The West, Christian Thought, and the Rest, 

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - Philosopher and Sociologist Jurgen Habermas, self-confessed methodological arheist, "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151).

Today it is fashionable for secularist talking heads, scholars, writers and what have you to disparage the influence of religion in the world. It is understandable. Many atrocities that are being committed today are done in the name of religion (911!). Not all, however. In fact, atrocities committed under atheistic worldviews beat, hands down, atrocities done by religionists. (See links for figures *).

The problem with many secularists is that they commit the error of throwing the baby with the bathwater. Just because some religious nut did some evil thing, these atheists jump to the non sequitur conclusion, ‘There, ALL religions are bad for people and bad for the world. Let’s get rid of the filthy thing!’ Driven by his secularist zeal Sam Harris puts on his atheistic superhero uniform and sets out 'to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity…' Sure superhero Sam, go kick some Christian butt. But let’s not take Sam’s word for it; it’s good for us to visit history lane and check out for ourselves the role that the Judeo-Christian Faith has played in world history, Western Civilization in particular, the civilization that has fully dominated the world since the 1500s.

At the outset let me be clear on what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that America is a Christian Nation. What I do assert is the undeniable historical fact that the Judeo-Christian worldview has been a tremendous blessing to the world, greatly contributing to the uplifting of societies, cultures and nations. America is a critical example because today it is the most dominant Western nation (though sadly in decline). And perhaps having the most impact on our country (for better or worse). America, though NOT a “Christian nation” from a political or technical sense, has been greatly influenced by the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith in its beginnings and foundational convictions.

For example, in the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) it explicitly states,

“We clearly hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”


This conviction has its roots in the Judeo-Christian faith. In fact the entire Western civilization cannot be completely understood without considering the strong and deep influence of the Judeo-Christian faith. But modern secularists who are THEOPHOBIC and allergic to anything “religious”, particularly Christian, do everything they can to eliminate whatever Christian influence there was in the development of Western thought. But this is historical revisionism at its worst and a boldfaced lie!

The irrefutable historical fact is that the entire Western Civilization that has dominated the world for five centuries now was DEEPLY influenced and impacted by Judeo-Christian thought and is evidenced in its foundational convictions.

Is the West in decline these days? Yes. In fact, many describe Western Europe as “post-Christian Europe”. It has departed from its historical foundations in Judeo-Christian thought. America also is sadly following a similar path. In fact some are already saying that America now is “post Christian America”!

Writer Fred Hutchinson quotes a critical observation made by a historian.

“Historian Christopher Dawson (1889–1970) devoted much of his life's work to studying and writing about the interaction of Christianity and civilization over the course of history. He claimed that every rising civilization had a religion at its core, and was driven forward by religious zeal and spiritual aspirations. Dawson also wrote that every civilization that loses touch with its religious roots must eventually fall, no matter how rich and powerful it has become. Dawson was alluding to a "higher religion" like Christianity, which is conducive to civilization, and not to pagan religions that are conducive to primitive tribalism.”

Nietzsche castigated the secularists who want to get rid of the Christian Faith yet romantically hold on to its moral and ethical ideals. If you cut the tree then go the whole way and totally uproot the whole thing and replace it with something totally new. Good riddance! Nietzsche offered that new thing—what’s left is THE WILL TO POWER!

Here are some revealing comments --

"Let me begin with a striking passage from Niall Ferguson's recent book, Civilization. In it he tells of how the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was given the task of discovering how the West, having lagged behind China for centuries, eventually overtook it and established itself in a position of world pre-eminence. At first, said the scholar, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we concluded it was because you had the best political system. Then we realised it was your economic system. "But in the past 20 years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.” (by UK Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks)

The Chinese scholar was right. The same line of reasoning was followed by the Harvard economic historian, David Landes, in his magisterial The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. He too pointed out that China was technologically far in advance of the West until the 15th century. The Chinese had invented the wheelbarrow, the compass, paper, printing, gunpowder, porcelain, spinning machines for weaving textiles and blast furnaces for producing iron. Yet they never developed a market economy, the rise of science, an industrial revolution or sustained economic growth. Landes too concludes that it was the Judeo-Christian heritage that the West had and China lacked."

Jurgen Habermas' statment is worth quoting again,

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." 

Now that’s an INTELLECTUALLY HONEST ATHEIST!

