| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2004 07:25:24 PM |
| Object: |
Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
Ideas about God have shaped the history and culture of the West, and therefore of
the world--including both "good" and "bad" consequences.
Whether we like it or not, people acting for the glory of God have formed our
modern culture. Proponents of revisionist history assign many of the most
unfortunate aspects of history to religious causes, while flatly denying even the
most obvious and overwhelming evidence that religion was the basis for any of the
"good" things that have come to pass.
For example, it is argued that Christianity played no significant role in
sustaining the abolitionist cause but was a major factor in justifying slavery.
The persecution of witches actually had more to do with the conflicts between the
world’s major religions than the oppressive beliefs of fanatical clergy or sexist
men. The same religious leaders who were the first to persecute witches were also
the first to take a stand against slavery.
As it happened, some of the very same people who were active in witch-hunting
played leading roles in declaring that slavery was an abomination in the eyes of
God. It was that conclusion, and only that conclusion, that enabled the West to
abolish slavery.
In fact, slavery was abolished in much of the non-Western world only because of
Western pressure and interference--and slavery continues in some non-Christian
areas. Christians reached this profoundly important conclusion and Muslims did
not. The subsequent success of the abolition movements depended on the fact that
they were able to utilize the resources of the churches.
Jewish Scriptures were the first in the ancient world to set down laws so
restrictive of the slave owner as effectively to make slavery as it was known
impossible. The owner was obliged to treat the "slave" with many of the
considerations you would extend to a guest in your home, being forbidden, for
example, to give his slave cheap wine while he himself enjoyed a more expensive
variety. If the owner drinks fine wine, so must the slave. But as an advocate of
total abolitionism, the Catholic Church was far ahead of everyone. In the
thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a
series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three
major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.
Muslims could muster no such outrage at the practice since Muhammad himself
bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves. So Muslim slavery was perpetuated (and
still is not entirely stamped out), though the current, physical evidence of its
history is not as apparent as that of slavery in the Americas. Muslims preferred
to import African women, not men, and the children of these slaves by their
owners were often killed at birth, which is why you don't see many blacks today
in Islamic countries.
Believers in other non-Biblical faiths similarly find little support in their
traditions for opposing enslavement. In their forms familiar to Western
adherents, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism posit no personal deity at all but
rather an impersonal universal "essence" underlying the universe but possessing
no will, no ability to command human beings in any way about their treatment of
others.
The civilization of the Bible, of the Western nations, possesses advantages over
those of the Koran and other non-Biblical religions precisely because Western
culture emerged from Christian and Jewish Scripture.
The sixteenth-century flowering of science was the normal, gradual, and direct
outgrowth of medieval theology. Christianity was able to stimulate the rise of
science while Islam could not. On the other hand, Islam produced no witch-hunts.
There was no "scientific revolution" that finally burst through the superstitious
barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the
sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of Scholasticism
and the medieval universities.
Theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only
in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not
only were compatible; they were inseparable. The battle over evolution is not a
conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both sides.
The commitment of Christian theologians to reason sustained the rise of science.
The rise of science arose only once, in Europe and nowhere else, and as a direct
result of the researches of medieval Catholic scholastics. This fact has been
obscured by three centuries of atheist attacks on faith, seeking to propagate the
false notion that there is a necessary conflict between science and religion. On
the contrary: Science is the union of theory with empiricism -- one without the
other is not science but mere speculation or craft.
Aristotle, for instance, is full of speculation, but he disdained empiricism. He
reasoned that two rocks dropped from a height will fall at the same pace only if
they weigh the same. A heavier rock will fall faster. This is of course false, as
Aristotle would have known if he had tried dropping a big rock and a small one
off a cliff.
Most acknowledge that medieval Islam preserved a knowledge of classical Greece
and its culture (so did medieval Christian learning, albeit in Latin
translation), but Muslim veneration of the Greek philosophers actually held the
Arabs back: The result was to freeze Islamic learning and stifle all possibility
of the rise of an Islamic science, and for the same reasons that Greek learning
stagnated of itself: fundamental assumptions antithetical to science.
Science never took root in the Muslim world for the additional reason that
Muslims lack a Biblical perspective on God. For believers in Biblical religion,
God is the creator not only of existence, but of the laws of nature. To discover
those laws is to meet Him through the medium of His creation. By contrast, Islam
did not fully embrace the notion that the universe ran along on fundamental
principles laid down by God at the Creation, but assumed the world was sustained
by his will on a continuing basis. There were, therefore, no general principles
to discover -- no theorizing to do. The same goes for Eastern faiths, which
entirely lack the belief in a God as Creator.
Consider the deeply held Christian faith of Isaac Newton: He looked on the whole
universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by
applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had
laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher's treasure hunt. He believed
that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in
the constitution of elements but also partly in certain papers and traditions
handed down in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in
Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.
http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_55/ai_105408306
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691114366/qid=1090110059/
http://biologybooks.net/0691114366.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22glory+of+god%22+stark
.
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 08:29:50 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:362dnXfbf9QiXmTdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
Ideas about God have shaped the history and culture of the West, and
therefore of
the world--including both "good" and "bad" consequences.
Whether we like it or not, people acting for the glory of God have formed
our
modern culture. Proponents of revisionist history assign many of the most
unfortunate aspects of history to religious causes, while flatly denying
even the
most obvious and overwhelming evidence that religion was the basis for any
of the
"good" things that have come to pass.
For example, it is argued that Christianity played no significant role in
sustaining the abolitionist cause but was a major factor in justifying
slavery.
The persecution of witches actually had more to do with the conflicts
between the
world's major religions than the oppressive beliefs of fanatical clergy or
sexist
men. The same religious leaders who were the first to persecute witches
were also
the first to take a stand against slavery.
As it happened, some of the very same people who were active in
witch-hunting
played leading roles in declaring that slavery was an abomination in the
eyes of
God. It was that conclusion, and only that conclusion, that enabled the
West to
abolish slavery.
