Why should he have to answer you if it's clear you just inhabit completely different viewpoints and neither is going to change his mind? Isn't that place to agree to disagree?
I have already explained this in an earlier post. In order to agree to disagree the two parties must agree on the facts and that they can lead to either conclusion, or are inconclusive in and of themselves.
I read that but I thought it strange. Agreeing to disagree is just something people do when they are locking horns about anything, and that can be about facts too. I don't remember the context but there are always different collections of facts people have in mind in coming to their conclusions and accepting YOUR collection can't be DEMANDED of somebody. Sure, in a scientific paper one would be expected to muster them all, but this conversation is about politics.
We can agree not to kill each other and be civil regarding how we handle our disagreement, but there is no possibility of agreeing that they can disagree. Indeed I find it quite ironic that people who argue for absolutes and the nontruth of relativism are arguing that people can agree to disagree like its possible that both could be right, or that it should be treated as such.
Maybe that's the problem, you think it means agreeing that both could be right. I've never seen it that way. Both believe they are right and the other wrong and stop at that point. All it means is that you agree to leave the argument at the point you leave it as it is unresolvable, both sides being convinced of their own view.
Why is one always attacked in emotional terms for having a clear intellectual understanding of Islam?
He used emotional terms, not me. Or at least I only used them to explain his argument in short hand. If I had a long thesis on the history of Xians killing children and then said the logical conclusion is that most if not all Xians are incapable of rearing children normally and are likely to kill them, I think you'd understand that despite my well worked out position, it is still insulting. It would be slighting them by generalizing to the point of stereotype.
He argues from a position more or less like the one I argue from and it's not a stereotype at all, it's a matter of historical fact. You are reading things into it. That's what always seems to happen. There is an emotional commitment people have to the idea that all religions are the same. Islam is not. This is not an attack on Muslims as most Muslims don't follow their religion to the letter, it's a statement about what the religion actually promotes as written when it is lived out as written and not spiritualized. I think it is remarkable that Steve understands that Christian fundamentalism leads in the opposite direction than Islamic fundamentalism does. These are all matters of fact and calling people bigots and the like for trying to spell them out is what I meant by emotional and unfair.
I defy you to show where he has defended his understanding of Islam, much less shown it is clear and intellectual. He has dismissed facts and refused to answer direct counterexamples.
I think you misinterpreted along the lines I just described. What you call a fact may be simply your acceptance of propaganda as he did say in other words a couple of times. I don't want to go back over the same ground.
I didn't see him say he's not.
============
My error. I was using Xian and fundamentalism in a way that included Judaism. He would have not necessarily understood that, and so when he rejected the label of Xian and indeed tried to describe atheists as holding the same view he had, I leapt to the errant conclusion he was saying he was atheist... which would of course include Judaism.
This mistake was wholly my own.
OK. I've never heard Judaism described as fundamentalism myself. Even the orthodox differ from Christians in how rigorously they hold to the historicity of Genesis 1-11 for instance.
he didn't say that Christianity was the SOURCE of liberal democracy. He took pains not to say that. He said Chrsitanity is compatible with it and it flourished in Christian society.
I used the term "source" to encapsulate his rather lengthy argument of exactly how Xianity and liberal democracy are connected. I don't see any better descriptor for it. It cannot be fully described as "compatible" and "fluorished within".
But the problem is that when you say "source" you end up accusing him of denying that it began in Greece when all he's saying is that it ought to be obvious that democracy never got a foothold anywhere on earth except in the Christianity-saturated West, whatever problems it may have encountered there as well, which aren't much considering how well established it in fact did ultimately get. He's making a lot of sense. I'm personally not all that big on democracy. I like the Representative Republic idea of the American Founders myself, the Electoral College, and other constraints on democracy, which I do sometimes argue derived from the Christian philosophical background of the Founders whether or not they were all literally Christians themselves. And if you count the hundreds who had a shaping role in the founding, most of them WERE literally Christians -- the secularist argument is always tendentiously weighted on the main names who were Deists, and especially the two, Jefferson and Franklin, who were practical atheists. Even the Enlightenment derived from Christian philosophy, simply cut loose from the religious aspects, and couldn't have come from any other intellectual foundation.
He said "It was in the Christian world and no other that liberal democracy arose, at a time when the vast majority was what you would call fundamentalist." But this is factually errant in every possible way, and argues a position beyond what you describe.
I really can't grasp what frame of reference you have in mind. His statement seems indisputable to me.
Democracy did arise in Greece, but when Christianity came along the Roman Empire was running things, including Greece.
Greece was a democracy. Rome was a Republic, which is to some extent the same thing (though they sometimes faltered and took on all powerful emperors as the French did at one time and it appears we are now flirting with).
Jews were in conflict with democracies, and Xians were advocating kingdoms.
