Ok, I know you have rather brief and uncompromising answer. But before you start your routine of describing the religion as a synonymous for backwardness and contrast it to the science as a synonymous to progress, before you start mentioning “Dark Ages” and witch hunts and all the rest, consider these few points I want to make.

1) First of all, I think we have to appreciate that the rise of the West is something unique in human history, in a sense it is a miracle. It is not something that would have happened in almost any culture. And it is not just a coincidence that it was Christian culture in Europe (and later in other continents) where it all started and developed. Most people take progress for granted but there are some cultures in human history that have stayed primitive all along or even died out. Great many other civilisations have declined after a period of their “golden age”. The West, originating in European Christianity, is still alive, after so many centuries. Even China, the most successful of other civilisations, has been spectacularly surpassed by the Christian West. The popular idea that social progress is just bound to happen across all cultures (perhaps related to Darwinism or perhaps related to the myth I address in point two) needs to be rejected.

2) It is not true that a rise in living standards is all about development of technological knowledge, of finding new, more efficient ways of production and organization by scientific researchers. Science, in the modern sense of the word, does not go hand in hand with progress. Not that progress does not require engineers and improvements of technology, it surely does. But there is more relevant factor that is the real limit of all progress while technology is only secondary, additional condition of growth. The primary factor is economic, namely the level of savings that in turn enable capital accumulation. Backward countries are backward not so much because they have lack of quality engineers but because they cannot afford to invest in technology that is standard elsewhere, they do not have the necessary savings. The exceptional rise of the West is therefore not so much due to development of natural sciences (even though that took place here too) but due to having relatively favourable legal framework throughout the last thousand years or so. This enabled relative security of private enterprise and vital capital accumulation. And, once again, it is not an accident that something like that has happened in the Christian West and not elsewhere. Surely there is a reason for it.

3) So what is the reason? I believe that the main factor here is the idea of freedom from the state. The uniquely European idea of individual rights with the emphasis on private property which gave birth to constitutional documents such as Magna Carta and similar documents throughout Europe. Elsewhere the church (i.e. intellectual class) was an apologist for the state and the ruling elite but throughout large part of the history of the West there was so called “separation of church and state” (which in fact meant separation of the intellectual class from the state). There has been the international Catholic Church, largely independent of any secular power that chartered and financed universities and otherwise “harboured” great number of “scholars” who, apart from developing science in general (in the original sense of Latin “scientia”), have repeatedly challenged the arbitrariness of the state rulers.

This “separation” of intellectual class and the state is, I think, the main source and driving force of progress. This is what caused the rise of the West and this is what is necessary to prevent it from the fall.

Egyptian culture lasted 3000+ years. I believe Christianity contributed to the so-called rise of West (impossible to argue what-if Christianity never existed ..), but main reasons for the rise to power of (Christian) Europe are elsewhere. Greeks were not Christians, Romans were not Christians and only these two cultures, drawing heavily from Egyptians and others .., contributed, in my opinion, much more than Christianity itself.

If economy is the primary factor as you assert, then competition of "independent" cities and "sub-state" structures was the driving force behind economical, and technological .., superiority. Superiority which then materialized, in many cases, in enslavement, colonization, abuse, exploitation of other, not so advanced, cultures, nations and people. All in all, I do not think Europeans have too much too be proud of, less so of their so-called Christianity.

How about the so-called Dark Ages?

tuco wrote:... main reasons for the rise to power of (Christian) Europe are elsewhere. Greeks were not Christians, Romans were not Christians and only these two cultures, drawing heavily from Egyptians and others .., contributed, in my opinion, much more than Christianity itself.

...How about the so-called Dark Ages?