In fact, slavery was abolished in much of the non-Western world only
because of
Western pressure and interference--and slavery continues in some
non-Christian
areas. Christians reached this profoundly important conclusion and Muslims
did
not. The subsequent success of the abolition movements depended on the
fact that
they were able to utilize the resources of the churches.
snip<
One major difference between Western slavery and Moslem slavery is that the
children of Western slaves were born as slaves; under Islam the children of
slaves are born free. This difference is one reason why Muslims did not ban
slavery. Slavery under Islam was something you did to a person, in the West
it was something you did to a people.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 11:41:29 AM |
|
|
"Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iXuKc.2654$iK.631@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:362dnXfbf9QiXmTdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
snip<
One major difference between Western slavery and Moslem slavery is that the
children of Western slaves were born as slaves; under Islam the children of
slaves are born free. This difference is one reason why Muslims did not ban
slavery. Slavery under Islam was something you did to a person, in the West
it was something you did to a people.
After reading the first chapter of Zinn's A people's history of the United States
I might agree;
Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress
excerpted from a
People's History of the United States
by Howard Zinn
Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their
villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the
strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords,
speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts.
He later wrote of this in his log:
"They... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things,
which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded
everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome
features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a
sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no
iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With
fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."
These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who
were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their
hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the
Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the
government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and
its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.
Columbus wrote:
"As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took
some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me
information of whatever there is in these parts."
The information that Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold?
****
The Indians, Columbus reported, "are so naive and so free with their possessions
that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for
something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with
anyone...." He concluded his report by asking for a little help from their
Majesties, and in return he would bring them from his next voyage "as much gold
as they need . . . and as many slaves as they ask." He was full of religious
talk: "Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His way
over apparent impossibilities."
Because of Columbus's exaggerated report and promises, his second expedition was
given seventeen ships and more than twelve hundred men. The aim was clear: slaves
and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as
captives. But as word spread of the Europeans' intent they found more and more
empty villages. On Haiti, they found that the sailors left behind at Fort Navidad
had been killed in a battle with the Indians, after they had roamed the island in
gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor.
Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after expedition into the
interior. They found no gold fields, but had to fill up the ships returning to
Spain with some kind of dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave
raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in
pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens
to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest
arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town,
who reported that, although the slaves were "naked as the day they were born,"
they showed "no more embarrassment than animals." Columbus later wrote: "Let us
in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold."
But too many of the slaves died in captivity. And so Columbus, desperate to pay
back dividends to those who had invested, had to make good his promise to fill
the ships with gold. In the province of Cicao on Haiti, where he and his men
imagined huge gold fields to exist, they ordered all persons fourteen years or
older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brought
it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found
without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death.
The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of
dust garnered from the streams. So they fled, were hunted down with dogs, and
were killed.
Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had
armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged
them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with
cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two
years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on
Haiti were dead.
When it became clear that there was no gold left, the Indians were taken as slave
labor on huge estates, known later as encomiendas. They were worked at a
ferocious pace, and died by the thousands. By the year 1515, there were perhaps
fifty thousand Indians left. By 1550, there were five hundred. A report of the
year 1650 shows none of the original Arawaks or their descendants left on the
island.
The chief source-and, on many matters the only source-of in formation about what
happened on the islands after Columbus came is Bartolome de las Casas, who, as a
young priest, participated in the conquest of Cuba. For a time he owned a
plantation on which Indian slaves worked, but he gave that up and became a
vehement critic of Spanish cruelty.
*****
In Book Two of his History of the Indies, Las Casas (who at first urged replacing
Indians by black slaves, thinking they were stronger and would survive, but later
relented when he saw the effects on blacks) tells about the treatment of the
Indians by the Spaniards. It is a unique account and deserves to be quoted at
length:
"Endless testimonies . . . prove the mild and pacific temperament of the
natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy;
small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral,
it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to
please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians..."
Las Casas tells how the Spaniards "grew more conceited every day" and after a
while refused to walk any distance. They "rode the backs of Indians if they were
in a hurry" or were carried on hammocks by Indians running in relays. "In this
case they also had Indians carry large leaves to shade them from the sun and
others to fan them with goose wings."
Total control led to total cruelty. The Spaniards "thought nothing of knifing
Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness
of their blades." Las Casas tells how "two of these so-called Christians met two
Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun
beheaded the boys."
The Indians' attempts to defend themselves failed. And when they ran off into the
hills they were found and killed. So, Las Casas reports. "they suffered and died
in the mines and other labors in desperate silence, knowing not a soul in the
world to whom they could tun for help." He describes their work in the mines:
"... mountains are stripped from top to bottom and bottom to top a thousand
times; they dig, split rocks, move stones, and carry dirt on their backs to wash
it in the rivers, while those who wash gold stay in the water all the time with
their backs bent so constantly it breaks them; and when water invades the mines,
the most arduous task of all is to dry the mines by scooping up pansful of water
and throwing it up outside....
After each six or eight months' work in the mines, which was the time required of
each crew to dig enough gold for melting, up to a third of the men died. While
the men were sent many miles away to the mines, the wives remained to work the
soil, forced into the excruciating job of digging and making thousands of hills
for cassava plants.
Thus husbands and wives were together only once every eight or ten months and
when they met they were so exhausted and depressed on both sides . . . they
ceased to procreate. As for the newly born, they died early because their
mothers, overworked and famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason,
while I was in Cuba, 7000 children died in three months. Some mothers even
drowned their babies from sheer desperation.... In this way, husbands died in the
mines, wives died at work, and children died from lack of milk . . . and in a
short time this land which was so great, so powerful and fertile ... was
depopulated.... My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now
I tremble as I write...."
When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there were 60,000 people
living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over
three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future
generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness
can hardly believe it...."
Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the
Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even
if his figures are exaggerations (were there 3 million Indians to begin with, as
he says, or less than a million, as some historians have calculated, or 8 million
as others now believe?) is conquest, slavery, death. When we read the history
books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic
adventure-there is no bloodshed-and Columbus Day is a celebration.
*****
The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks) the quiet
acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress-is only one aspect of a
certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of
governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders. It is as if they, like Columbus,
deserve universal acceptance, as if they-the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln,
Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices
of the Supreme Court-represent the nation as a whole. The pretense is that there
really is such a thing as "the United States," subject to occasional conflicts
and quarrels, but fundamentally a community of people with common interests. It
is as if there really is a "national interest" represented in the Constitution,
in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the
courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass
media.
"History is the memory of states," wrote Henry Kissinger in his first book, A
World Restored, in which he proceeded to tell the history of nineteenth-century
Europe from the viewpoint of the leaders of Austria and England, ignoring the
millions who suffered from those states men's policies. From his standpoint, the
"peace" that Europe had before the French Revolution was "restored" by the
diplomacy of a few national leaders.
But for factory workers in England, farmers in France, colored people in Asia and
Africa, women and children everywhere except in the upper classes, it was a world
of conquest, violence, hunger, exploitation-a world not restored but
disintegrated.
*****
When the Pilgrims came to New England they too were coming not to vacant land but
to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians. The governor of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony, John Winthrop, created the excuse to take Indian land by declaring
the area legally a "vacuum." The Indians, he said, had not "subdued" the land,
and therefore had only a "natural" right to it, but not a "civil right." A
"natural right" did not have legal standing.
The Puritans also appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give
thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for
thy possession." And to justify their use of force to take the land, they cited
Romans 13:2: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
*****
The Indian population of 10 million that lived north of Mexico when Columbus came
would ultimately be reduced to less than a million. Huge numbers of Indians would
die from diseases introduced by the whites. A Dutch traveler in New Netherland
wrote in 1656 that "the Indians . . . affirm, that before the arrival of the
Christians, and before the smallpox broke out amongst them, they were ten times
as numerous as they now are, and that their population had been melted down by
this disease, whereof nine-tenths of them have died." When the English first
settled Martha's Vineyard in 1642, the Wampanoags there numbered perhaps three
thousand. There were no wars on that island, but by 1764, only 313 Indians were
left there. Similarly, Block Island Indians numbered perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 in
1662, and by 1774 were reduced to fifty-one.
Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians,
their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in
civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the
need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity,
in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was
transformed into the murder of whole peoples.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Columbus_PeoplesHx.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=excerpt+A+People%27s+History+of+the+United+States&btnG=Search
Ed
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 04:08:47 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<362dnXfbf9QiXmTdRVn_iw@comcast.com>...
Ideas about God have shaped the history and culture of the West, and therefore of
the world--including both "good" and "bad" consequences.
Whether we like it or not, people acting for the glory of God have formed our
modern culture. Proponents of revisionist history assign many of the most
unfortunate aspects of history to religious causes, while flatly denying even the
most obvious and overwhelming evidence that religion was the basis for any of the
"good" things that have come to pass.
For example, it is argued that Christianity played no significant role in
sustaining the abolitionist cause but was a major factor in justifying slavery.
The persecution of witches actually had more to do with the conflicts between the
world?s major religions than the oppressive beliefs of fanatical clergy or sexist
men. The same religious leaders who were the first to persecute witches were also
the first to take a stand against slavery.
As it happened, some of the very same people who were active in witch-hunting
played leading roles in declaring that slavery was an abomination in the eyes of
God. It was that conclusion, and only that conclusion, that enabled the West to
abolish slavery.
Try http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&selm=36717622.38996%40news.ala.net
slave slaves slavery enslaved slaving
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+slave+OR+slaves+OR+slavery+OR+enslaved+OR+slaving&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=gn&q=slave+OR+slaves+OR+slavery+OR+enslaved+OR+slaving&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=slave+OR+slaves+OR+slavery+OR+enslaved+OR+slaving&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=slave%20slaves%20slavery%20enslaved%20slaving&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
In fact, slavery was abolished in much of the non-Western world only because of
Western pressure and interference--and slavery continues in some non-Christian
areas. Christians reached this profoundly important conclusion and Muslims did
not. The subsequent success of the abolition movements depended on the fact that
they were able to utilize the resources of the churches.
Jewish Scriptures were the first in the ancient world to set down laws so
restrictive of the slave owner as effectively to make slavery as it was known
impossible. The owner was obliged to treat the "slave" with many of the
considerations you would extend to a guest in your home, being forbidden, for
example, to give his slave cheap wine while he himself enjoyed a more expensive
variety. If the owner drinks fine wine, so must the slave. But as an advocate of
total abolitionism, the Catholic Church was far ahead of everyone. In the
thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a
series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three
major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.
Muslims could muster no such outrage at the practice since Muhammad himself
bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves. So Muslim slavery was perpetuated (and
still is not entirely stamped out), though the current, physical evidence of its
history is not as apparent as that of slavery in the Americas. Muslims preferred
to import African women, not men, and the children of these slaves by their
owners were often killed at birth, which is why you don't see many blacks today
in Islamic countries.
Believers in other non-Biblical faiths similarly find little support in their
traditions for opposing enslavement. In their forms familiar to Western
adherents, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism posit no personal deity at all but
rather an impersonal universal "essence" underlying the universe but possessing
no will, no ability to command human beings in any way about their treatment of
others.
The civilization of the Bible, of the Western nations, possesses advantages over
those of the Koran and other non-Biblical religions precisely because Western
culture emerged from Christian and Jewish Scripture.
The sixteenth-century flowering of science was the normal, gradual, and direct
outgrowth of medieval theology. Christianity was able to stimulate the rise of
science while Islam could not. On the other hand, Islam produced no witch-hunts.
