Of course Christianity was an integral player in the history of the West and by extension the entire world.

It became the world dominant religion for all sorts of reasons, none of which had anything to to with the the great calling of Jesus to love God totally, and then on that basis, to practice self-transcending love in all relations and under all conditions. And the profound instructions re how to live a truly moral life as given in the Sermon on the Mount.

Indeed "Paul" and the church fathers very quickly turned this radical Spiritual Teaching into a very worldly power and control seeking religion about Jesus.

The rest is of course HIS-story which is portrayed in this one stark image.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

And as described here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/darkness.html

The first image is featured in The Pentagon of Power by Lewis Mumford (1972).
As is this image which pictures in very stark terms what Western "Civilization" was/is really all about in the 20th and 21st Centuries - namely trashing the planet and all of human culture too.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

After 40 years The Pentagon of Power is still one of the best books re what Western "Civilization" is really all about - namely the drive to gain power and control over every one and every thing.

The book describes the origins and historical developments of what Mumford called the Invisible Mega-Machine, and what I call the "culture" of death.

Forty years later the situation described by Mumford is infinitely worse and ALL of the dreadful things that he prophetically
warned us about have manifested, and to a degree that he would have been horrified. Indeed, during his last public interview (1989)before he died in 1990 Mumford expressed profound despair at the then state of the world, and where it was obviously heading.

“Julia Gillard's declaration over the weekend that she would like the Bible taught in schools seems odd, given she's Australia's most prominent atheist.”

Labor’s dumbing down of curriculums is well-known but their attacks on Christianity stand out. Gillard’s attempt at sucking up to Christians though is a disgrace. Well, it was election time in NSW.

Who can trust a word she says? Gillard respects the Bible but launched an anti-Christian curriculum? How irrational.

Julia along with Tony Abbott only need to look at their own depravity and compulsion to tell half truths or full lies to realise their need of a Saviour. The bible clearly reveals who that Saviour is. Unfortunately the idiotic secular humanism taught over the last few decades that denies the corrupt nature of mankind has led to fatherless kids, broken marriage, rapid increase in child sexual abuse, violence against oldies, increase std's, the murder of millions of unborn, the exalting of repulsive cultural practices etc etc . Repentance is what is needed from Julia and her tribe not trying to appeal to every electoral lobby gropup.

Christianity was certainly a dominant force in our history.

However, it is increasingly clear that it probably won't be much of an influence in our future.

I always find it amusing when anyone from the IPA (the home of one-dimensional man)prattles on about religion and/or God.

Chris was/is the editor of the IPA Review. You will never ever find even a smidgen of a religiously informed Consciousness in that magazine, or any other right-wing publication.

What is commonly recognized promoted and defended as religion in our Age is only the most superficial and factional and most-often dim-minded and perverse expressions of ancient power and control seeking ancient national and tribal cultism.

ALL the "God" and "Gods" of humankind are, whether male of female in their descriptive gender, mere and self-serving projections of the human ego-mind.

These references provide a unique radical criticism of the self-serving nature of conventional exoteric Christian-ISM.

On the fabricated origins, and institutional purposes of the Bible. Purposes which were intended to consolidate the power and privileges of the church "fathers" who won the culture wars of their time and place.

http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

Two essays on the dim-witted limitations and self-serving purposes of conventional exoteric religiosity.

http://www.beezone.com/up/criticismcuresheart.html

http://www.beezone.com/up/propheticcriticismreligions.html

SM writes

'However, it is increasingly clear that it probably won't be much of an influence in our future.'

He obviously ignores or has not read the end of the book that does not lie. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus Christ as Lord. This can be done voluntarily or it will be done involuntarily.

Our civilization is entirely secular, superficial, materialistic, outward and object directed only.
It is founded on a mode of propaganda about the nature of human existence that has driven humankind to the point of self-destruction. It has idealized the grossly-bound ego and ended up with a world of egos destroying one another.

And yet surprisingly many people, including the IPA clones, pretend that ours is the most "advanced" form of human culture that has ever existed on the planet.

The Renaissance was the collapse of the "God"-civilization (such as it was in its half-baked expressions) that preceded it. The civilization based on mythologized presumptions of what is traditionally conceived to be spatially and temporally "behind" and "above" the world. The Renaissance destroyed that earlier form of civilization. With the Renaissance, "God"-myth based civilization was replaced with a human based civilization, or a civilization which glorified the human ego, especially that of European males. That ego-civilization came to its essential end in the twentieth century.

After the devastation and inevitable collapse of ego-civilization in the 20th century, a global transformation is now required in human culture. Something that is comprehensively right.

The ultimate expression of that ego-civilization is the adolescent anti-"culture" of competitive individualism. A so called culture in which everyone inevitably loses, including to presumed winners, and all of Earth-kind too.

When the entire human world founds itself on the adolescent motive to aggrandize the individual grossly-bound ego-"I", then everyone is collectively working towards the destruction not only of human culture and humankind itself, but even of the Earth itself, the very vehicle that supports life.

Indeed, a society of mere competing individuals does not need, and cannot even tolerate a true culture. Because a true culture must, necessarily be characterized in its best, and even general demonstrations and aspirations, by mutual tolerance, cooperation, peace, and profundity. Therefore societies based on competitive individualism and merely gross or superficial mindedness, actually destroy all previously existing cultures and cultural adaptations.

Despite the seeming freedom our culture is now a combination of the nightmare scenarios described in both Brave New World AND 1984.

Like most of your posts rubbish, bible is the fevered writings of a bunch of scribes about a load of BS so they made it up as they went along(old Testament)
New Testament is much the same they just Anglicised the names and made it up as well,good luck if you choose to believe it

I am referring to Runner

Christianity has played a big role in western history. It's time is the sun is fading just as Greek then Roman mythology has. However when we reflect on what Christianity actual as given us it's not much. How many of its basic tents were either with us before hand or no longer part of our culture? If fact much of what many of us find bad about Muslims has core doctrine of Christianity for one thousand years.

BTW Julia is just nodding to the christ-stain left that's all. Christiants like to pretend their values voters but realy their not, others wise surely they would vote as a block. The bible is quite clear......

Yes, sort of. If you screw up your eyes and squint a bit, then you would probably have to agree that Christianity has had an influence on the development of "the West".

