I like secular people...most of my friends are secular...but this post is a criticism of an extreme of secularism, something that historian Niall Ferguson calls vacuous secularism. The vacuous variety believes that religion (Christianity in the case of the West) never accomplished anything of value and was never anything but an obstacle to progress. That's just silly. We all know about the Inquisition, Galileo, the witch burnings, forced conversions and all that. Those were horrible, no doubt, but is that the whole story? Extreme secularists claim the Dark ages were the fault of Christianity, but were they?
You could argue that the Christians pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages by patiently working with barbarian princes to re-establish the rule of law. Did Christianity oppose science in medieval times? Mmmm...it depends. Lots of non-church people opposed it too. Most medieval scientists were clerics. In this period Aquinas argued that Aristotle's method of scientific enquiry was right and the Church officially backed him up. Did secular people and Greek books begin the Renaissance? Maybe, it depends when you date the beginning of the Renaissance.
Technological marvels like the Chartes Cathedral (picture above) and the sophisticated organization of markets predate the Renaissance. Some of the most important painters at the beginning of the Renaissance were clerics and/or committed Christians.
Well, it goes on. Do we Americans owe our liberty to secular or very mildly religious people like Paine, Jefferson and Franklin? Yes we do, but we also owe it to protestant Christians who believed the King had exceeded his authority. Go back to Cromwell's time in the 1600's when the Puritans chopped off the head of the King and established parliamentary government. Modern liberty dates back to the time when Puritan members of parliament reasoned that no prohibitory laws should be made that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. They reasoned that Earth was a place where we have to be tested and some repulsive things must be made legal if that test is to have any meaning.
Who killed more people for reasons of dogma, secular states or religious states? Secular Hitler triggered genocide and a war that killed 50 million people. Secular Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler and some say secular Mao killed more than Stalin. And what about Pol Pot? Did the Inquisition or the Crusades kill comparable numbers? Every secular person is free to establish his own morality but Christians are constrained by the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Plenty of Christians don't honor this but aren't you glad that they at least believe it as an ideal? I could go on. I'm not arguing for Christianity here, just fairness in evaluating the role Christians played in history.
40 comments:
Hitler was secular? I remember hearing somewhere that Nazis could justify all their "activities" with Bible verses. That could have been said by one of those vacuous secular people you talked about.
I've got to hand it to you for knowing you history too. Really, the more you know about a subject, the more you have to support any opinion you may have. MORE people should practice this (unfortunately, most don't).
I really enjoy posts like this. Thank you.
Athiests bugs me. Agnosticism is one thing, but an athiest is someone who is POSITIVE that there is no God.
I am an atheist. I believe there is no God. That's not what you said.
All I'm sure of is that alot of Christian cartoons look like crap.
They sure do make great country music!
See ya
Steve
Agreed with Eddie. Even if you wholly disagree with the Christian belief system or believe all religions are wrong, you have to acknowledge that we owe a large portion of our progress for the last 500 years or so to Christians and Muslims.
During the Middle Ages, who preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans? Catholic monks and Muslim scholars in the Middle East. We have this knowledge today because deeply religious people realized it was important! Do you realize how rare it is to just find complete or even legible copies of ancient documents direct from the original source? Medieval copies are our primary source for most Latin and Greek texts. That's why we know so much more about Greece and Rome compared to almost every other ancient civilization.
Muslims invented some pretty complex mathematics during the Middle Ages. Christians like Isaac Newton created calculus and found equations for the basic laws of physics. In fact, almost all scientists and mathematicians in Europe were Christian from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. Even Darwin was a Christian, and his work was just expanding on theories proposed by other Christians! Most of these guys cited a Christian motivation in their publications: a desire to understand God and His creation. Maybe they would have had less desire to understand the natural world if they hadn't believed in God, I'm not sure.
And protestant Christians invented the idea of separation of church and state right out of the air!
Look at my new blogpost^
I also enjoyed this post.