There was no "scientific revolution" that finally burst through the superstitious
barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the
sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of Scholasticism
and the medieval universities.
***** Teresi
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dick+Teresi%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dick+Teresi%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Dick%20Teresi%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=*****%20Teresi&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Felipe%20Fernandez-Armesto%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Felipe+Fernandez-Armesto%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Felipe+Fernandez-Armesto%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Felipe%20Fernandez%20Armesto&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Janet Abu-Lughod
http://www.google.com/search?q=Janet+%22Abu-Lughod%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Janet+%22Abu-Lughod%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://news.google.com/news?q=Janet%20%22Abu-Lughod%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Janet%20&as_epq=Abu%20Lughod&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Joseph Needham
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Joseph+Needham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Joseph+Needham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Joseph%20Needham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Joseph%20Needham&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Toby Huff
http://www.google.com/search?q=Toby+Huff&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Toby+Huff&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Toby%20Huff&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only
in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not
only were compatible; they were inseparable. The battle over evolution is not a
conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both sides.
The commitment of Christian theologians to reason sustained the rise of science.
The rise of science arose only once, in Europe and nowhere else, and as a direct
result of the researches of medieval Catholic scholastics. This fact has been
obscured by three centuries of atheist attacks on faith, seeking to propagate the
false notion that there is a necessary conflict between science and religion. On
the contrary: Science is the union of theory with empiricism -- one without the
other is not science but mere speculation or craft.
Aristotle, for instance, is full of speculation, but he disdained empiricism. He
reasoned that two rocks dropped from a height will fall at the same pace only if
they weigh the same. A heavier rock will fall faster. This is of course false, as
Aristotle would have known if he had tried dropping a big rock and a small one
off a cliff.
Most acknowledge that medieval Islam preserved a knowledge of classical Greece
and its culture (so did medieval Christian learning, albeit in Latin
translation), but Muslim veneration of the Greek philosophers actually held the
Arabs back: The result was to freeze Islamic learning and stifle all possibility
of the rise of an Islamic science, and for the same reasons that Greek learning
stagnated of itself: fundamental assumptions antithetical to science.
Where Were You in 1002?
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/collins/122499coll.html
Arabic mathematics : forgotten brilliance?
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
Islamic Scientists
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Islamic%20scientists%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Islamic+scientists%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Islamic%20scientists%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Islamic%20scientists&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Science never took root in the Muslim world for the additional reason that
Muslims lack a Biblical perspective on God. For believers in Biblical religion,
God is the creator not only of existence, but of the laws of nature. To discover
those laws is to meet Him through the medium of His creation. By contrast, Islam
did not fully embrace the notion that the universe ran along on fundamental
principles laid down by God at the Creation, but assumed the world was sustained
by his will on a continuing basis. There were, therefore, no general principles
to discover -- no theorizing to do. The same goes for Eastern faiths, which
entirely lack the belief in a God as Creator.
Consider the deeply held Christian faith of Isaac Newton: He looked on the whole
universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by
applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had
laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher's treasure hunt. He believed
that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in
the constitution of elements but also partly in certain papers and traditions
handed down in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in
Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.
http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_55/ai_105408306
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691114366/qid=1090110059/
http://biologybooks.net/0691114366.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22glory+of+god%22+stark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 11:30:26 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0407180108.6a312e38@posting.google.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<362dnXfbf9QiXmTdRVn_iw@comcast.com>...
Ideas about God have shaped the history and culture of the West, and
therefore of
the world--including both "good" and "bad" consequences.
Whether we like it or not, people acting for the glory of God have formed our
modern culture. Proponents of revisionist history assign many of the most
unfortunate aspects of history to religious causes, while flatly denying even
the
most obvious and overwhelming evidence that religion was the basis for any of
the
"good" things that have come to pass.
For example, it is argued that Christianity played no significant role in
sustaining the abolitionist cause but was a major factor in justifying
slavery.
The persecution of witches actually had more to do with the conflicts between
the
world?s major religions than the oppressive beliefs of fanatical clergy or
sexist
men. The same religious leaders who were the first to persecute witches were
also
the first to take a stand against slavery.
As it happened, some of the very same people who were active in witch-hunting
played leading roles in declaring that slavery was an abomination in the eyes
of
God. It was that conclusion, and only that conclusion, that enabled the West
to
abolish slavery.
Try
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&selm=36717622.38996%40news.ala.net
Pretty good link, it would take some time to respond.
slave slaves slavery enslaved slaving
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+slave+OR+slaves+OR+slavery+OR+enslaved+OR+slaving&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=gn&q=slave+OR+slaves+OR+slavery+OR+enslaved+OR+slaving&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=slave+OR+slaves+OR+slavery+OR+enslaved+OR+slaving&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=slave%20slaves%20slavery%20enslaved%20slaving&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
In fact, slavery was abolished in much of the non-Western world only because
of
Western pressure and interference--and slavery continues in some
non-Christian
areas. Christians reached this profoundly important conclusion and Muslims
did
not. The subsequent success of the abolition movements depended on the fact
that
they were able to utilize the resources of the churches.
Jewish Scriptures were the first in the ancient world to set down laws so
restrictive of the slave owner as effectively to make slavery as it was known
impossible. The owner was obliged to treat the "slave" with many of the
considerations you would extend to a guest in your home, being forbidden, for
example, to give his slave cheap wine while he himself enjoyed a more
expensive
variety. If the owner drinks fine wine, so must the slave. But as an advocate
of
total abolitionism, the Catholic Church was far ahead of everyone. In the
thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and
a
series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in
three
major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.
Muslims could muster no such outrage at the practice since Muhammad himself
bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves. So Muslim slavery was perpetuated
(and
still is not entirely stamped out), though the current, physical evidence of
its
history is not as apparent as that of slavery in the Americas. Muslims
preferred
to import African women, not men, and the children of these slaves by their
owners were often killed at birth, which is why you don't see many blacks
today
in Islamic countries.