Whether more or less than any other religion is certainly open to question, given that there have been so many of them, both mono- and polytheistic. Which gives rise to the obvious follow-on question - which came first, the desire by a community to conform under a consistent set of behavioural rules? Or religion?

"Almost all thinkers in the formative centuries of Western liberal democracy were convinced (or simply assumed) there was a God, and He was a Christian God... Their religious faith couldn't help but shape their worldview."

Well, duh. Nor could their position in society, their educational background, their country of origin or what they had for breakfast. Why would we assume, given that their acceptance of Christianity was largely based upon ignorance - or, as the author points out, simple assumption - that there was anything uniquely contributive in their religious beliefs?

There is no denying that the "West's history is not complete without reference to Christianity". But hardly more so than reference to the bow and arrow, dynastic royalty (ah, the "divine right" of kings!), the English language or King Artaxerxes' invention of the passport in 450BC.

'Like most of your posts rubbish, bible is the fevered writings of a bunch of scribes about a load of BS so they made it up as they went along(old Testament)
New Testament is much the same they just Anglicised the names and made it up as well,good luck if you choose to believe it'

and your contribution John Ryan?

Democracy was a pre-Christian invention of the Greeks and has developed through many cultures since.

There is absolutely nothing in Christianity that can claim any credit for it's development other than by historical association.

Rather than displaying democratic pronciples, many stages in Western history highlight the autocratic influence of Church over State.

Indeed the Vatican is probably the most undemocratic regime in the world today where nobody gets to vote on any of their representatives or influence any of the subsequent decisions it makes.

Rather than the warm-and-fuzzy Sunday School version, the rise of Christianity was really due to the brutal oppression, elimination and slaughter of all its rivals during the first centuries of its existence - not exactly a good role model for a democracy.

It may be able to claim historical credit for some things but Western Democracy is certainly not one of them and if it wants to remain relevant it should accept the historical bad as well as the good.

The godless fruit of violence, rape, child abuse, perversion, lack of empathy have all increased dramatically as the influence of Christianity decreased.Feminism has led to women being treated as meat and children by and large are totally disreptful thanks to the haters of what made the West such a desirable place to immigrate to.

For once, Shadow Minister, I agree with you. Well, I agree to a certain extent.

I don't think Christianity is going anywhere - it's here for the long haul. In our immediate future, however, I'd say its influence will continue to spiral to an all-time low. Even those Christians who ended their lives in the Roman arenas had some influence: after all, if they were so irrelevant and harmless they would have been ignored, not executed. I don't know that the Christians of my generation can hope to achieve that sort of influence.

Of course, the Christian lobby - though pretty powerless in Europe - is still enormous in the USA. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the 'love thy neighbour' sort of Christian who shouts the loudest and is heard over there - it is the more bigoted types. Sadly, those who are still having a go at politics here tend to belong to the same denominations and tend to have some success. I'm a practising Catholic and proud of it, but I certainly don't accept that there's a place for the imposition of religion on others. Evangelise through good deeds by all means, but don't force religion on others through politics and insidious 'back-door' educational processes.

That, of course, is just my opinion. The fact that so many stand back and let it happen and so many others actively support it suggests that many, many people disagree with me. That's fine.

Christianity was a vital element in the development of a free and open society, just as smallpox was a vital element in the development of vaccination.

Dear Jon J,

Not sure I entirely agree but what a post! Well done. Lol.

Dear Runner,

Dear Runner,

Today I listened to Rachael Kohn's Spirit of things on Radio National.

I have copied and pasted the precis below.

“Chrissie and Anthony Foster of Melbourne are the first in our new monthly series on couples. What does it take to keep a couple together, when all they worked for is taken from them? Two of their three daughters were sexually abused by the parish priest, leading to one's death and the other's permanent disability. The Foster's love for each other and their children, and their pursuit of justice has been the focus of their lives, but their faith has been irrevocably changed.”

You can listen to the audio here; http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/spiritofthings&d=rn/spiritofthings/audio&r=sot-2011-03-27.ram&w=sot-2011-03-27.asx&t=Sunday%2027%20March%202011&p=1

Reading your post all I could see was;

'The Church's toll of violence, rape, child abuse, perversion, lack of empathy have all decreased dramatically as the influence of Christianity decreased.'

@Pericles, did you read more than one paragraph past the headline? It rather puts the lie to your thesis that Christianity was incidental to Western development. To the extent that the West has unique characteristics, and for most of its history a unique religion, it's not drawing that long a bow to assert a causal relationship from the latter to the former. Most of the examples you flippantly cite as equal 'influences' are not unique to the West, or even Western (Persia??)

Pericles,

Some time ago I wrote: “I somehow came to think you were a historian (apologies if I am wrong).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10306&page=0#168294), to which you replied: “Incidentally, I apologize if I come across as a "historian". I don't mean to." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10306#168395).

Indeed. Now, after reading your last post, I can see how wrong I was.

Well G...light the fires and spark up old and somewhat dated beliefs, that somehow are a bit past-tense? But what the heck...if some need what others don't understand......its a free world. Knock yourselves out:)

We will wait for you all.

The inner gods, was one of the first gods of the pagans, which was the beginnings of all.

The highest evolved religions IMO for, is the Hindu/Buddha....Me, myself, and I. well...when you ask yourselves a question....who are you asking?

LEAP

Interesting interpretation, Mark Duffett.

>>It rather puts the lie to your thesis that Christianity was incidental to Western development. To the extent that the West has unique characteristics, and for most of its history a unique religion, it's not drawing that long a bow to assert a causal relationship from the latter to the former.<<

I did not suggest that Christianity is "incidental". To quote myself: "There is no denying that the West's history is not complete without reference to Christianity".

The point that I tried to make - obviously very badly - is that when you have such a dominant world-view (Christianity) for such a long period, it is impossible to differentiate it from any other influence. Like personal hygiene. Or horses. Or the bow and arrow.

They were all at one time "facts of life". So the only point at which you could separate any of them out as an "influence", would be when you had some sort of alternative with which to compare it. The discovery that personal cleanliness had an impact on disease, for example, or the internal combustion engine that changed the role of the horse, or the arquebus that changed the process of killing one's enemy.

