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.