Believers in other non-Biblical faiths similarly find little support in their
traditions for opposing enslavement. In their forms familiar to Western
adherents, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism posit no personal deity at all
but
rather an impersonal universal "essence" underlying the universe but
possessing
no will, no ability to command human beings in any way about their treatment
of
others.
The civilization of the Bible, of the Western nations, possesses advantages
over
those of the Koran and other non-Biblical religions precisely because Western
culture emerged from Christian and Jewish Scripture.
The sixteenth-century flowering of science was the normal, gradual, and
direct
outgrowth of medieval theology. Christianity was able to stimulate the rise
of
science while Islam could not. On the other hand, Islam produced no
witch-hunts.
There was no "scientific revolution" that finally burst through the
superstitious
barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the
sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of
Scholasticism
and the medieval universities.
***** Teresi
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dick+Teresi%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dick+Teresi%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Dick%20Teresi%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=*****%20Teresi&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Felipe%20Fernandez-Armesto%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Felipe+Fernandez-Armesto%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Felipe+Fernandez-Armesto%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Felipe%20Fernandez%20Armesto&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Janet Abu-Lughod
http://www.google.com/search?q=Janet+%22Abu-Lughod%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Janet+%22Abu-Lughod%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://news.google.com/news?q=Janet%20%22Abu-Lughod%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Janet%20&as_epq=Abu%20Lughod&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Joseph Needham
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Joseph+Needham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Joseph+Needham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Joseph%20Needham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Joseph%20Needham&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Toby Huff
http://www.google.com/search?q=Toby+Huff&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Toby+Huff&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Toby%20Huff&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born
only
in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science
not
only were compatible; they were inseparable. The battle over evolution is not
a
conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both
sides.
The commitment of Christian theologians to reason sustained the rise of
science.
The rise of science arose only once, in Europe and nowhere else, and as a
direct
result of the researches of medieval Catholic scholastics. This fact has been
obscured by three centuries of atheist attacks on faith, seeking to propagate
the
false notion that there is a necessary conflict between science and religion.
On
the contrary: Science is the union of theory with empiricism -- one without
the
other is not science but mere speculation or craft.
Aristotle, for instance, is full of speculation, but he disdained empiricism.
He
reasoned that two rocks dropped from a height will fall at the same pace only
if
they weigh the same. A heavier rock will fall faster. This is of course
false, as
Aristotle would have known if he had tried dropping a big rock and a small
one
off a cliff.
Most acknowledge that medieval Islam preserved a knowledge of classical
Greece
and its culture (so did medieval Christian learning, albeit in Latin
translation), but Muslim veneration of the Greek philosophers actually held
the
Arabs back: The result was to freeze Islamic learning and stifle all
possibility
of the rise of an Islamic science, and for the same reasons that Greek
learning
stagnated of itself: fundamental assumptions antithetical to science.
Where Were You in 1002?
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/collins/122499coll.html
Arabic mathematics : forgotten brilliance?
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
Islamic Scientists
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Islamic%20scientists%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Islamic+scientists%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Islamic%20scientists%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Islamic%20scientists&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Science never took root in the Muslim world for the additional reason that
Muslims lack a Biblical perspective on God. For believers in Biblical
religion,
God is the creator not only of existence, but of the laws of nature. To
discover
those laws is to meet Him through the medium of His creation. By contrast,
Islam
did not fully embrace the notion that the universe ran along on fundamental
principles laid down by God at the Creation, but assumed the world was
sustained
by his will on a continuing basis. There were, therefore, no general
principles
to discover -- no theorizing to do. The same goes for Eastern faiths, which
entirely lack the belief in a God as Creator.
Consider the deeply held Christian faith of Isaac Newton: He looked on the
whole
universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read
by
applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had
laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher's treasure hunt. He
believed
that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and
in
the constitution of elements but also partly in certain papers and traditions
handed down in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in
Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.
http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_55/ai_105408306
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691114366/qid=1090110059/
http://biologybooks.net/0691114366.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22glory+of+god%22+stark
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
17 Jul 2004 07:45:14 PM |
|
|
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same "Christians" have declared
open warfare on science, literally seeking to ban
the teaching of any & all science that contradicts their
limited religious views.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
17 Jul 2004 07:44:50 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZudnV5vrrRLW2TdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same "Christians" have declared
open warfare on science, literally seeking to ban
the teaching of any & all science that contradicts their
limited religious views.
Looks like your defense is pretty weak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
17 Jul 2004 11:46:38 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wu6dnaYGrbvQVWTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZudnV5vrrRLW2TdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same "Christians" have declared
open warfare on science, literally seeking to ban
the teaching of any & all science that contradicts their
limited religious views.
Looks like your defense is pretty weak.
Translation: *****, that's a good point!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 03:09:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:44:50 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZudnV5vrrRLW2TdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same "Christians" have declared
open warfare on science, literally seeking to ban
the teaching of any & all science that contradicts their
limited religious views.
Looks like your defense is pretty weak.
Yes, he foolishly points out the real world to you. The great
majority of Christian ministers supported slavery. People who were
against it were criticized for being against the Bible. Scientists
have risked their lives and sometimes been killed because they
reported discoveries that countered Christian teachings. Your entire
post is a revisionist distortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 11:09:50 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1iakf0ln4vl246tohtq1bs5thaifj6pg5j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:44:50 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZudnV5vrrRLW2TdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same "Christians" have declared
open warfare on science, literally seeking to ban
the teaching of any & all science that contradicts their
limited religious views.
Looks like your defense is pretty weak.
Yes, he foolishly points out the real world to you. The great
majority of Christian ministers supported slavery. People who were
against it were criticized for being against the Bible. Scientists
have risked their lives and sometimes been killed because they
reported discoveries that countered Christian teachings. Your entire
post is a revisionist distortion.
