Jardine,

>> It is true that many of our conceptions of right originated in Christianity. But that doesn’t mean that they could or would not have come about otherwise.<<

This is about as meaningful as saying: “It is true that Mr and Mrs Yoursurname are your parents. But that doesn’t mean that some other couple could or would not have become your parents.”

You can verify statements about natural science phenomena in a laboratory to see what would happen “if”. You cannot do that with statements dealing with historical events.

>> But that doesn't mean that Christianity did not retard intellectual progress for a thousand years, does it? <<

How can you verify this? What civilisation can you point to, that did not go through a stage of Christendom, and where the "intellectual progress" (you probably mean Enlightenment and the ensuing flourish of natural and social sciences up to the present) reached the same levels as in the West?

Besides, when you drive your car it is important that you reach your destiny (“Intellectual progress”?) and not whether or how many times you had to brake or even stop on the way.

As for (the atheist) Habermas’s “justification” for saying things implying a historical insight different from yours, see my post to Killarney.

Not quite, George.

<<This is about as meaningful as saying: “It is true that Mr and Mrs Yoursurname are your parents. But that doesn’t mean that some other couple could or would not have become your parents.”>>

Because we can know why another couple cannot be the parents of a given individual, just as we can know that moral principles can come from sources other than Christianity.

Indeed, the moral principles in Christianity, too, are borrowed/derived from somewhere else. To any extent that Christianity is a cause of our moral principles, it is only a proximal cause. If you really want something to credit for our morality, then you need to look to the ultimate cause, which can only be found in the evolutionary sciences.

At the end of the day, though, I couldn’t really care less if Christianity was responsible for every good thing we enjoy. What matters is the truth of its claims, because without any truth to its claims, or at least the ability to verify their truth value, it can never be a reliable source of anything good in the future, nor can it ever be a reliable source of morality (as the Christian Right unwittingly reminds us of every day).

<<What civilisation can you point to, that did not go through a stage of Christendom, and where the "intellectual progress" (you probably mean Enlightenment and the ensuing flourish of natural and social sciences up to the present) reached the same levels as in the West?>>

This mistakes correlation for causation. The more Christian an American state is, the worse it fares in rankings relating to societal health, but that doesn’t mean that Christianity is the cause of poor societal health.

AJ

Sorry, you apparently did not understand my point, which is not surprising, therefore it was not addressed to you. The rest of your post is irrelevant to what I wrote (e.g. “American State” is not a civilisation, it is just an outgrowth from Christendom, so are other contemporary Western states). And you certainly are entitled to care less about whatever, which does not imply others should likewise; although I agree that Christianity is not necessarily the cause of poor societal health.

And again, as for Habermas’s atheist views - which were the reason I called Graham’s attention to him - please read the quote from him in the article and my post to Killarney.

it is very obvious that the hatred that secularist have for the great things that have flowed from Christ and His teachings simply come from their own lack of morals. The corruption of man is so evident to them (including in themselves) that they despise the fact that science is incapable of dealing with their own natures. THe bible proves true that by denying their Creator that are handed over to every foolish behaviour and dogma possible. The fundie athiest are not only a mean spirited mob but are totally irrational.

Yes, George, I understood your point.

<<Sorry, you apparently did not understand my point, which is not surprising, …>>

Your point was that we cannot know if the Western World would have flourished as well as it did without Christianity (or at all) because we can’t go back and repeat history to test this. If this was not your point, then I suggest you clarify what it is that you meant to say, because I don't think anyone would understand it.

Why would it not have been surprising had I not understood your point, by the way?

<<… therefore it was not addressed to you.>>

I would have thought it wasn’t addressed to me because you were responding to what Jardine said. Are you implying that you did consider addressing it to me too, but then decided that I wasn’t capable of understanding it? If so, why?

<<The rest of your post is irrelevant to what I wrote (e.g. “American State” is not a civilisation, it is just an outgrowth from Christendom, so are other contemporary Western states).>>

I think I have demonstrated otherwise, and your example does not support your claim that what I have said is irrelevant either, as whether or not an American state is a civilisation was irrelevant to my analogy.

<<And you certainly are entitled to care less about whatever, which does not imply others should likewise …>>

Of course it doesn't. What gave you the impression that I thought such a thing? And if you didn't think I thought that, then why would you say this?

<<And again, as for Habermas’s atheist views - which were the reason I called Graham’s attention to him - please read the quote from him in the article and my post to Killarney.>>

Yes, I read the quote. But going by your quote alone, I don't see how what Habermas has said contradicts anything I have said.

That the christian bible is/was a mainstay of western civilisation is clearly axiomatic. (note: it's A mainstay, not THE mainstay). Throughout the long progress of western civilisation to the current global pre-eminence, Christianity has been both an enabler and a bedrock. From the so-called Benedict Option where monastries shut themselves off from the chaos following the fall of the western Roman empire, keeping safe the knowledge and principles of western thought, the Church has been one of the societal structures that 'saved' and nartured those traits which make the west, the west.

This is not so surprising, since Christianity is a western religion. Its traits and underlying philosophy is based on western thought. 'The West' was, in its early phase, a Hellenistic invention, founded on the Plains of Marathon and the wonders of ancient Athens. The Israel of Jesus and his successors had been part of the Hellenistic sphere for over 300 years, and if not thoroughly Hellenised, it had absorbed or been influenced by this western culture. This is particularly so for those like Saul/Paul who carried the message to the gentiles and integrated that message into Rome's culture.

Christianity is a mainstay of western civilisation but equally western civilisation is a mainstay of Christianity. Its unclear to me that either can long survive without the other. Certainly we have more than a few examples where otherwise western socities have sidelined or rejected Christianity, and the results haven't been pretty.

/cont