One particularly bloody civil war called the Taiping Rebellion claimed at least 50 million lives and had it's roots in a certain sort of Christian fundamentalism.
There's been blood on everyone's movement at some point.
If there's blood on yours, please, see a physician.
IDRC: I posted a juicy bit on your blog today if you care to read it.
Anonymous: I never heard of that rebellion till you mentioned it. Fascinating!
Thank you so much for this post Eddie. I always enjoy reading your blog, especially so this.
It's true that a lot of horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity (and other religions for that matter), but I think you're quite correct in pointing out that Christianity's postive contributions to history are often unfairly overshadowed by their negative ones.
Hey Eddie! I like these posts!
Would you mind doing some more drawings & comics of you in the Theory chair? I LOVE those!!!!!!!
Maybe even start doing some comics of funny things that happen to you in your every day life, but putting an exaggerated spin on it. Going to the grocery store.. to the drive through.. anywhere!
Or even better yet, illustrate insane encounters youve had with Ralph Bakshi, because the ones you & Vincent were telling on the APC commentary DVD were HILARIOUS.
Basically I'm craving some Eddie drawings & comics......... please dont make me starve ;)
(That anonymous comment was me, blogger beta keeps making me sign in every time. Grr.)
Yeah, that's a pretty interesting chapter in history that I'll bet most Americans have never heard of, and it even coincides with our own civil war. The only reason I know about the Taiping Rebellion is cuz I was trying to find out who General Tso was. Turns out his yummy chicken has an interesting past.
Anonymous:
Concerning the Taiping rebellion: No one who even merely glanced at the "doctrines" of Hong Xiuquan would call it Christian, let alone fundamentalist Christian. It's the same self-serving crap appealing to the messianic impulse used to justify any number of rulers, dressed in the trappings of Christian imagery.
Allan
Christianity has brought a lot of good things in this world. The idea of equality (all people are sinners and we all are equal under the ideas of God) is a cornerstone of democracy and a good way to enhance social relationships. Christianity delivers a message of charity and compassion. And it delivers hope...no matter what type of person you are, someone cares for you unconditionally. In a world where people are feeling increasingly isolated, this is a positive message.
Some aspects associated with Christianity may be questionable. However, there are other endeavors that are also questionable. I don't agree with every bit of information generated by scientists. Yet I am still a scientist.
Unfortunately, people will use extraneous aspects of culture (religion or science) to validate very horrific actions.
What bugs me is that the mainstream media so often takes for granted that any person who believes in a God is either a "fundamentalist" or just childlike in the sense of not being very coherent or bright. That's the slant I get, anyway.
Yet I think of my heroes, like Franklin, who were far from primitives even though they lived in the 18th century--in fact were possessed of the greatest minds we know of--and yet they gave some weight and validity to the possibility of a spiritual being and all that...Franklin was no sentimentalist, he didn't even think of himself as a member of any organised religion. And of course many others of the founding fathers felt similarly. I also feel that there are many "non-secular" people who aren't counted at all simply because they don't rant, force an agenda, and see their beliefs as purely personal and private...I think religious people of all kinds get just such a crummy label in today's vacuous world.
And someone's being a christian, specifically catholic or muslim or tibetian buddhist or even amish doesn't preclude them also being an arsehole! Not every religious person is santicmonious. I think there are actually proverbs aplenty about bewaring of those who trumpet their religiosity, aren't there?
I dont hate you eddie. i think all women love you. that's the rule.
here's another one i did of my dad a long time ago:
http://img.photobucket.com/
albums/v358/marlomeekins/skip.jpg
If a bunch of people want to get together as a group and agree to be nice to each other and to do positive things, I'm all in favor of that. Why is it necessary to center that desire around not wanting to piss off a giant man in the sky?
Is mythology the best path to human salvation?
Has anybody started a Jedi church yet?
Why is it necessary to center that desire around not wanting to piss off a giant man in the sky?