So, of course it isn't "drawing a long bow" to assert that Christianity had an influence on the way people conducted their lives. I just happen to believe that its impact was on a par with that of the weather. Part of the environment. Part of daily life. It's what we do.

But if you do follow the "it's unique" line of reasoning, it would also be important to rationalize the various schisms that occurred in the structure of Christianity, over time. "Of course" they wouldn't have happened if Christianity didn't exist, and on that basis Christianity was the cause.

Except, of course, similar splits have occurred over the centuries in other religions. So the differentiating factor perhaps becomes religion itself, rather than any particular one?

But - pace George's misreading - perhaps the historian's view of "causal relationships" is different to that of a non-historian.

@Mark Duffett. Well said!

"It is a historical truism that the development of liberal democracy, modern political philosophies, notions of human rights and equality, and our social institutions all owe much to Christian thought."

While it is fair to acknowledge these things, what these occassional admissions often leave out (or conveniently forget) is the profound influence Christian thought had in the development of Western science. 

At it's heart, our scientific pioneers had the confidence to search for the physical laws inherent in the universe as a reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator.   

From Kepler, who worked out that the planets move in ellipses, famously said his scientific research was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”.

Through Newton, who worked out calculus and the laws of motion and gravity to explain all these movements, and wrote in his Principia Mathmatica,  “The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

And continuing likewise through most of the branches of modern science. 

Yet such convictions are likely not to be considered in Julia Gillard's educational curriculum.

Chris Berg claims, "while liberal democracy was conceived in a Christian framework, one obviously need not be Christian to be part of liberal democracy."

So he's happy to acknowledge it but doesn't want to live by it. He prefers to live off borrowed capital. I suspect he's also heavily indebted to his VISA card.

Berg's article say we don't need to rely on theology, yet he doesn't put forward a suggestion to fill the gap.  

I for one am an agnostic, (there may or may not be a God) Throughout the world there are various religions, Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam etc. Most represent peaceful existance eccept Islam which has Shariah Law which in my opinion is one of the most dangerous religions we are faced with today. Islam represents death to infidels (non believers) Women have no rights (they are only slaves to the men) etc. I dread the thought of Islam religion taking over the western Christion religious countries as they appear to be attempting.

I completely agree with Pericles here.

All too often, we have Christians taking advantage of the fact that Christianity was (as Pericles has put it) one of the "facts of life", by attributing more to Christianity than they can demonstrate was necessary.

I think the important thing to remember here - and a point that really throws a cold bucket of water over the fervent readiness of many Christians to attribute the good in Western societies to Christianity - is that religion has provided us with nothing that could not have possibly come about through secular means.

Nothing.

This point is often met with the argument that we could never really know without repeating history, but we actually can simply by recognising that there is nothing about any of the good we have in our societies that is intrinsically and exclusively tied with Christianity and Christianity alone.

Furthermore, there is nothing good that has come out of Christianity that necessarily demonstrates the truth of its claims either.

Not quite, Dan S de Merengue.

>>At it's heart, our scientific pioneers had the confidence to search for the physical laws inherent in the universe as a reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator<<

You are making the assumption that the universe is a "reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator". Which latter, we are also asked to assume, refers to your chosen deity, the Christian God.

It need not, of course, be a reflection of anything of the sort.

But to the point. Would any lack of this reflection, in your philosophy, have prevented these "scientific pioneers" from "search[ing] for the physical laws inherent in the universe"?

I somehow doubt that. I suspect for example that neither Aristotle nor Ptolemy was a Christian, but they both did a fair bit of searching.

Christianity did however pick up on their theories of a geocentric universe, and run with them for a good long time.

So a question to you might be, was Galileo's work fully informed by his Christianity? Because there is no doubt that he was a devout Christian.

Galileo was a) a Christian and b) a scientist. It would however be a gross distortion, in my view, to suggest that his findings were, in any way whatsoever, "caused" by his faith. Which is the position that Mr Duffet seems to hold.

>>...it's not drawing that long a bow to assert a causal relationship from the latter [Christianity] to the former ["Western development"].<<

Causal? No.

Merely post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

And this is just wordplay:

>>Berg's article say we don't need to rely on theology, yet he doesn't put forward a suggestion to fill the gap.<<

The only "gap" visible here is one that is entirely of your own construction. You choose to "rely on theology", which is your absolute, inalienable right. Clearly, its absence from your worldview would create a problem for you.

But to imagine that its absence would create a "gap" in others is highly presumptuous.

Yes, it’s as I’ve said before, Newton, Galileo, et al only ever relied on natural methodology and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to inhibit their inquiry.

Mark Duffett,

I agree and I thought you might be interested in an earlier extensive discussion we had here on a similar topic (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292&page=0#149026 and the sequel; my contributions are also e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#149056 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#149142).

>>...it's not drawing that long a bow to assert a causal relationship from the latter [Christianity] to the former ["Western development"].<<

Causal? No. Merely 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' ["after this, therefore [assumed] because of this"].

@ Pericles, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 3:10:29 PM

Also, 'cum hoc, ergo propter hoc' ("with this, therefore [assumed] because of this")

Pericles,
You say that I choose 'to rely on theology'. These were not my words. They come from the pen of Berg. It was Berg that suggested liberal democracy was conceived in a Christian framework. He was the first one here attesting the importance of Christianity in the development of Western thought.

The gap of which I spoke comes by inference in what Berg was saying. He wishes to set aside any reliance upon that which he notices as originally present and significant. Perhaps you should argue with him. 

Apologies, Dan S de Merengue, I didn't mean to offend you by putting Berg's words into your mouth.

>>You say that I choose 'to rely on theology'. These were not my words. They come from the pen of Berg.<<

That's a fair point, I guess I made the connection from having similar discussions with you in the past. But it would surprise me if you were to deny such a reliance, after all this time.

>>The gap of which I spoke comes by inference in what Berg was saying.<<

Exactly. You inferred a gap. I pointed out to you that this would only be perceived as a gap by people who "rely on theology".

>>He wishes to set aside any reliance upon that which he notices as originally present and significant. Perhaps you should argue with him.<<

I probably would, if I understood a word of that sentence. What has it to do with gaps?

McReal,

I think you have a point here: One should distinguish between coincidence, correlation, influence (incidental or decisive), or even causal relation when talking about the role of Christianity in the formation of Western civilisation, whether one sees this role in an overall positive or overall negative light.