But you are confusing time periods aren't you? For one thing when were the Jews ever in a position to be "in conflict with democracies" in any sense that involves the historical development of democracy in the West? Kingdoms were what developed later in Europe, after the Roman Empire had been abolished by barbarian hordes from barbarian Europe -- it was a natural outgrowth of the tribal situation in Europe without the influence of the Empire. In what sense did Christians "advocate" this situation or in what sense was there any possibility of any other political system at the time? Christianity in fact had a liberalizing effect on the whole show, civilizing kings and tribalism in general. I guess they went too far with their idea of the divine right of kings, thinking of God as putting all government into power as in fact the Bible says, and forgetting that God never meant to passively tolerate tyrannical kings or unjust government. Monarchy is compatible with Christianity, certainly, but I don't see how Christianity as such defended monarchy over democracy when it became possible to develop more democratic political systems. Where do you get that idea?
When Constantine converted Xianity rose to power. What followed was a consolidation of the monarchical view of leadership, and rejection of civil, or democratic lawmaking bodies. When these would arise in towns and cities they would be crushed, to make way for feudal domination.
I don't get this at all. Can you refer me to the historians who have this view? Feudalism seems to me to be the natural practical outgrowth of the tribalism of barbarian Europe, which the Roman Empire hadn't succeeded in civilizing, and even so, it was in the process of being civilized by the Church throughout the Middle Ages, however corrupt the Church did eventually become.
I am trying to understand where you believe Xians allowed or encouraged democratic govts and legislative bodies? They did not even allow free thinking about xianity by the masses, until the rise of Protestantism. Do you need me to look up names of societies existing back then which tried legislative assemblies?
Are you simply focusing on the period of the "Holy Roman Empire" or the period when the Roman Church was corrupt and basically running Europe? YOu have to understand, if so, that as a Protestant I view most of that as the opposite of Christian, and the movements that overthrew it as more truly Christian in spirit. The people were mired in superstitions closer to paganism than to Christianity under the influence of the Roman Church before the Reformation and yet there were still Christian philosophical influences and genuine Christianity in various pockets of Europe and the liberalizing movements of the time came from the inspiration of Christianity. The Magna Carta was forced on a nominally Christian king by other Christians for instance. You couldn't have HAD a democratic uprising that WASN'T Christian in inspiration in Europe. EVERYBODY was soaked in the basic Christian teachings of the Church despite the domination of superstition. Sorting all that out isn't a matter of declaring one side Christian and the other not, but if it were then I'd reverse the sides myself.
And what societies "rebelled?" I really don't follow you.
I'm sorry this I cannot believe. You never heard of the American and French revolutions? Those were the first in the western world to fully throw off the last vestiges of "power comes from God" monarchical govts, and institute secular "power comes from those governed" govts.
So now we're up to post-Reformation times? OK. The American Revolution was debated on both sides by Christians and it was a very reluctant revolution, people not wanting to go to war with their own British fatherland, and the Americans were on the defensive not the aggressors, and not disposed against monarchy as such but against a particular tyrant of a monarch. The freedom that became the foundation of American government was a freedom that had been simply de facto in the American colonies for the previous century and a half. They were used to it and wouldn't yield it to any kind of tyranny and sought a government form that would preserve it. What happened in the French Revolution was something entirely different, ugly, brutish and sheer evil from the point of view of most Americans, who resented all attempts to conflate it with what had happened in America. The French Revolution had more in common with the Bolshevik Revolution which issued in totalitarianism and murder, than with America. That France settled down into something civilized after that may have to do more with its liberal Christian European traditions than its overthrow of God. It's debatable at least.
That "greatest period of ignorance" was a period when Europe was still sparsely populated, still quite wild and tribal and dominated by a myriad of small kingdoms fortified behind castle walls that were frequently at war with one another.
I'm sorry, but this was directly after the rise to power of Xianity and the subsequent fall of Rome. It was the dark ages and middle ages and these are without question the ages dominated by Xian rule. Your description is accurate and I might add what is highly analogous to many Islamic nations today.
The Church was still extending its influence in the early part of the Middle Ages wasn't it? Europe was still mostly pagan during the early period. Certainly Christianity was gradually influencing people's thinking but where are you getting "rule?" When the Roman Empire fell so did the Christian "rule" through it. Christian "rule" I guess you could say grew with the Church's association with political power, which was the corrupting influence that finally destroyed it, but that took time. The Church didn't really "rule" anything until the later Middle Ages.
I don't see any analogy with Islam myself. The Middle East is tribal because there is nothing in the history of the culture or the religion to change it from being tribal, and it's already reached its peaks of influence in the past from which it didn't develop out of its tribalism, but rather retreated, and if it does eventually become democratized it will only be from foreign influence because the religion itself is inimical to democracy as Steve said.
