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.