I would vote for decisive influence, and I think also Mark Duffett qualified his reference to causal relation by “not drawing that long a bow”. Some historians would agree with this view of “decisive influence” (whether or not they value positively this influence) some would disagree.

On the other hand, it is a simple fact, that Enlightenment (and science, technology) evolved only within this one civlisation with its Judaic and Hellenic roots followed by a millenium of Christendom. Some people will see here at least a correlations, others just a coincidence, though I do not think many historians would opt for mere coincidence.

The influence of Christianity in the West is undeniable. The tenets make perfect sense for the most part, being naturally imbued in the human spirit. Atruism is a natural human trait and has been essential in human evolution, not only in terms of survival but wellbeing, meaning and purpose.

It is somewhat ironic that Christianity has in some ways become its own worst enemy. While the West has evolved and it's people by and large become more liberal, compassionate (more inclusive), the Church has remained resolute. In this I separate the institution of 'Church' necessarily from 'Christians' who own their own relationship with God. I know many Catholics who disown some tightly held attitudes of their own Church but continue to remain with the faith.

People are too savvy. Much of the nonsense in concepts like original sin, children are born evil etc are passe and inherently dangerous as revelations recently borne out of cruel behaviours in some religious institutions. Absolute power corrupts, the Church is no exception.

The modern world has also reacted to the intolerance and deeply discriminatory tenets in relation to women and homosexuality and is moving towards secularism, aiming for greater inclusiveness and tolerance.

ABC's recent Compass Program aired "Life's Big Questions" in which the host Scott Stephens interviewed a variety of Australians. It was a wonderful program highlighting how very much the same we all are regardless of religious or non-religious proclivities.

Who does not want a more inclusive society? Who does not want respectful behaviours? Who does not want to attempt to live by the goals of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Who does not want to bring peace, or end poverty and disparity?

Not many. I know it is not that simple. Humans will fall off the wagon through greed or self-interest, but ultimately it is those simple goals that guide most people, even if as humans we do on occasion err.

The future of Christianity in the West will depend on how it manages those changes and expectations.

Coincidence, George?

>>Some people will see here at least a correlations, others just a coincidence, though I do not think many historians would opt for mere coincidence.<<

As we have agreed, I am not a historian, so I don't think the way that historians do. But what happened to the other options that you thoughtfully provided?

>>One should distinguish between coincidence, correlation, influence (incidental or decisive), or even causal relation...etc<<

I have no doubt in my mind that Christianity had a significant influence on the manner in which society developed. How could it not? It was, in its various forms, pervasive throughout Europe. Like the climate, which was predominantly temperate, and influenced the design of houses, the crops that were grown, even the sport and leisure activities that emerged.

But you chose, deliberately I suspect, to give only the two alternatives: either correlation or coincidence. Is that the approach that historians take - provide a number of possibilities, then simply decide for us which ones should be considered?

Or is it just coincidence, that you have employed that methodology here?

Pericles,

>>I have no doubt in my mind that Christianity had a significant influence<<
Decisive influence or significant influence, not much difference, so I am glad that after all we agree on this.

>>But you chose, deliberately I suspect, to give only the two alternatives: either correlation or coincidence.<<
I started this sentence with “on the other hand” meaning that after opting myself for “decisive influence” I admitted that SOME PEOPLE might see in the stated fact only a correlation (which I understand is less than decisive or significant influence) or even just coincidence. Maybe you would like to suggest another alternative, beside coincidence, correlation, incidental or decisive (or significant) influence and causal relation that I considered?

No, that seems to be a comprehensive list, George.

>>Maybe you would like to suggest another alternative, beside coincidence, correlation, incidental or decisive (or significant) influence and causal relation that I considered?<<

(Just for the record, though, you can only choose from two alternatives. Any more than two, and you have choices, options or possibilities.)

It might also help if the context made it clearer when you offer an opinion, that it is not your own.

>>I started this sentence with “on the other hand” meaning that after opting myself for “decisive influence” I admitted that SOME PEOPLE might see in the stated fact only a correlation...etc.<<

Many people - even people I know - use "on the other hand" when weighing up alternatives in their own mind. Which is how I came to mistake those thoughts for yours.

But since you have taken us into the territory of semantic nuance, I have to disagree with this view of yours:

>>Decisive influence or significant influence, not much difference, so I am glad that after all we agree on this.<<

I'd suggest that there is a substantial difference between the two.

Black or white. Yes or no. Win or lose. Life or death, even...

"Wahab Riaz' five wickets had a significant influence on Pakistan's ability to restrict India's total, but it was Sachin Tendulkar's decisive influence with the bat that won India the game."

"Marshal Ney's tactics had a significant influence on the course of the battle, but it was the decisive influence of the Prussians that finally defeated Napoleon at Waterloo."

significant adj. important; of consequence.

decisive adj. having the power or quality of deciding; crucial

So no, we don't agree on this. After all.

Sachin Tendulkar's innings was significant, but was it decisive? He is one member of an 11 man team. He made less than one third of the teams’ score. After he fell the team relied on others, such as Suresh Raina, to achieve their total.

It was, in the context of the game, the difference between winning and losing, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Sachin Tendulkar's innings was significant, but was it decisive? He is one member of an 11 man team. He made less than one third of the teams’ [sic] score. After he fell the team relied on others, such as Suresh Raina, to achieve their total.<<

As conclusive in its influence on the result, in fact, as the timely arrival of von Blücher at Plancenoit.

Sure, Wellington did his bit. And there certainly were a few other soldiers around that day who did theirs. But the decisive influence on the outcome was undoubtedly the Prussians.

Pericles,
It’s agreed that Tendulkar’s large contribution was essential for India’s victory. Yet another much lesser role could also be described as crucial, like that of Raina whose score was greater than the slim winning margin. It’s possible that there were several decisive elements.

Tendulkar has been among the most successful batsmen of his era. India has been somewhat reliant on him for a while, though he may retire soon. When he does leave, do you think India will easily be able to fill that gap left in its batting line up?

Pericles,

I agree I should have used options, or whatever you prefer, instead of alternatives.

I agree I should not have started the sentence about that fact with “on the other hand”.