I guess it is a University Press, Princeton, that is, and you know how lies come
from universities right?
http://pup.princeton.edu/
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7122.html
How faith made our world., May 16, 2004
Reviewer: David Marshall (Seattle area)
The reviews of this book below are pretty varied: intelligent readers complain
that Stark is trying to use sociology to undermine religion, and to prop it up;
that he is a "self-styled agnostic," and that he doesn't back up his faith in God
(if that's what you want, read my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man!); that he
despises post-modernism but gives in to it, and even that he tries to prove a
point that the reader agrees with!
You can't satisfy everyone.
Personally, I found this book enjoyable and thought-provoking, though I didn't
agree with every point, either.
Stark thinks for himself. He presents the facts in fresh perspective, offers
serious arguments, and lets the chips fall on both sides of the page. You must be
doing something interesting when you get criticized as an unbeliever by
believers, and as a believer by unbelievers.
Stark's thesis is that belief in "One True God" has sociological effects
different from belief in many gods or no gods. Monotheism created the cultural
solidarity of the Jews that allowed them to survive as a people. (As long as they
retained that faith.) Christianity spread during the early centuries through the
social networks of ordinary believers. Professional missionaries, Stark argues,
are not much use. (This is a good book for missionaries, by the way.) After the
Roman empire became officially Christian, the effort to convert Europeans
stalled; Stark doubts if the mass of Europeans ever did become orthodox
Christians. Given the nature of monotheism, he thinks conflict between Muslims
and Christians was inevitable: "It is precisely God as a conscious, responsive,
good supreme being of infinite scope -- who prompts awareness of idolatry, false
Gods, and heretical religions." This argument seems somewhat in conflict with his
claim that Medieval Europeans were not really that Christian. But it could be
argued that even a vague theism lent Europe the solidarity by which to resist
Islam, that India for example lacked.
Stark argues that persecution of Jews by Christians and Muslims came during times
of stress from "significant (outside) threats." I found this one of his most
interesting, and convincing, arguments. Given similar attacks on minorities in
Asia, though, I think the phenomena might also be given a broader sociological
explanation, such as Rene Girard's theory of scape-goating. It would be
interesting to try to fit the two theories together, somehow. Also, to what
degree might the three Western monotheisms resemble one another simply because
they have interacted, rather than because of their common believe in God?
Stark also offers an intriguing explanation of the general tolerance of American
society, which he thinks is stronger among believers than among secularists.
In effect, Stark dares to challenge the great religious dogma of our day, that
all religions are basically the same, whether equally good, bad, or useful. (To
paraphrase Gibbon.) Stark argues that, for better AND for worse, faiths are not
equal. While at some points, he may overlook sociological or psychological
similarities that creep into every community of like-minded persons, I think he
is right that different world views do make different worlds. His argument may
need to be both narrowed and expanded, at different points. Theisms do share some
qualities, but in other regards, Confucianism (which can also be a form of
theism, BTW) may seem more like Christianity, and Islam more like Marxism or
Mormonism. Those characteristics, I might argue, have in part to do with the
personalities and actions of their founders.
While I might be inclined to tweak some of his theories a bit, Stark's books
constitute a thought-provoking, open-minded starting point for considering how
Judeo-Christian faith helped form the peculiar world that we inhabit.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
continuing to work through his writings, March 4, 2004
Reviewer: rmwilliamsjr (tucson, arizona USA)
One True God: Historical consequences of Monotheism
Rodney Stark
Oftentimes i find myself very directed in my reading, the last few years have
been such a time. I found what is vol 2 of this set For the Glory of God first,
as a result of recommendations to read simply one chapter out of it. This book is
vol 1 of the set, and now i found that i bought yet another book by Stark The
Rise of Christianity, thus moving into the other systematic way of reading, not
by topic but by author. And this author has earned such a task, he is witty,
interesting and more important presents these big important ideas and defends
them with flair.
His big idea is the exchange relationship as a sociological way of looking at
religions. The book assumes this and moves on to showing the results of such
thinking. The first is that some types of Gods work better as exchange partners,
powerful, larger scope(not a local deity, bound to a particular piece of land), a
personal Being not an intellectual essence. This is essentially chapter 1- "God's
Nature". The subtopic is the inevitable dualism that most answers to the question
of theodicy requires, that is blaming the presence of evil in the universe on
another less powerful god, devil, satan etc.
Chapter 2- "God's Chosen: Monotheism and Mission" is an analysis of inclusivity
vs exclusivity, or universalism vs particularism and the missionary impulse.
Aptly summed up in the phrase: "indeed the duty, to spread knowledge of the One
True god: the duty to missionize in inherent in dualistic monotheism" pg 35 The
analysis of the Church of Power and the Church of Piety and the Constantinian
synthesis is worth the reading of the entire book, pg 59-77. It is these pages i
would recommend reading to see if you would desire to read the whole book.
Converting the masses vs converting the elite and powerful is in fact a great
criticism of the church that bears understanding and prayful consideration as a
very serious failing.
Chapter 3- "God's Wrath:Religious Conflict" is an analysis of one of the biggest
items in history that atheists or secular people point to as a deep criticism of
the Church and rightfully so. "But if monotheists believe there is only One True
God, they have been unable to sustain One True Religion. Rather, from the start
all of the major monotheisms have been prone to splinter into many True Religions
that sometimes acknowlege one another's right ot coexist and sometimes don't.
Hence internal and external conflict is inherent in particularistic religion." pg
117 He follows up by introducing the idea of the natural difference in the
intensity of human committment to religions and how different groups supply a
varying amount of requirements to match the person with the system he/she adheres
to. This leads naturally into an informative analysis of how the Church as asked
and relied upon the State to enforce conformity and why. The Constantinian
synthesis with a sociological bent, nicely done. A good subtopic is how both
internal and external tolerance are turned on together but external demands, in
particular the battles with Islam via the Crusades.
