is a better person for it.
Unfortunately, there's aren't a majority of "Christians" who truly practice its fundamentals. Basic to the religion is love and forgiveness. I know tons of Christians who harbor anger and resentment against others and on Sunday praise Jesus for dying for the forgiveness of their sins.
When evangelist Jim Bakker got caught in a cover up involving his having sex with a church secretary in a Clearwater Beach, Florida hotel (paying $250,000 to keep her quiet; when televangelist Jimmy Swaggart admitted not ONCE but TWICE to using prostitutes in New Orleans; when televangelist Robert Tilton was found by television investigators to be taking checks out of view mail and throwing their prayer requests in a dumpster without reading them, etc....other religious people jumped all over them....even after they asked for forgiveness. The assaults against them by Christians was unrelenting.
When Don Imus recently used a few verbal indiscretions on his radio program, yeah, Rev. Jessie Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton accepted his apology and forgave him (ha!) and continued going up the ladder to push for his firing by his network. That's hardly forgiveness.
We always need to separate the idea of Christianity for the people who call themselves Christians. It's not Christianity that's responsible for most of what it is blamed for. It's people who call themselves Christians but who've never really been taught what it's all about to be Christian...just like it's people who call themselves Muslims who blow up and kill people but who've never really been taught what their religion actually stands for.
So I really don't see how we can take a dim view of Christianity, which espouses love, forgiveness, healing, decency, honesty, and all those good things we honor. The real problem we have is not with Christianity...or even most other religions, it's the arsholes who start wars, kill, bomb, steal, etc. while invoking the name of a religion that they are very far from.
Oddly, there are many atheists who show more love, forgiveness, decency, honesty and all those things Christians are supposed to practice than than the Christians themselves.
For everybody's information, I am Catholic. Dominus Vobiscum to everybody. When I was going up, you went to hell for eating meat on Friday. Now, you just get a bill for your burger. When I was growing up, if you weren't baptized Catholic you could NOT go to heaven. Now, you can go to heaven...or Iraq...or wherever. When I was in Catholic school, the nuns told me I had to confess if I thought about naked girls. I used to spend most of my time confessing. When I was young, if a woman so much as entered the sacristy (altar area), you had to call in the national guard. Now they serve the priests during mass, distribute communion, etc. Long ago, ONLY a priest could hold the consecrated host for communion with only two specially-blessed fingers. Now lay people of both sexes give it out.
I've started an off-topic rant here at the end and I'm sorry. I just want everybody to know that I don't give a damned what religion you are. Your religion is not defined by what you call yourself but how you conduct yourself...and therefore I don't think there are many true members of any religion.
Back to our regular programming, already in progress.
__________________
What, Me Worry?
Last edited by LoveShack.org Moderator; 24th June 2007 at 11:20 AM.
However, there definitely are fundamentalists who are anti-education or pro-dogma. That's not a Christian problem, but a problem with any organized religion.
And, probably, with any group that contains a large variety of tastes, personalities and intellects...all of which are coming together for an allegedly common purpose. Concrete and abstract thinkers don't necessarily mesh well - and when it comes to something like religion, I believe a thoroughly concrete approach to interpretation can sound silly or somewhat detached from reality at best and be potentially dangerous at worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herzen
The difficult task is to question whether people who believe in something that cannot be proven--God--based on ancient texts authored by an unknown collection of fallible scholars has the right to tell the rest of us how to live, when to die, whether to terminate a pregnancy and what to believe.
I think one of the original purposes of Christianity was to question the authority wielded by those who - by virtue of birth, riches and political skill - dictated to and oppressed the rest of society.
I was educated in a very moderately Christian school. We'd have the parables read to us now and again, but I don't ever recall any of it being put across in a "thou shalt and thou shalt not" sort of way. It generally just seemed to involve using references or stories from the bible as entertaining metaphors to help us define real life solutions to real life problems.
My childhood experience of Christianity was that it was a nice, cosy and unthreatening philosophy centred around a very kind, broad-minded man who was way ahead of his time....so for that reason I have fond feelings of it and believe it still has a valid role to play in bringing members of a community together in a welcoming environment. If I lived where fundamentalism was preached noisily by hypocritical, money-grubbing television evangelists who seemed to have a toehold in the political arena, and if I lived in an area that was frequented by strangers who wanted to collar me and quote the bible at me in lieu of having an actual conversation/exchange of views, then I'm sure I'd feel very differently. I don't know why that approach is so popular, other than that it's popular for the same reason that noisy slot-machines in gaming arcades are popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb129
But I would still like to see what this book has to say.
I'm so hooked on the idea of reading it that I'm thinking of signing up with Questia so that I can get started today...but I prefer reading books in paper form (spend enough time in front of a pc as it is!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony T
The real problem we have is not with Christianity...or even most other religions, it's the arsholes who start wars, kill, bomb, steal, etc. while invoking the name of a religion that are very far from.
The determination to interpret religious texts literally rather than identify thought-provoking symbolism and metaphors within them plays a large part in that, I think. The same literal interpretation that can, on the one hand, encourage child-like notions of a white-smocked Dumbledore in the sky - or, far more tragically, that enables people to take a small paragraph out of context and use it to justify all kinds of oppression and atrocities.