I agree that “decisive influence” and “significant influence” are not “not much different”.

I agree that we do not agree even on the “size” of the influence Christendom had on the intllectual/cultural formation of modern Western man (in addition to our obvious disagreement on how to weigh, overall positively or negatively, this influence/contribution).

I hope this will satisfy you.

I think you are getting the idea, Dan S Merengue.

>>Yet another much lesser role could also be described as crucial, like that of Raina whose score was greater than the slim winning margin. It’s possible that there were several decisive elements.<<

A case can be made for every person in the side being influential on the outcome. But it cannot equally be said that every performance was indispensible, except to the extent that each side needs eleven players. At some point, individual genius transcends its surroundings to make a decisive contribution.

Similarly, the fact is that Galileo was a practising, even devout, Christian. The vast majority of Galileo's friends and acquaintances were Christians too, and he held the church in high esteem, so obviously it had some influence on the manner in which he approached his life. What clearly cannot be asserted, is that his Christianity "caused" his findings.

That's all. No biggy.

So we have several categories of contribution: important, crucial, indespensible, etc. And how critical was the unique contribution of Christian doctrine to our values, traditions and institutions in the West?

I got a reaction from Pericles and AJ for highlighting the influence Christian thought had in the development of Western science.   

It's also not a biggy. Many scholars have described such things.

"[Rodney] Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal."

Loren Eiseley said, "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

The causal relationship between faith and motiations for investigation entails the foundational belief of an orderly universe making sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator.   

Tendulkar's contribution to winning that game for India was significant and decisive. Christianity's contributions I believe are evident. Any 'gap' created by their absence will be telling.

“I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots." M Thatcher.  

Neatly put, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The causal relationship between faith and motiations for investigation entails the foundational belief of an orderly universe making sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator.<<

Exactly. The only people who contest that there is a causal relationship between Christianity and the motivation to stretch the boundaries of knowledge, would have to be Christians.

Those more dispassionate see the investigator's chosen religion to be incidental to their research. The search for knowledge and understanding requires no God to guide it. In fact, it could be argued that by knowing in advance the answer - viz. "it was God wot dunnit" - the zeal with which the creationist pursues an explanation might in fact be a tad lacking.

>>Christianity's contributions I believe are evident. Any 'gap' created by their absence will be telling.<<

In the case of Galileo, Christianity was particularly irrelevant not only to his pursuit, but also to his findings. Do you believe he would have found differently, and left a telling "gap", had he not been a devout Christian?

Pericles,
I'm not sure where you are going with a hypothetical question, what if he wasn't a devout Christian? Galileo was who he was. Maybe if he was born a girl, we would know him as Gail or Gillian, or not know her at all. But he was who he was.

In my previous post, when I spoke of scientist motivations I was meaning the motivations the pioneers had in developing the scientific method, getting the ball rolling in the first place. You also seem to be working with the assumption that all religions are the same. By contrast, I look for the unique contribution made by the influence of a Christian worldview.

"In China, the Confucian and Taoist philosophies did not contain the idea that a ‘science of explanations’ would be possible so they pursued personal enlightenment and social order. The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation. The persistence of this gap can be traced to their view of the universe—it was seen as a ‘living organism’ with ‘motives’, influenced by a multitude of fallible gods. In the face of such arbitrary behaviour, they pursued speculative ideals that could not be subjected to empirical testing." (this paragraph from a reviewer of Stark)

When I speak of a gap, I'm talking about a developing absence or lack of knowledge of our history. If we forget our history or separate ourselves from our roots then we could be in danger of losing the special heritage given to us.

Interesting points, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Galileo was who he was. Maybe if he was born a girl, we would know him as Gail or Gillian, or not know her at all. But he was who he was<<

The question might be, had he been a girl, would he have made the same discoveries? Would the social/religious environment in which he lived have allowed a girl the opportunities to research and publish.

The answer is quite probably no, it would not.

You might then argue that the attribute of gender is therefore a decisive factor, in the same way in which Christianity is a decisive factor, in the development of Western thought.

My view would be that neither gender, nor religion, would have an impact on the individual's thinking processes, only on the ability of those thoughts to reach the rest of the world. This act of suppression would not, on the whole, be a quality with which Christianity wishes to be identified.

>>You also seem to be working with the assumption that all religions are the same. By contrast, I look for the unique contribution made by the influence of a Christian worldview.<<

If there were only one "Christian worldview", I might agree with you. But as you are well aware, Christianity has been at war with itself over the shape and consistency of that worldview since it began. Even you, it would appear, with your strong views on Creationism, are out of phase with many of your "fellow Christians". And it is superfluous to point out the centuries-old battle between the Prods and the Micks.

So to describe Christianity as a "special heritage" in the history of the West is about as meaningful as making the same claim for the existence of plant disease. While true in a general sense, the impact of potato blight differs greatly from that of coffee rust, for example.

To argue that "we are shaped by our environment" is a truism. But to single out Christianity as a sort of intellectual driving force is, in my view, over-egging the pudding.

Thanks for your posts Dan and Pericles. Dan, you mention Rodney Stark. He is the best historian I know of who has written of the influences of Christianity in the West. He writes of the development of modern universities, science, and the anti-slavery movement as all initiated by Christianity. I would recommend his book, 'For the Glory of God', for those who want to find out more about the positive influence of Christianity in history.

Nils,

After having read online (amamzon.com) the Introduction to the Rodney Stark book I am already convinced it is an excellent book. Even this Introduction contains insights that to me seem rather original and illuminating. Thanks indeed for letting me/us know about the book.

Small correction, Nils.

>>Dan, you mention Rodney Stark. He is the best historian I know of who has written of the influences of Christianity in the West.<<

Stark is not a historian - at least, not by education. His degrees are in Sociology, as are his professorships.

>>He writes of the development of modern universities...<<

This is where his lack of education (as a historian) is most evident.

He writes of that "uniquely Christian twelfth-century invention, the university", which of course is nothing more than wishful thinking. The original Trades Guilds, which began to be formed as a means to introduce and maintain high levels of training in their crafts, were the first European universities. The Latin concept of "universitas" covers these as well as purely academic institutions.

These evolved quite quickly into urban centres of learning, fuelled by massive demand for broader knowledge. These were mostly secular, private enterprise operations.