Chapter 4- "God's Kingdom: Religious Persistence" is an analysis of Jewish
assimilation and persistence, with an interested example of the Chinese Jews.
Chapter 5- "God's Grace: Pluralism and Civility" is a hopeful analysis and
prescription for how to get along(civility) and the basis for such in true
pluralism not the synthetic state enforced peace.
So i liked the book, i appreciate the author's writing, both style and creativity
and hope that you do as well.
2 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
Provocative and Interesting, but typically flawed, May 15, 2003
Reviewer: A reader (Eugene, OR United States)
Like most of Stark's contributions, this book is down-right fun to read:
engaging, polemical, clear, provocative, etc..
But the flaws are there, as always. First off, the whole reduction of religious
belief and involvement to some sort of abstract "economic man" theory is not only
annoying, but more importantly, void of empirical data. Costs, benefits, exchange
relations, limited supplies, compensators....please. Give it a rest. Sure, some
people may choose gods in the same manner they choose laundry detergent -- but
most people are religious because of good old fashion processes of socialization.
They believe in God because grandma and grandpa do. They worship Buddha because
everyone in their village does. They pray to Jesus because that's what mom said
to do. For Stark to cling to this rational choice silliness is bizarre -- and
strange, coming from someone supposedly affiliated with the discipline sociology.
Oh well. I at least appreciate the alternative way of looking at and theorizing
about people, flawed though it is.
Finally -- and this is nit-picky I know, but check out this quote in the
introduction (p.5):
"It is entirely impossible for science to discover the existence or nonexistence
of Gods."
Hm. Really? What if for "Gods" we substituted other possibilities:
"It is entirely impossible for science to discover the existence or nonexistence
of Fairies....
of Thor...
of leprechauns....
of floating purple dragons in outer space..."
Those who assert there is a God out there shoulder the burden of proof. Baring
convincing evidence, we must remain skeptical. I don't understand why Stark --
who hates "postmodernism and other opponents of reason" (p.14) -- becomes quite
post-modern himself by allowing for the existence of Gods without empirical
evidence.
3 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Weakest of his most recent works, September 7, 2002
Reviewer: George M. Zaehringer (Ventura, California United States)
The problem is that Stark seems to have begun with an assumption,'Religion
thrives in a free-market, pluralistic society,' and then spent the rest of the
book trying to support it, rather than letting the research take him to the its
conclusion. Actually, I quite agree with him, and I say we should all thank God -
literally - for two great oceans and forefathers of rather dicey faith. But there
are no revelations here, like there were in "The Churching of America," and "The
Early Christian Church." If there is anything you can take away with from this
book, it is this: we as Americans really ARE different. I know that human nature
is universally the same, but for whatever reason, we just don't see the world the
way other poeples do. Whatever our warts are, and we sure do have them, they pale
in comparison to Rhine residents roasting Jews alive, Crusaders reveling in
infants impaled on their spears, Muslim warriors slaughtering whole towns of
"infidels." There are a lot of pious people in Hell, wondering how they got
there. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition
7 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Why (some) sociologists ought not to do theology, March 26, 2002
Reviewer: Kerry Walters (Lewisburg, PA USA)
Stark's account of monotheism reads as if it could've been written in the 18th
century, when the newly born Enlightenment mind was energetic and crowingly
confident in its ability to demystify religion. It has an air of no-nonsense
social science analysis about it. Unfortunately, it also has an air of extreme
naivete.
Stark takes as his subject matter the social consequences of monotheistic
religion, claiming that the issue of whether God actually exists is unimportant
and undiscoverable. His basic conclusions are two: (1) people gravitate toward
religion because it promises them something they want--one might call this a
"consumer mentality," although Stark himself doesn't use such a label; and (2)
monotheistic religions, insofar as each of them claims to be the exclusive
sellers of what people want, necessarily breed intolerance.
The problem is that neither of these claims really stand up as straight as Stark
wants them to. Surely, for example, there are many reasons why people accept
religious beliefs. Some of them may be as crassly consumerist as Stark maintains,
but others aren't. Many people gravitate toward religious belief out of a sheer
sense of wonderment, or love, or joy. these motives don't fit nicely into Stark's
gameplan, and had he even a passing acquaintance with spiritual autobiographies
or the tradition of mystical literature in the three Abrahamic religions, he'd
have known this. Moreover, if one questions his claim that the draw of
monotheistic religions is primarily giving people what they want, then his claim
that the traditions are necessarily intolerant because competing against one
another likewise becomes problematic.
Stark, a self-styled agnostic, argues that his agnosticism allows him to look
upon the phenomenon of religion objectively. One wonders, however. It's clear
that the underlying text throughout *One True God* is the old Enlightenment
assumption that religious monotheists are either incredibly irrational or selfish
or frightened. And in an enlightened world in which everything is perfectly
explicable in terms of social analysis, how can one take such religious
worldviews seriously?
A sociologist who offers much more reflective accounts of religion is Peter
Berger. Read Stark if you wish, but then turn to Berger. --This text refers to
the Hardcover edition
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Provoking, refreshingly honest, January 20, 2002
Reviewer: Jerry Nora (Wilkinsburg, PA USA)
Rodney Stark has done much to dispel my natural-science prejudices against
sociology with this very well-written book about something that many, if not
most, Americans take for granted: monotheism.
Stark goes over all the basics: why people choose a faith, the nature of
monotheism as opposed to polytheism, and the history of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. The historical perspectives are particularly handy in these troubled
times, as Stark is particularly interested in why religious violence breaks out.
Accounts of interfaith violence have been particularly in the foreground of our
consciousness with several books on Catholicism (especially the papacy) and
anti-Semitism, and above all, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Much ink has been spent
deciphering the relationship with Islam proper and fundamentalism, and this book
should give people some much-needed perspective on this haunting, vital question.
Moreover, Stark devotes an entire chapter to contemporary trends in monotheistic
faiths and their relationships not only with each other but also with the secular
elite in America--Stark's honesty and humor in treating this touchy subject was a
real treat to read.