Sociologist Rodney Stark, a convert to Christianity after a serious study of historical and sociological data, made this observations, 

“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without theology committed to reason, progress and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys and piano. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth – a world truly in the ‘dark ages.’”

“The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a ‘secular’ society – there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries. Even so, many apostles of modernization assume that, given the existing Western example, similar progress can be achieved today not only without Christianity but even without freedom or capitalism – that globalization will fully spread scientific, technical and commercial knowledge without any need to re-create the social or cultural conditions that first produced it.” (THE VICTORY OF REASON’ © 2005 Random House Publishing, (pp233)

For the evidence of the influence of Christian thought on the West (and the world!) please check the links below. But a summary (from D’Souza’s ‘What’s So Great About Christianity?’) of some of Christianity’s influence on Western thought and civilization would be helpful. They include:

> preservation of learning and science during the Roman Empire invasion by barbarians

> enormous contribution in art, literature and music

> putting the basis for Western politics and the respect of each person’s conscience through the teaching of separation between church and state

> human dignity & rights, democracy through the respect for the poor and lowly

> social accountability for leaders who are called to be servants

> major importance given to the notions of family and marriage

> development of institutions like hospitals, churches, schools, charities, orphanages, homeless shelters, and universities

> development of capitalism; the Christian principles of work excellence, love, honor, team spirit, wisdom, trust etc stay at the basis of capitalism’ prosperity

> development of modern science through Christianity’s emphasis on the importance of reason as well as the tremendous work of some famous Christians scientists

> the Western or Protestant work ethic that propelled the West to become the dominant economic force in the world since the 1500s. Eminent scholar Niall Fergusson argues this in his widely recognized work Civilization: The West and the Rest. Reviewer Nubia Nieto of the Peace & Conflict Review (Volume 5, Issue 2 ISSN: 1659-3995) states that according “to Ferguson, the sixth killer application is work ethic, described as a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from, among other sources, Protestant Christianity, which provided a measure of stability and duty to balance the dynamic and potentially unstable values created by competition and consumer society. Ferguson argues that Protestantism was essential to develop capitalism, as adherents devoted themselves to work as a purpose of life, contributing then to reinforce the supremacy of the West.”

"The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." Gal3:8 (NIV)

Indeed!

*Stats and figures on crimes against humanity --

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins,_atheist_atrocities,_and_historical_revisionism

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

On the Judeo-Christian influence on America, see

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218181/k.6FE8/American_Government_and_Christianity.htm

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html

On the Judeo-Christian influence on Western civilization, see

http://crossandquill.com/journey/?page_id=267

http://www.renewamerica.com/analysis/hutchison/090105

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1387233

Top of Form

Finding Rembrandt

"Aha!" -- Argument Against Motive

Recently I blogged on the movie Prometheus. In particular I discussed the controversial issue of Intelligent Design that the movie touched on (and was criticized for). There has been much heated debate on the topic—from scientists, philosophers, theologians to internet trolls pontificating on the matter. However, a lot of the discussion generate more heat than light.

A problem I have observed is prejudice. The issue has become so politicized that it is difficult to raise the topic without attack-dogs barking from both sides. Though I consider myself a design theorist I do not follow all that is proposed by the Intelligent Design movement. At this time I choose to remain agnostic on some of the specific points in the debate.

A problem I will address in this post is what I call MOTIVE MONGERING. When either side engages in motive mongering argument the conversation quickly degenerates from a useful discussion about the data into nasty accusations and mudslinging.

Recently I tried to engage a young and scientifically minded skeptic who aggressively promotes Darwinian evolutionary theory in his blog (he is a self-styled agnostic-atheist) and utterly despises the Intelligent Design movement. I applauded his article “Some preliminary thoughts on developing a scientific form of intelligent design” that appeared to move the discussion to a more fruitful level.

In his article he stated, “Intelligent design, as a cultural movement, is demonstrably religious in nature. The vast majority of its proponents and supporters are evangelical, conservative Christians, and a large proportion of its outreach programs are aimed at churches and other religious institutions. While the main leaders of the movement actively deny it, hiding behind a façade of seeming scientific credibility, even going so far as branding themselves academic martyrs and mavericks, it is an easy and obvious conclusion to draw.”

I commented that even granting this to be true, in the end it’s an irrelevant point. I argued that this approach is in fact being used as a squid tactic to avoid any legitimate discussion on some pertinent matters.