How about the foundation and growth of cities (since 11th century)? How about the foundation and growth of universities (since 12th century)? How about the development of early capitalist institutions (fairs of Champagne in the 13th century and later banking houses such as Medici)? How come this all happened in the Western Europe, allegedly stuck in uninspiring thousand years long Dark Age? If, as you suggest, Egypt, Greece and Rome were the true sources of our civilization and if you accept the notion of “Dark Ages” in Christian world then how come it was the Western Europe that became the most advanced area of the world? You have some explanation to do.

tuco wrote:If economy is the primary factor as you assert, then competition of "independent" cities and "sub-state" structures was the driving force behind economical, and technological .., superiority. Superiority which then materialized, in many cases, in enslavement, colonization, abuse, exploitation of other, not so advanced, cultures, nations and people. All in all, I do not think Europeans have too much too be proud of, less so of their so-called Christianity.

Hold on. You accuse Europeans of “enslavement, colonization, abuse, exploitation of other...cultures, nations and people”? But which civilization was not guilty of these? Apart from those who didn’t have the power to do so...
Why should we adopt double standard and blame Europeans only? Slavery was the standard institution throughout pre-Christian history. Christians got rid of it and came up with the idea of freedom for all, even though it took time.

Well, I am not knowledgeable enough to pinpoint causes of historical events, nor am I really interested in doing so. To me debates about history are mostly pointless as I understand them as being subject to interpretations. I rather stick to facts.

How come it happened in the Western Europe? And where else could it happen? In isolationist China or Japan? In Africa where there was never need to invent the plough, or in America where there was no need to invent the wheel? Speaking metaphorically ..

Christians got rid of slavery .. maybe so, but before they colonized half of the world and got stinking rich because of it. Interpretation or fact? I stated my, uneducated, opinion and hopefully someone else will be willing to argue the importance of Christianity to the rise of the West.

I'd say we did it despite Christianity, not because of it. If people acted like Christ there would have been much less in the way of genocides, invasions, cultural apocalypses, slavery, wars, etc.

adamus wrote:Hold on. You accuse Europeans of “enslavement, colonization, abuse, exploitation of other...cultures, nations and people”? But which civilization was not guilty of these? Apart from those who didn’t have the power to do so...Why should we adopt double standard and blame Europeans only? Slavery was the standard institution throughout pre-Christian history. Christians got rid of it and came up with the idea of freedom for all, even though it took time.

You are performing the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. The fact that other cultures where guilty of "enslavement, colonization, abuse, exploitation of other...cultures, nations and people" does not mean that Europeans get off the hook.

Christianity was instrumental in keeping slavery, especially in the United States. You can read about this in the book Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Both the Old and New Testament explicitly supports slavery. Yes, many Christians where instrumental in the abolition movement, but that was despite being Christian, not because they where Christians.

Christianity has an intersting role in the developments in Europe in the first millennium. Many leaders took advantage of being baptized and then having some backing in conquering neighboirng lands. It was a useful tool. From then on, the rulers always carried the chosen by god label to prop up thier status and make nonchristians look inferior.

This setup then was used to conquer the world. God save the queen.

The OP title seems to assume an all-or-nothing view of history, which is simplistic. The Christian culture came along in the middle of the long stream of events and civilizations that gradually produced the world we now live in. It's one thread in the tapestry of civilization, but one thread does not make a tapestry. Other civilizations have made scientific discoveries, too, although some of them have been obscured by the tendency of traditional Western historians to give names like Snell's Law (first formulated by ibn Sahl), the Pythagorean theorem (used on cuneiform tablets in Mesopotamia a thousand years before Pythagoras), Horner's method (used by the Chinese at least a thousand years before Horner), Cavalieri's principle (used by Zu Chong Zhi hundreds of years before Cavalieri, and also by Archimedes), and the like.

What really led to the cultural dominance of the West was the widespread technological organization of society and the enterprising nature of individuals working for their own ends rather than merely carrying out a program thought up by the Emperor and his advisors. That "rise of the common man" is not promoted by Christianity, and indeed is rather anti-Christian, if the letters of Paul are taken seriously. And if you read the Gospels instead, you find a turning away from material interests toward spiritual union with God to be the greatest good. The Church certainly condemned democracy and individual freedom of choice. It's on the "syllabus of errors" proclaimed by Pius IX 150 years ago.