Around the same period, the Roman Catholic Church, which was the predominant force in Christianity at the time, was flexing its theological muscles. Most of the doctrines that define that church - the veneration of Mary-the-mother, the notion of celibacy, the concept of purgatory - were developed in the 11th and 12th centuries.

The influence of this, let's face it, highly political organization allowed it to hijack the universitas concept, and to "licence" as many of the more academic variety as they could control. This enabled them to run the education agenda which, not surprisingly, limited research to "approved" topics.

Rather than being a trailblazer in the field of education, and a pioneer and thought-leader in research, the Church acted as policeman, in order to channel thinking along their preferred lines.

Many of Stark's other claims for Christianity fall at the same fence - he sees only that which will support his argument.

Which is fine, and it is his perfect right to do so.

But it alters his work from being historically informative, to being just another polemic.

And no, George, I'm still not a historian. And on this evidence, glad not to be.

Pericles,
Worldview is a bit like language or culture. It is dynamic and changes over time. No two people share its understanding in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, one can easily identify the common traits and elements that make one collectively distinctive. There are many common and basic elements that Christians share regardless of their era.

You raise the idea of creationism. You would note that in that period I mentioned before, those middle centuries of great scientific advancement, how the prevailing view was that the world was the creation of God, the result of his handiwork, and all by and large accepted the account of creation as described in Genesis.

You seem to want to challenge Christianity historically as a key influential factor in the shaping of ideas in our culture. For certain, it hasn't been the only influence. But in this discussion, we are only looking to give it's assent in correct proportion, to give it due credit.

While no one book by any historian is going to adequately capture the immensity of all of the last two thousand years of Western history, I think it's clear that many of the ideas, democratic institutions and scientific achievements developed in the West can be described as unique. Do we then say the profound influence of the West's particular lines of thought supplied by the West's dominant religion to be only incidental and of little consequence?

We don't want to white wash history, but rather to give credit where it is due.

When we examine the sources of the greatest and most influential ideas, we see they do not originate in "the church".

Ideas like democracy, organised health care and the university have their origins elsewhere.

Other great ideas originating within "christendom" often came from individuals who yes, only incidentally were "christian", notably in times where it was a crime to not.

From such it is very clear that the dominant church of the western civilisation is in fact incidental and could quite easily have been any other.

Galen is regarded as a pillar of historical medicine, yet we now give him no more than a nod, his four humours supplanted by far superior understanding.

Something similar needs to happen for christianity, or rather, it needs to recognised by religionists that such has happened already.

Rusty

That's somewhat simplistic, Dan S de Merengue.

>>There are many common and basic elements that Christians share regardless of their era.<<

Equally, there are many common and basic elements that Christians share with other religions, are there not? Where does that fit into your theory?

And there are also many common and basic elements that Christians do *not* have in common with each other. I have already pointed out the Prods and Micks, but there is also a category that is entirely era-dependent. Witches, inquisitions, relics, indulgences, those sorts of things.

So to try to squeeze this into a single, definable "worldview", which even you yourself admit is a constantly-moving target is just a Christian conceit.

Here's another "era-related" issue:

>>...in that period I mentioned before... all by and large accepted the account of creation as described in Genesis.<<

Surely, logic tells us that acceptance of that story could not possibly have had a positive influence upon their science? Once you are trapped into the thinking that "it was God wot dunnit", the need to research and discover anything contrary or challenging immediately evaporates.

In fact, when you add that particular belief-quirk into the mix, it becomes clear that all those discoveries about our history on this planet, as well as our relationship with other planets, stars and galaxies, were made not because of Christianity, but in spite of it.

>>You seem to want to challenge Christianity historically as a key influential factor in the shaping of ideas in our culture.<<

Christianity itself doesn't makes the "key influential factor" claim. It is just a category of people who seem to need it to be so, for some reason. I'm challenging them, not their religion.

>>Do we then say the profound influence of the West's particular lines of thought supplied by the West's dominant religion to be only incidental and of little consequence?<<

That's a very good point. So far, all the claims for Christianity's contribution have been abstract.

Perhaps you could pinpoint for us those "particular lines of thought", so that we might become more able to connect the dots.

Just one more observation, if I may.

I was pondering the range of meaning between "influence", "profound influence", "key influential factor", "contribution" etc., and wondering if I might be veering toward the pedantic in this discussion.

Then I found myself reading a review of a book about Montaigne - of whom I know embarrassingly little, I found - and a reference to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of Huguenots caught my eye.

Was this relevant, I wondered, to our discussion here?

Christianity - or to be more precise, two major versions of Christianity - formed an essential foundation to the atrocity. Little doubt, I thought, that it was an event in which Christianity was a "key influential factor". Was I therefore being unfair, in downplaying other events around the same period, as being less "profoundly influenced" by Christianity?

Thinking it through a little further, though, I decided that there were other significant human factors at work.

People like to be surrounded with people they can relate to. Probably the most obvious exhibition of this is a football match, where people from entirely different backgrounds gather in the one place for the single reason - to support "their" team.

The nature of the team itself is irrelevant. There was a time quite recently when there was not a single Englishman, let alone a North Londoner, in the Arsenal football team. Yet they still managed to fill their stadium with supporters.

More to the point, if you were there and not wearing red, you might be in danger of a gentle beating by those who were.

Interestingly, though, the same mindless "our team versus their team" theme was being played out, simultaneously, in dozens of other stadia across the country.

So which was the most significant influence? Those particular supporters? The Arsenal Football Club? The game of soccer itself?

Or is it simply in the nature of man to be aggressive towards "the other"?

Similarly, might it not just be in the nature of man to explore, research and discover, rather than the result of any specific religious environment?

Pericles,
When Chris Berg speaks of the religious origins of modern society, how liberal democracy was conceived in a Christian framework - a rather frank admission coming from an atheist - are you wanting to disagree with his basic contention?
Does he need someone to tell him he's dreaming?

I thought we had moved on from there Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, When Chris Berg speaks of the religious origins of modern society, how liberal democracy was conceived in a Christian framework - a rather frank admission coming from an atheist - are you wanting to disagree with his basic contention?<<

Not at all.

As I said, way back when, I have no disagreement that "liberal democracy was conceived in a Christian framework". That is a matter of historical fact. Let's face it, it was the only framework around, at the time.