Yeah, well, that's a question that's been grappled with for literally millennia by far greater minds than yours(I hope that doesn't insult you, btw--I mean, I'm talking Plato, Jung, Einstein, you know).
There's a lot of theories about why humankind feels a need for that "giant man in the sky", but I doubt you're intersted in what those are. The point is, belief is as individual as birth and death and our brain stems, and quite a few feel the belief in this or that strongly. I don't think it matters WHAT you call it--including Yoda or Darth. But don't think for a minute that such an observation of yours is profound or just common sense. It's just yours, and frankly it's fairly juvenile and incurious.
Again, no offense. : )
I don't know what to say. I mean, I believe in God and everything, it's just that I don't consider myself a part of any established religion.
...But don't think for a minute that such an observation of yours is profound or just common sense. It's just yours, and frankly it's fairly juvenile and incurious.
Again, no offense. : )
It is vaguely offensive to use words like "juvenile" and "incurious" without stating how you believe they apply. You have couched your comments in intellectuality, but you have in fact done no more than call me stupid.
In what sense is it juvenile or incurious? How do they apply? You've made no case. How is my query not at the core of the topic, which is the societal value of Christianity?
When Plato, Jung, Einstein grappled with it, you call them great minds. For me you have other less flattering terms for the same inquiry.
I don't know what any of those people have said about Christianity (I'd be very interested in what Plato said about it), but I have read Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not a Christian," and he happens to agree with me on that topic. Would he be considered a great mind for having written it, and me much less so, for having independently thought about it?
What I would surmise is that on some level you resent my comments.
Athiesim is BEING SURE that there is no God.
I'll tell YOU what it is, since I do it:
If you told me there was an ivisible monster living under your bed, it may or may not be true. I'm never going to check. If you and 100 million other people all agree he's there, it wouldn't change my choices any. Based on my understanding of the physical world, which while imperfect I consider suitable to task, I'd have to say all 100 million and one of you are incorrect, and I don't care how that makes you feel.
Hitler was not secular. God played a tremendous part in his speeches and in his widespread theories. You can say Hitler himself wasn't a Christian, but that's 100% unevidenced conjecture, and regardless, his policies were clearly religiously motivated.
And besides, even if Hitler wasn't Christian, he had the devoted support of German citizens who were.
Anyway, I think attempting judging a vague and broad concept like religious belief by its followers is silly.
Was it Christian craziness or secular assholery that led the church to go around destroying Pagan works of art, literature, and history towards the end of the Roman empire? And was it Christian goodwill or secular goodwill that motivated later Christian scribes to document everything that was left? No one really knows, and you can't prove it either way.
Marlo: That picture of your dad was awesome!!! Very impressive! You should put it up on your blog!
Your dad has a real look of gravity. I wonder if he had that look when he was young? My guess is that facial muscles relax when you get to a certain age and give the face a serious look that might not reflect what the person is actually thinking. Maybe looking serious against your will has the effect of making you serious, a case of life imitating art in a way.
Chairman Mao called religion the Opiate of the masses.
Organized Religion has been a tool of government throughout history.
Religion has always been a crucial part of war. What better way to get the people onboard than to tell them the enemy are evil doers.
But the bottom line is the root of all that is evil and it makes the world go round. It's the church of the divine Profit, the All Mighty Dollar.
p.s. It can be said that all Christians are Nazis. But all Nazis are Christians is a truer statement.
"That's like saying all Secular people are communists."
Well, Nazis THEMSELVES were commies. (The word "Nazi" is German for "National Socialism") They just turned against other pinkos like Stalin.
If you're sure there is no monster than you're an athiest. If you say to yourself, "there's no way ot be sure, since I can't check" you're agnostic. Unless you're inventing dictionary definitions for yourself again.
Not this time.
Theism:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
Atheism:
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I believe that all practicing Chrsitians who believe they have a one-on-one relationship with a reborn Jesus and his dad are totally full of shit on that point. Does that sound agnostic to you?