DaveScriv wrote:I'd say The Reformation in the 16th century was the reason for the rapid technological progress of Europe, which of course led to economic and military dominance. Until the 16th Century there wasn't much difference in technology between Europe, Muslim countries, India, China, Japan, etc,

Once again, it is not the development of technology that determines the rate of progress as I explain in point 2) of the original post. It is the capital accumulation that is the primary condition of progress.
Besides, what do you have to say about the impressive growth of cities and universities and about the actual beginnings of modern capitalism? That all happened well before the alleged turning point of 16th century in the West and hasn’t happened elsewhere. Also Portugal and Spain had economic and military dominance by the late 15th century (viz Treaty of Tordesillas) and surely this was not a result of The Reformation.

DaveScriv wrote:The Reformation, the division of Catholic and Protestant Churches, and the outbreaks of extreme violence which went with it, led to the separation of church and state, and in all that chaos gave inventive freethinkers the opportunity to go ahead with their projects without having to worry (as much) about the consequences of whatever they might dream up.

This is not true at all. While Catholic Church was international and separated from secular powers the Protestant churches that grew up in many (mainly northern) countries from 16th century onwards were organized on national basis and were from the beginning closely tied with respective national governments. Just think of the Anglican Church (I gather you are a Brit).
Not sure whether the chaos gave “freethinkers” any opportunity, I see no reason to assume so, but I am sure that the “extreme violence” had only negative effect on capital accumulation and therefore the opportunity of utilising all known inventions was drastically limited.

That is very interesting point what you make about non-western inventions. Maybe we can also add the printing press and double entry bookkeeping to the list as there seems to be some evidence in this regard. And the point of my original post was not to belittle the contributions of other civilizations. But the question still stands: Why the West? The other civilizations have declined, we have not.

Roger Cooke wrote:What really led to the cultural dominance of the West was the widespread technological organization of society and the enterprising nature of individuals working for their own ends rather than merely carrying out a program thought up by the Emperor and his advisors.

And where is that “enterprising nature” coming from? Have people from other civilizations had different nature (given genetically perhaps)?
As for “the widespread technological organization of society” I have no clue what you mean. Perhaps you want to argue point 2) of my original post?

Roger Cooke wrote:That "rise of the common man" is not promoted by Christianity, and indeed is rather anti-Christian...

Then you can perhaps explain why the idea of freedom of individuals from the state's arbitrariness and documents like Magna Carta appeared in the Christian West and haven’t appeared elsewhere?

Yes Moridin, Europeans shouldn’t “get off the hook” and I never said they should. Only that there shouldn't be a double standard. And yes, Christian thinkers and authorities throughout history were far from consistent in promoting the idea of freedom. Still, you haven’t addressed my challenge question (as per the title of the thread).

Yes Tero, many rulers have abused the name of God for their own selfish purposes. So what? What does it have to do with the question?

Gawdzilla, you say “we did it despite Christianity”. What makes you think so? Can you perhaps expand it a little bit? Otherwise I see not much potential for discussion. And this is supposed to be discussion forum right?

There were very important civilizations everywhere before the Fall of Rome and afterwards when the West was going through the recovery process after the collapse of the Empire, the Eastern Empire flourished and other civilizations developed.

What do you base your opinion about development as a result of Christianity? It says something that the first book printed was the bible and not a treatise on the efficacy of Eastern medicine.

Gawdzilla is right when he says that. The Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Mayans, Incas and some African tribes all had great civilizations without Christianity.

Yes there were inventions and great advances in the building of places of worship as a result of Christianity, but what did Christianity do about making the people who worked on and around the great cathedrals to make their lives better. When the great cathedrals were being built, the people who worked on them lived in slums. The Romans had running water and governmental systems in place, why didn't Christianity build on that. Why did they destroy the water supply mechanisms and the great cities built by the Romans? And why build cathedrals, monasteries and abbeys and not houses and schools?

Agrippina wrote:There were very important civilizations everywhere before the Fall of Rome and afterwards ...The Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Mayans, Incas and some African tribes all had great civilizations without Christianity...
Yes there were inventions and great advances in the building of places of worship as a result of Christianity, but ...