That is why I find CS's casting of Islam as opposed to certain things, because they haven't reappeared yet, as they went on to reappear in Xian nations after their dark ages, a bit hypocritical.
But your comparison is false. The situations are not in any way similar. Islam IS in its fundamental ideas inimical to democracy. While Christianity may have favored monarchy at times, and made the mistake of aligning with political power, which is deadly to the Church, it doesn't oppose democracy in its fundamental ideas as Islam does. Islam prescribes the identity of religion and state. Christianity does not. These are simply facts.
You can hardly blame its growing pains on the Church.
Ah, but we can blame Islam... correct?
For what? Islam is a COMPLETELY different worldview, holmes, utterly the opposite of Christianity. This attempt to blur it with Christianity is intellectually corrupt, the product of emotionalism.
As for science, it is simply a fact that it was MONKS who started empirical science. Roger Bacon was a monk. I'd have to look up the others. The Church was, however, quite corrupt in the late Middle Ages, was following Aristotle more than the Bible, and persecuted Galileo because of Aristotle rather than because of the Bible, so goes one argument I think is very plausible, but I'm no historian.
The first statement is factually inaccurate, as most of the scientific method, and many of our key initial developments in modern science, came from Islamic scholars. Western scientists had to slowly import the new knowledge which was resisted by the church.
Well, that's an interesting piece of revisionist propaganda you are going to have to defend with a great deal of documentation.
Your second has already been dealt with and was shown to be factually inaccurate. They burned people for practicing real science, as well as people advocating power from the masses, instead of from divine right.
On the basis of the pagan Aristotle's view of the universe, not one derivable from the Bible. That was part of the deep corruption of the Roman Church which had long since left Christianity for pagan superstitions, and the uprisings that finally overthrew its influence had more true Christianity in them.
It took the Protestant Reformation to start the liberalizing trends that launched modern science.
In this we are agreed. Just as conservative and militant Islam is wrestling with the moderates, so too did the Church wrestle with the moderate Xian factions.
What you are not getting is that the more TRULY Biblical Christianity is, the more liberally and democratically -- and scientifically --inclined it is. The problem with the Roman Church was that it was no longer Biblically Christian, for the last few centuries before the Reformation. WHEREAS the more fundamentalist Islam is, the more it adheres to its fundamentalist interpretations, the more violent and tyrannical it is. This has to do with the fundamental nature of the religion itself.
Again that is why it is nothing but hypocrisy to hang Islam as being inherently opposed to something, as Xianity cannot be conceived of as just what the Church was like back then.
It is not hypocrisy at all, it is the conclusion one comes to from thinking about the actual facts of the situation rather than appealing to a sentimental notion based on extremely superficial similarities that have entirely different historical and philosophical sources.
I really don't know how much the Enlightenment had to do with that, some no doubt. The first scientists were enthralled with the idea of understanding GOD'S CREATION. It's certainly not that society had to be secular for science to flourish.
The enlightenment was powerful, which is why ID theorists and some Evangelicals openly blast it as something abhorent. You are correct that scientists were not necessarily atheist, and many saw their work as peering into the true nature of God and his universe. The important aspect is that they championed REASON and EVIDENCE as the only viable method to discovering that nature, rather than faith and ignorant obedience to priests or dogma.
YOu have a very skewed understanding of the history of these things. The Enlightenment is rejected by Christians because it jettisoned religion itself, but its principles for the most part nevertheless DERIVED from Christianity. John Locke for instance was more of a Deist than a Christian but he developed the principle of religious tolerance from the work of John Owen, who was dean at Oxford when Locke was a student there, and Owen was a Puritan of the deepest Biblical faith. That trend of thought is now thoroughly secularized but its origin was Christian.
Neither reason nor evidence contradict Christianity and empirical scientific principles DID develop from the belief in the rational God of the Bible who created a lawful universe, which was hardly the view of Aristotle or any pagan philosopher. There was no need to pit Reason against the Christian religion, it was simply human fallen nature that chose to do that and declare itself free of God. Eventually Reason will destroy the human race BECAUSE humanity is fallen and reason cut free from God is no longer reasonable.
You are right that societies did not have to be secular, but scientific methodology had to be.
No it did not. It merely had to be objective. Evolution has challenged the Bible, but evolution is bogus. Eventually this will be shown SCIENTIFICALLY.
Societies also did not have to be secular to have good democratic govts, but the govts had to be secular.
Well, let's see where secularism takes us. I know there's little chance of stopping it now. Oh I'm totally for separation of church from state but that never meant to me the secularization of the nation. Funny that this "secular" government the Founders created began with prayer in the Constitutional Congress that created it and established prayer in all its functions thereafter. But I'm not up to that argument now.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-17-2005 11:42 PM
™ Version 4.2