I can't prove it is true there is no God. I intend to conduct myself no differently for that.
An agnostic is just someone who can't commit to his own rational processes.
" That's like saying all Secular people are communists."
You are wrong. Most communist states have churches. The Nazi were and still are Christians.
I bet you believe everything you see on the history channel there Jorge.
Shit, I just realized Jorge is a juvenile.
Sorry kid. What a fool I feel like replying to you.
Well nobody can and nobody ever will. That's why I think agnosticism is more logical than atheism.
It's an entirely unreasonable test demanded only by unreaassonable people. Nobody needs proof there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Boogeyman. Only Christians and some other religious people are allowed to have unquestioned invisible friends.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
I was so hoping the Hunsucker would wade into this one.
Okay, then.
>>Athiests bugs me. Agnosticism is one thing, but an athiest is someone who is POSITIVE that there is no God. How can they know that? How can they be 100% SURE? Who is that sure of ANYTHING?<<
How convenient to leave out that Christians are POSITIVE that there is a Christian God.
It seems like people that bug you are just POSITIVE that your specific beliefs are wrong.
A bit insecure, in my opinion.
In either case, while I'm atheist, I don't really worry about what others believe. It's when others try to force those beliefs on me that I cringe. Whether those beliefs are Religious, Agnostic, or Secular.
In the words of the great Depeche, "People are people, so why should it be that you and I should get along so awfully?"
Atheism can be ever bit as dogmatic as any religion, in fact, I consider it a religion for that reason. Many athiests (the vocal ones at least) can be very upset with this notion, that their belief of no belief is so; religious, dogmatic. Probably many athiests accept this much more calmly, but that is not who we hear. We hear the proselytizers and evangelists, regardless of creed.
>>I never said our beliefs are logical but we're mostly harmless.<<
In the spirit of friendly debate, I disagree. Self-described secular people make up about 13-14% of the world's population. Even fewer are atheists.
And the prison population ratio of religious to secular inmates is in no way proportional to the general population ratio of religious to secular peoples Atheists even have a lower divorce rate. At least according to the site linked.
Saying atheists or secular people cause the more harm is ridiculous.
If anything, this shows that Christians and other religious people are more likely to cause harm.
Maybe because they believe in an afterlife and that God will forgive them. While atheists believe that if they screw up here, that's it.
But the disparity isn't big enough to suggest religious beliefs affect behavior all that much.
Being bad more likely seems to be in the genes and the amount of power one yields.
When was the last time a hobo killed millions of people?
I think Machiavelli and not the Bible can more accurately assess the causes of genocide and other great "crimes."
Golb: I don't know about those prison statistics. I imagine that everyone in prison is registered as religious because doing so you gets you out of your cell for church service and also gets you favors that chaplains can do for you. It couldn't hurt when your probation hearing comes up either.
You also said that religious people are statistically more likely to divorce. Since there are more religious people than atheists I wouldn't be suprised to find that religious people do more of just about every activity than atheists. You'd need to know wether your compiler compensated for this.
that's a good point uncle eddie.
prison is a lot like the air force.
I do not know if those rates reflect what percentages of divorced peoples are atheists or what percent of atheists are divorced.
The way that chart is worded, I assume the latter, in which case the amount of atheists wouldn't matter because the rates given would be proportional to divorce rates of the religious couples and easier to compare.
Ah! tHE cHartres (Oops, CAPS lock) cathedral in France! I had to learn that for my art history course.. :-)
History lets us know in what direction we are heading right now, right?
>>If anyting it shows we humans are too stpid, lazy, or corrupt to honor the extremely complicated and hard-to-follow rule God put in the Bible: Love one another.
I can agree with that, even if I don't believe in God. It seems like a good code to live by.
But there are so many definitions of love, does it even mean anything anymore?
Maybe that's a future Uncle Eddie post.
Post a Comment