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.