To illustrate my point I gave this illustration – Finding Rembrandt

An important art find is being investigated by art experts to determine its date and origin. A Rembrandt scholar is among the experts investigating the find. After studying the evidence they come together and discuss the matter. The Rembrandt scholar excitedly makes his suggestion and the conversation follows –

Rembrandt Scholar (RS from here on): “This is a Rembrandt (R from here on).”

Other Art Experts (OAE from here on): “Excuse me?”

RS: “I think this is a R.”

OAE: “You think? Do you have evidence directly linking this painting to R or are you just making a ballpark guess?”

RS: “Well, I can’t make a direct physical link from this work to R but upon looking at the painting itself e.g. the theme (mythological and religious), the strokes, color combinations, materials, etc, all are consistent with what is known of R’s works. And plus the fact the dating of this art—early to mid 17th century— indicates that it matches the time when R was producing a lot of work. It is also significant that this work can be traced to have come from Amsterdam.”

OAE: “Ok, but you don’t have direct physical evidence that links this work to R, right?”

RS: “Well, that’s correct. But if it looks, sounds, feels, smells like a R then maybe it is a R—you know what I mean?”

OAE: “Tell me, what’s your expertise?”

RS: “I’m a R scholar. Did my PhD on the history of art with a focus on R. I confess I like the guy. I like his work.”

OAE: Looking at each other and some rolling their eyes mocking, “No offense but we suspect that you may be seeing what you want to see in this painting. It’s understandable, I mean, we all at times suffer from that error. This is an important find and you’re a R scholar, and so you will be tempted to see R in this work, but perhaps the things you see may not really be there.”

RS: “You’re misunderstanding me; I’m arguing that the physical data strongly suggests that this is R, and I can argue from the evidence. Of course I’m happy to see R fingerprints in the work but I’m arguing that the raw data cries R. I’m not imposing R on it.”

OAE: “I’m going to be blunt here. Being a R scholar makes your proposition that this is R very suspicious. I believe you’ve compromised your judgment by your prior commitments being a R scholar.”

RS: “Common guys, I think I’m competent enough to make my own judgments based on the evidence irrespective of my background. Critique my proposal on the basis of the evidence and not speculate on my motives, conscious or subconscious. Hey, you may be correct that my proposal may just be a projection of my own subjective desires but you will have to demonstrate that on the basis of the evidence and not just accuse me of it. I will not put up with that nonsense. I say it’s R and I am prepared to argue from the evidence. You say no. Fine. But demonstrate to me that my interpretations are demonstrably erroneous. Don’t just reject my proposal in toto on the basis of motive-mongering. How about you—what’s your proposal?”

OAE: “Well, since we do not have physical evidence, not even testimonial or literary evidence, directly linking this painting to any known artist then the best and most rational conclusion we believe is that we don’t know. Source unknown.”

Some observations: 

1.OAE may be correct but they must demonstrate their point and not simply assume its correctness.

2. Motive-mongering argument is never valid; the evidence will speak for itself irrespective of the motive. The evidence will either totally destroy the argument, exposing the motive to be erroneous, or affirm the argument and prove the motive to be correct.

3. The RS has an advantage in this scenario for his expertise is in R and so he has a keener eye to discern a R work when he sees one.

The argument cuts both ways.

Designed or Not-designed

Now to the debate on whether there is a designing intelligence behind nature or none. On the one hand the theist (who believes that God or a Supernatural Mind is behind the universe and is the source of life) may fall into the error of reading too much theism into the data. While on the other hand the atheist/materialist/reductionist (believes that there is no such thing as God or the Supernatural, that nature is all there is) may also read too much his atheism into the evidence. Both errors must be avoided and exposed. But neither is to be disqualified just because of his/her worldview background.

Some questions when dealing with the data –

> Is the data/evidence friendlier toward a design paradigm or a no-design paradigm? 

> Which paradigm best explains the data (Ockham’s Razor may be utilized here)?

There are some data that can fit neatly to either paradigm while others tend toward one of the other.

I stated that I agreed with his following statements –

“But no matter how simple it is to label the central idea behind a movement with the same characteristics as the movement itself, it should be avoided. Ideas are independent of those who put them forward, and the fair assessment of every rival idea and hypothesis is one of the best principles of the modern scientific method...”

I said that this was the right attitude.

I also appreciated his thought that, “The pure idea of intelligent design, removed from its cultural context, is not religious – not necessarily.”

“Now you’re talking!” I said.

Unfortunately, and quite uncharacteristically, for some reason he did not engage.

Any takers?