Agrippina,

I have admitted there have been other great civilizations, in both my initial post and in some replies too. Likewise I am not claiming that the first printed book was the Bible. Not sure why you assume I have these beliefs...

What I was saying was that the rise of the West has been spectacular and unique. This fact is not refuted by pointing out there has been other great civilizations too. And if somebody claims that Christianity should be given no credit for that, and that they have only managed to build magnificent "places of worship", then I ask what/who should take the credit. You have provided no answer for that question yet.

Roger Cooke wrote:The OP title seems to assume an all-or-nothing view of history, which is simplistic. The Christian culture came along in the middle of the long stream of events and civilizations that gradually produced the world we now live in. It's one thread in the tapestry of civilization, but one thread does not make a tapestry. Other civilizations have made scientific discoveries, too, although some of them have been obscured by the tendency of traditional Western historians to give names like Snell's Law (first formulated by ibn Sahl), the Pythagorean theorem (used on cuneiform tablets in Mesopotamia a thousand years before Pythagoras), Horner's method (used by the Chinese at least a thousand years before Horner), Cavalieri's principle (used by Zu Chong Zhi hundreds of years before Cavalieri, and also by Archimedes), and the like.

What really led to the cultural dominance of the West was the widespread technological organization of society and the enterprising nature of individuals working for their own ends rather than merely carrying out a program thought up by the Emperor and his advisors. That "rise of the common man" is not promoted by Christianity, and indeed is rather anti-Christian, if the letters of Paul are taken seriously. And if you read the Gospels instead, you find a turning away from material interests toward spiritual union with God to be the greatest good. The Church certainly condemned democracy and individual freedom of choice. It's on the "syllabus of errors" proclaimed by Pius IX 150 years ago.

Well put, sir!

What's your opinion on the notion that it was the European monastic establishment that helped preserve and carry over the writings of the ancients through the "Dark Ages" into the founding of the great Universities and what's been referred to as the 12th Century Renaissance?

I wish I had headed this post off at the pass, since this thread will inevitably degenerate into pseudo historical nonsense and "myths at twenty paces at dawn". Oh well, here goes ...

adamus wrote:Ok, I know you have rather brief and uncompromising answer. But before you start your routine of describing the religion as a synonymous for backwardness and contrast it to the science as a synonymous to progress, before you start mentioning “Dark Ages” and witch hunts and all the rest, consider these few points I want to make.

You might want to start by dropping your assumptions about what we might say. I for one and many others here are well-versed enough in history to avoid resorting to the persistent modern myths about "witch-hunts" and "the Dark Ages" thanks. That still doesn't mean you're going to get an easy ride.

1) First of all, I think we have to appreciate that the rise of the West is something unique in human history,

First of all, I think you have to appreciate that this statement is pure garbage. Some cultures have risen, expanded, influenced and dominated others for a while throughout human history. There is nothing "unique" about this at all. The only thing that has made the West's time in the sun different is the time at which it happened and the technologies that have determined the extent of that domination. You can spread your influence further and sustain it longer with steamships and guns than with chariots and bows. But the dynamics are about the same.

... in a sense it is a miracle.

Garbage. It's just what dominant cultures do and have been doing for the whole of human history.

It is not something that would have happened in almost any culture.

Given the same or similar set of cultural and, especially, technological developments coming into a confluence, it could have happened in any culture at all. Despite the attempts by ideologically-skewed naysayers to say otherwise, Christianity did play a part in the development of the technologies and science that gave the West an edge at a key moment in history. But if Christianity had fizzled and died in the Third Century some other cult that piggy-backed on the Neo-Platonic heritage of the Greco-Roman world could easily have done the same thing. The circumstances that let this happen in western Europe when it did could also have come about elsewhere quite easily. To point to the fact that it didn't happen elsewhere and declare its happening in Europe "a miracle" is patently silly.

And it is not just a coincidence that it was Christian culture in Europe (and later in other continents) where it all started and developed. Most people take progress for granted but there are some cultures in human history that have stayed primitive all along or even died out.