Incidentally, in what sense is it a "rather frank admission, coming from an atheist"? What do his views on the existence of a deity have to do with an ability to discern that religion plays a part in the lives of millions of people, across many generations? That's just silly.

For the record, I completely accept that Christianity, like the climate, or background radiation, had a part to play in the way society has evolved. But I disagree with the "Christianity is responsible for everything good" brigade. Because Christianity was largely a given. Part of the furniture. A church in every village. A priest at every funeral. Its absence would have been remarked upon far more than its presence.

It took a special type of person to think outside the square, as it were, and even then they would still insist that they were Christians, Vide that Galileo bloke.

As you yourself pointed out, it wasn't even considered a choice until relatively recently. You believed in Genesis because you believed in Genesis because you believed in Genesis.

But why have we suddenly regressed so far? I have found the discussion quite stimulating and thought-provoking, and was looking forward to your response to the last few points I raised. Particularly your identification of "the West's particular lines of thought supplied by the West's dominant religion"

Never mind. Another time, perhaps.

Pericles,
Thanks for your response, but I don't see how I have regressed at all.

I ask you questions when I'd prefer you to clarify your position. I'm still left scratching my head sometimes. You want to contest the profound influence (for good) that Christianity has had historically on our society, while saying, "'Christianity was largely a given. Part of the furniture. A church in every village. A priest at every funeral."

Saying something like that makes me wonder what side you're arguing for. I'd agree that its influence was significant.

Yet when I said that in that time period God as creator was the prevailing view, that was not meant to imply that it was blindly followed or ill considered. I'd suggest they saw that as consistent and logical with their experience of the world.

You say the Christian framework was the only one around. Not so. There were others in other parts of the world. Some of the descendents from these places are now risking their lives in boats to get to enjoy the types of freedoms that we live under here. I don't see high numbers of people beating down any doors trying to go the other way.      

It just seemed to me that I had already answered.

>>Pericles, Thanks for your response, but I don't see how I have regressed at all.<<

But this is a little puzzling.

>>Yet when I said that in that time period God as creator was the prevailing view, that was not meant to imply that it was blindly followed or ill considered.<<

Of course it wasn't "blindly followed or ill considered", which indicates either stupidity or carelessness.

Any society, anywhere in the world, is constrained by the limits of its knowledge. Think for a moment of the Australian aborigines, and their society in the era we are discussing. Their perception of their own origins gave rise to their own stories, the exact same thing that happened with other religions. Only the stories were different, because they had a different environment to sixteenth century Europe.

It would be highly uncharitable of you to describe them as "blindly following", or their acceptance of those stories "ill considered", when they knew no differently.

It was all they knew. A given.

>>I'd suggest they saw that as consistent and logical with their experience of the world.<<

As indeed would I, both for Christians and for the Aboriginal people. Why would they think any differently, without some form of external stimulus?

>>You say the Christian framework was the only one around. Not so. There were others in other parts of the world.<<

These others were called "heathens", I believe.

>>Some of the descendents from these places are now risking their lives in boats to get to enjoy the types of freedoms that we live under here. I don't see high numbers of people beating down any doors trying to go the other way.<<

That is, I would suggest, an entirely different question.

Except, of course, there is a parallel back in the sixteenth century, when the Huguenots risked their lives to "enjoy the types of freedom" they could find in other countries, from England to the New World.

But so what? That isn't relevant to the topic here.

Pericles,
As someone with a Huguenot surname, I am very proud of the achievements of those who spread the teachings of Calvin and the Reformers to various parts of the world. Whatever country these teachings went and took root are today, largely as a result of these teachings, the nations that we most associate with the ideals and benefits of Western democracy.

Which brings us right back to that as-yet-unanswered question, doesn't it Dan S de Merengue

>>Whatever country these teachings went and took root are today, largely as a result of these teachings, the nations that we most associate with the ideals and benefits of Western democracy.<<

That could, of course, have been i) coincidental, ii) largely accidental iii) marginally related or even iv) totally unrelated.

But just so that we can investigate it further, would you mind revisiting the following.

You had asked...

>>Do we then say the profound influence of the West's particular lines of thought supplied by the West's dominant religion to be only incidental and of little consequence?<<

Which prompted me to ask, whether perhaps you could pinpoint for us those "particular lines of thought", so that we might become more able to connect the dots.

Any thoughts?

Pericles,
You have a number of distinct categories there. What is the difference between coincidental and unrelated?

To your last question about lines of Christian thought and connecting the dots, apart from a few that I've already mentioned I thought that Chris Berg gave some insight into some of these.

Take, for example, the religious assumptions which underpinned the development of liberal philosophy. The very modern-seeming idea of human rights comes from the concept of "natural rights" - rights drawn from God. ... Locke came to [his] conclusions from an explicitly Christian mindset. ... For Locke, humans are equal - men, women, workers, shopkeepers, peasants, kings, smart people, stupid people, the physically strong and the physically weak - because they are all capable of knowing God. ...one short passage in the Bible ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's") put medieval Europe's church and state in opposition, and undermined the centralised authority characteristic of other civilisations. 

That's the point at which Berg and I part company, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The very modern-seeming idea of human rights comes from the concept of "natural rights" - rights drawn from God<<

He offers no support to this, you will note.

This opinion of his, however, is one that I share:

"Almost all thinkers in the formative centuries of Western liberal democracy were convinced (or simply assumed) there was a God, and He was a Christian God. The non-theist exceptions were… exceptional. Their religious faith couldn't help but shape their worldview."

In the sense that they knew no better. Or, perhaps less controversially, no different.

But that is still a long way from "therefore the rights came from God".

Pericles,
I thought Berg's article was fairly well supported for one of its length. That you say he doesn't offer evidence for his contention makes me recall the question raised by Mark Duffett earlier, 'Pericles, did you even read the article?'

I would admit that writing a national curriculum for history which faithfully and adequately covers all significant factors within the last two thousand years of our history would be quite a challenge. But your view of history seems particularly blinkered where God or Christianity is concerned.

I'm happy for you to tell me why this isn't so.      

I'm sure you are, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I'm happy for you to tell me why this isn't so<<

But it is your theory, so perhaps it would be polite if you first told me why you believe that it is, as you say, so.