I firmly believe that with or without religion, human beings would inflict brutalities on eachother. Take religion out of the equation, and the only difference might be that they wouldn't feel the same need to justify that brutality with pious sounding sermons.
Last edited by lindya; 24th June 2007 at 10:37 AM.
I see very little to be gained by Christian apologist. Most are more then willing to lie and spread false information in order to advance their cause. The Page you link Starts off with a condemnation of traditional academics and the NY times. as if the NY times were an evil anti Christian Organization.
Was it christainity that made Westren Europe a great power? Or was it greed, bloodshed and enslaving great parts of the rest of the world?
the teachings of jesus has littel to do with the 2000 year history of The Christain Chruch.
I see very little to be gained by Christian apologist. Most are more then willing to lie and spread false information in order to advance their cause. The Page you link Starts off with a condemnation of traditional academics and the NY times. as if the NY times were an evil anti Christian Organization.
Hmmmm. Perhaps the author of the review believes that the NYT is an evil, anti-Christian organisation. I didn't catch that. I thought he was making more of a comment on journalism's tendency to talk in soundbites - and the readership's tendency to accept those soundbites as fact without undertaking further exploration of the matter.
The fact that so many people express a knee-jerk reaction to Christianity is partly why the book interests me. The authors seem to have pretty strong credentials, and I'm always interested in anything that seeks to explore and challenge current popular thinking. It's good mental exercise to view both sides.
I tend to think that if you're interested in a particular subject of contention, ideally you educate yourself on it with a view to being able to argue either side persuasively. No point in studying something purely to deepen an existing groove in one's brain. I've been exposed to lots of anti-Christian intellectual thinking, and I'm kind of interested in hearing the other side.
Quote:
Was it christainity that made Westren Europe a great power? Or was it greed, bloodshed and enslaving great parts of the rest of the world?
the teachings of jesus has littel to do with the 2000 year history of The Christain Chruch.
Aren't the factors underlying a nation or region's rise to power generally pretty much the same thing? Economic success, military power, strategic alliances?
I was pretty much educated in the whole Christian doctrine. I was a born again Christain for many years. It is only when I took on my own study that I came to the conclusion that, Christianity as practised over the centuries has little to do with a man named Jesus and his teachings. You can look up some of my earlier post on my views on organized religion and the Christian Church.
I was pretty much educated in the whole Christian doctrine. I was a born again Christain for many years. It is only when I took on my own study that I came to the conclusion that, Christianity as practised over the centuries has little to do with a man named Jesus and his teachings. You can look up some of my earlier post on my views on organized religion and the Christian Church.
I searched "Topper christianity" and read your "how many bibles are there?" thread....and there were some interesting questions posed there. It does seem that a lot of people who have at one point derived something personally beneficial from following a faith have ended up being turned off by others who have a somewhat competitive "who's the real Christian here" attitude.
One thing that interested me recently was when I mentioned an interest in psychoanalytic theory, and a religious poster was quick to dismiss that realm of study (and intellectualism in general). I wondered if this was, in some way, an unconscious reaction against Jewish culture which does seem to place high value on critical thinking rather than unquestioning acceptance....and I think Freud himself did admit later on in life that despite rejecting his religious upbringing he remained heavily influenced by aspects of it.
My feeling, I suppose, is that it's disrespectful to dismiss certain beliefs as nonsense while enjoying modern benefits brought about by those who were driven and assisted, in their work, by those beliefs. Imagine someone enjoying a glass of Dom Perignon while archly castigating the Benedictine monks as the brainwashed patsies of a dangerous and outmoded way of thinking. We do like to enjoy the fruits of the past while detaching ourselves, with sophisticated righteousness, from the unappealing aspects of that past.
Freud and Dawin are human beings, and their theory is NOT perfect.
I think I respect them as human fellow, just as others
__________________
--One who forgives an affront fosters friendship, but one who dwells on disputes will alienate a friend.
--A cheerful heart is a good medicine, but a downcast spirit dries up the bones
--A friend loves at all times, and kinsfolk are born to share adversity
As always, it pays to be clear and precise; and not to tar too many with the same broad brushstrokes.
Christianity is diverse, and has historically found itself on both sides of many great debates. In America, some of the loudest voices both for and against the abolition of slavery were churches and religious groups. In Canada, the church were sanctioning gay marriages before the secular government. Current day believers in things like Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism are, however, totally opposed to science and knowledge in general; that much cannot really be denied. But, outside of America, most Christians today believe in evolution.
A few years ago, I would have been very keen to pick up that book. These days, quite frankly, I'm just not interested in what Christian apologists have to say. At the end of the day, under every religion under the sun, people have done good and evil acts in the name of that religion. Those who follow the religion will say "you can't go by what people do, you have to go by what the faith teaches" and those who disagree with the religion will say "but the main way I understand or experience this religion is through the people who claim to follow it, and if they do bad sh**, the religion itself is probably sh**."
In short, peoples' actions aren't instructive as to whether the faith they are following, or attacking, is actually true. And so a book that attempts to convince me that Christianity isn't actually anti-intellectual, or anti-progress, or whatever, isn't going to be terribly persuasive because the record is always, always going to be mixed.
But that's just me. And I have spent most of my life as an evangelical Christian.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Linear Mode