Cultures simply react to the forces around them and harness the dynamics within them. Some don't "progress" simply because they don't need to. Aboriginal cultures in Australia stuck to the same technologies for tens of thousands of years simply because they worked and they didn't need to change. Europeans didn't because of a vast array of influences and changes that forced them to adapt new strategies for survival. We call these changes "progress", but they are simply changes. To assume that changes (or "progress") are inevitable and that some cultures adopt them because they are more "advanced" and through some "miracle" is simply the Whig Fallacy writ large, with a sprinkling of mysticism and superiority complex thrown in.

Great many other civilisations have declined after a period of their “golden age”. The West, originating in European Christianity, is still alive, after so many centuries.

Only if you define "the West" in such a way that you overlook several periods of statsis (eg after the Greek Golden Age or after the Hellenistic Age) or catastrophic collapse (eg after the fall of the Western Roman Empire). You seem to be rather conveniently rubbery and selective with your parameters.

3) So what is the reason? I believe that the main factor here is the idea of freedom from the state. The uniquely European idea of individual rights with the emphasis on private property which gave birth to constitutional documents such as Magna Carta and similar documents throughout Europe. Elsewhere the church (i.e. intellectual class) was an apologist for the state and the ruling elite but throughout large part of the history of the West there was so called “separation of church and state” (which in fact meant separation of the intellectual class from the state). There has been the international Catholic Church, largely independent of any secular power that chartered and financed universities and otherwise “harboured” great number of “scholars” who, apart from developing science in general (in the original sense of Latin “scientia”), have repeatedly challenged the arbitrariness of the state rulers.

This is a massive oversimplification. The idea that the Church was totally subordinate to the state is certainly nonsense, as is the idea that the state laboured under some kind of theocracy. Both are simplistic. But the two were intertangled far more than you're making out.

DaveScriv wrote:I'd say The Reformation in the 16th century was the reason for the rapid technological progress of Europe, which of course led to economic and military dominance. Until the 16th Century there wasn't much difference in technology between Europe, Muslim countries, India, China, Japan, etc, certainly as it affected the day to day lives of most people, whose lives were mainly distinguished by cultural & climatic factors.

Wrong. Europe was surging ahead in technology long before the Sixteenth Century. Prior centuries saw the invention or development of wide range of agrarian technologies (the horse collar, the heavy mouldboard plough), metals technologies (blast furnaces, cast iron, mechanised trip hammers), weaponry (the cannon, better gunpowder), maritime technology (the stern rudder, the astronomical compass) and intellectual technology (the printing press). All these things were key technologies that allowed the expansion of the west and they were ALL developed prior to the Reformation.

Life in Europe was dominated by The Catholic Church, which pretty much prevented most 'thinking outside the box' for fear of being accused of heresy, as continued to be the case in thew other parts of the world I just mentioned by their religious & feudal authorities.

This is a total myth. See above for plenty of examples of pre-1500 "thinking outside the box" that was not in any way stifled by "religious & feudal authorities". In the area of science, contrary to the persistent Nineteenth Century myths, the grand total of pre-1500 natural philosophers who were "accused of heresy" for anything to do with scientific speculation is precisely zero. The later Middle Ages actually saw the greatest flowering of scientific inquiry since the Hellenistic Age and laid the foundations for the Scientific Revolution proper that came about in the Sixteenth Century.

The Reformation, the division of Catholic and Protestant Churches, and the outbreaks of extreme violence which went with it, led to the separation of church and state, and in all that chaos gave inventive freethinkers the opportunity to go ahead with their projects without having to worry (as much) about the consequences of whatever they might dream up.

Wrong. See above.

As far as the the UK is concerned, we should be very grateful for Henry VIII's 'marital difficulties'; as without it we might still be living in fear of The Inquisition.

Yes, because the Inquisition holds the people of places like France and Spain in abject fear to this very day. What a silly statement.

I'd say that Christianity was a very large part of it, but also to a large degree it was because Christianity reinforced the subject/object oriented view of reality, which helped give rise to pre-modern science. There's lots of other factors though, and in lots of ways Christianity hindered too.
This is probably a futile exercise for the most part though.