>>Pericles, I thought Berg's article was fairly well supported for one of its length<<

I choose to disagree. The throwaway line that human rights are somehow "drawn from God" is entirely unsubstantiated.

>>That you say he doesn't offer evidence for his contention makes me recall the question raised by Mark Duffett earlier, 'Pericles, did you even read the article?'<<

As I said at the time, yes, I read the article. And I agree with its thrust, which is that a discussion of world history would be incomplete without a reference to Christianity.

What I did disagree with, and the reason I joined the discussion, was the idea that Christianity was somehow uniquely influential, and was not simply "background radiation", so to speak. And, of course, your own stirring-of-the-pot assertion of...

>>...the profound influence Christian thought had in the development of Western science. At it's heart, our scientific pioneers had the confidence to search for the physical laws inherent in the universe as a reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator.<<

Which went way beyond anything that the author claimed. A bridge too far, both then and now.

>>But your view of history seems particularly blinkered where God or Christianity is concerned.<<

In what manner does that differ, if I may ask, from your own view?

Simply 'background radiation'. That's all?

Yep.

>>Simply 'background radiation'. That's all?<<

Taken for granted.

So Pericles, if I try and clarify your position,

If you were writing the history curriculum to cover the last Millenium or two, you'd declare the particular influence of Christianity on Western society as simply 'background radiation',  negligible, something close to zero, nothing more than the sun which evenly radiates over the entire world, and that the particular aspects which charicterise Western society were not at all specified by its dominant religion? 

Personally, I wouldn't call the influence of the sun on our planet "negligible", Dan S de Merengue.

>>...negligible, something close to zero, nothing more than the sun which evenly radiates over the entire world<<

I'd say that the sun was pretty much essential, given that our planet would be uninhabitable by humans without it.

However, I would not for a moment suggest that it equates, in any way, to Christianity. The Earth managed pretty well without that particular religion for quite a few years. The absence of the sun over the same period, on the other hand, would have had a more significant impact on our lives. Or lack of such, to be more accurate.

So I'm not entirely sure how that example could possibly help clarify my position.

The sun does of course have an impact on our climate. Which in turn has had an effect upon the way in which the various civilizations have developed. I'm sure you would agree that European civilizations could well have taken a different path had they, say, experienced the climate - and consequent vegetation forms - of central Africa.

In short, while we do indeed experience a form of radiation from the sun, I certainly wouldn't classify it as "background".

Cosmic radiation, on the other hand, is omnipresent, and very much "background". Exactly how it has affected human lives over the years is impossible to tell, because it is not something you can turn off, in order to see what might happen.

Like Christianity in the period under discussion, it is part of the environmental furniture. We can only speculate, in both instances, whether life would have developed differently, or identically, in its absence.

And your speculation is, of course, equally as valid as mine.

But it is still only speculation, is it not?

Unless you can answer the question, what exactly are "the West's particular lines of thought [that were] supplied by the West's dominant religion". In which case we might be able to use that answer to identify Christianity's impact on history in a more constructive manner.

Pericles,
We're not speculating. We're looking at history; looking at what actually happened. Specifically, what happened in the West.

To your question about Christian lines of thought and their impact on the West, this was dealt with to some extent in much of Berg's article. That you ignore it is what makes me and Mark Duffett ask you whether you read the article, and makes wonder what else you're willing to ignore. 

Christianity was the dominant religion in the West. Its impact on our culture was clear and conspicuous, to some degree measurable, especially in comparison to those other cultures whose histories were different.    

To say it's as ineffectual as some background radiation is a rare and probably extreme opinion that I would say could only come from someone strongly prejudiced by atheism, and is out of step with more moderate atheists such as Berg.  
 

You keep dodging the important questions Dan S de Merengue. I'm starting to wonder why.

And you love twisting things, don't you.

>>We're not speculating. We're looking at history<<

The speculation was not about history. It was about what might have happened, if...

"We can only speculate... whether life would have developed differently, or identically, in [Christianity's] absence"

>>To your question about Christian lines of thought and their impact on the West, this was dealt with to some extent in much of Berg's article.<<

Really? Berg doesn't describe "Christian lines of thought".

Nor does he make any association between these lines of thought, and "their impact on the West"?

He merely asserts that Christianity's impact is self-evident...

"It is a historical truism that the development of liberal democracy, modern political philosophies, notions of human rights and equality, and our social institutions all owe much to Christian thought."

I personally don't find it a "historical truism", and was asking for some evidence.

That you are as equally unable to substantiate the claim as Berg, I take leave to wonder what else you take for granted, without applying any thought to it at all.

>>Christianity was the dominant religion in the West. Its impact on our culture was clear and conspicuous<<

I have no problem with either of those statements. Why do you keep pretending that I have?

We are discussing your claim that:

>>At it's heart, our scientific pioneers had the confidence to search for the physical laws inherent in the universe as a reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator.<<

Which I dispute.

I am also querying "the particular aspects which charicterise Western society [that are] specified by its dominant religion"

That you ignore.

>>To say it's as ineffectual as some background radiation...<<

There you go again. Who said that background radiation is "ineffectual"? Pervasive, yes. But not ineffectual.

>>...a rare and probably extreme opinion that I would say could only come from someone strongly prejudiced by atheism<<

Just as you are "strongly prejudiced" by Christianity.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

History is not complete without mentioning disease either.

We can never know of the artists and thinkers killed before they thrived.

Do we allow disease a role in governing? I think not!

Had Newton not been "christian" he might not have searched for "god's" order in the universe. Or he might. All indications were that he was a bright boy, probably intensely interested in "how" and "why" questions and, being intelligent, unsatisfied with glib and pat answers. Being such, I cannot see him as less than he was, whether "christian" or any other. Such "background noise" does not dull such an intellect. It is clear he did not adhere strictly to trinitarian doctrine and was unmoved by suggestions he should.

Of course, his "faith" was in a time when even aristocrats could be imprisoned, tortured or executed for lack of adherence to trivial doctrine. We all *do* know valid an assertion made under duress can be, don't we?

So much for the contribution of "christianity". Barbarism, ignorance and torture. Unmitigated by the oft-claimed virtues, shown only when the church itself might lose it's grip.

Take it away, it's rubbish.

Rusty.