My main beef with Stark is his portrayal of religious conversion as a rational,
economic decision. He lays it out in Chapter 1: people worship a God because they
think that deity will bring good things to them. Now, I'm all for intercessory
prayer and getting divine help, but when I've seen genuine converts, they convert
because they decide that a faith is true and that they love God and want to know
him better. I don't think any religion worth its salt would look well on someone
who just wanted to buy off God with some worship in order to get some help in
return.
Despite this faulty view of religious conversion, I think Stark is a very honest,
very engaging writer with a very important story to tell. He engages all the
examined faiths in this book with great respect and empathy, which I find a rare
commodity these days. This book is highly recommended. --This text refers to the
Hardcover edition
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691115001/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-1366090-8571333?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "-Hector-" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 06:31:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:09:30 +0200, thomas p
<thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:44:50 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZudnV5vrrRLW2TdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same "Christians" have declared
open warfare on science, literally seeking to ban
the teaching of any & all science that contradicts their
limited religious views.
Looks like your defense is pretty weak.
Yes, he foolishly points out the real world to you. The great
majority of Christian ministers supported slavery. People who were
against it were criticized for being against the Bible. Scientists
have risked their lives and sometimes been killed because they
reported discoveries that countered Christian teachings. Your entire
post is a revisionist distortion.
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 11:59:15 AM |
|
|
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoeC" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 12:32:36 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
As compared to what? Perspective please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 06:22:03 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, JoeC <enlil@ix.netcom.com> was pushed
over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:32:36 GMT by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
AE wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
As compared to what? Perspective please.
What the hell do you mean?
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
He was killed for reporting the Copernican model, among other things.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoeC" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 07:04:15 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
In our last thrilling episode, JoeC <enlil@ix.netcom.com> was pushed
over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:32:36 GMT by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
AE wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
As compared to what? Perspective please.
What the hell do you mean?
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
He was killed for reporting the Copernican model, among other things.
You are reporting injustices of 500 years ago? I thought it was recent
in the past 100 years. Heck they burned witches left and right in that
age. From 1490-1660 there was great religious upheaval. Try to
understand the philosophy behind medieval religion. It was unjust by
our standards. Over a thousand years of unregulated power any human
organization can be corrupt. Look at the morality that christianity
replaced. Also look at the cultures that disregarded christianity.
That is what I mean about perspective.
Christianity has set ideals that often we can't attain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
19 Jul 2004 12:42:08 AM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, JoeC <enlil@ix.netcom.com> was pushed
over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:04:15 GMT by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Douglas Berry wrote:
What the hell do you mean?
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
He was killed for reporting the Copernican model, among other things.
You are reporting injustices of 500 years ago? I thought it was recent
in the past 100 years. Heck they burned witches left and right in that
age. From 1490-1660 there was great religious upheaval. Try to
understand the philosophy behind medieval religion.
You asked, we answered. Oh, the period you state was actually the
Rennisance.
It was unjust by
our standards. Over a thousand years of unregulated power any human
organization can be corrupt. Look at the morality that christianity
replaced. Also look at the cultures that disregarded christianity.
That is what I mean about perspective.
Ah, yes. The Romans. Who allowed people to worship as they pleased,
appointed local governors whenever they could, and built centers of
learning like none the world had ever scene. The Empire was linked by
good roads, that were patrolled and safe. Water was carried by
aqauducts for hundreds of miles..
The Christianity came to the fore in the Empire... and a century later
the Roman Empire was dead. We call that period of history the Dark
Ages.
Christianity has set ideals that often we can't attain.
No, Christians rarely even try.
Tell you what. Christ, in several places, makes it clear that to be a
true christian, one must give up material goods. So, my challenge to
you: Give it up. Give it all up. Sell it, donate it, burn it in a
potlatch. Become a street preacher. Are you willing to follow Jesus?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 02:45:55 PM |
|
|
JoeC wrote:
AE wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
As compared to what? Perspective please.
Compared to? Read the posting above.
Bruno is the most famous example for a scientist and philosopher that
was "killed because his discoveries countered Christian teachings".
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoeC" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 06:56:22 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
JoeC wrote:
AE wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
As compared to what? Perspective please.
Compared to? Read the posting above.
Bruno is the most famous example for a scientist and philosopher that
was "killed because his discoveries countered Christian teachings".
How many scientists were killed by Hitler Stalin or Mao? I guess a few
acts of injustice condemn the whole movement. This is why we don't
have the church be the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
19 Jul 2004 12:59:56 PM |
|
|
JoeC wrote:
AE wrote:
JoeC wrote:
AE wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
As compared to what? Perspective please.
Compared to? Read the posting above.
Bruno is the most famous example for a scientist and philosopher that
was "killed because his discoveries countered Christian teachings".
How many scientists were killed by Hitler Stalin or Mao? I guess a few
acts of injustice condemn the whole movement. This is why we don't
have the church be the government.
So now you are claiming Christianity is similar to Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
I think there's nothing to add for me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "-Hector-" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
18 Jul 2004 06:32:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:59:15 +0200, AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
Bruno was more philosopher than scientist, if a scientist at
all by conventional standards, and he was more likely put to death for
his theological philosophies than any 'purported' discoveries.
What exactly did he discover, by the way?
Uncovering revisionism,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
19 Jul 2004 04:46:09 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:32:21 -0500, -Hector-
<Melitus@Dithryrambic.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:59:15 +0200, AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
Bruno was more philosopher than scientist, if a scientist at
all by conventional standards, and he was more likely put to death for
his theological philosophies than any 'purported' discoveries.
What exactly did he discover, by the way?
" Long before Galileo, Bruno outspokenly supported the Copernican
theory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. He is chiefly remembered
today for his belief, so prophetically far ahead of his time, of the
infinite number of living and populated worlds. And it was probably
the example of his horrible fate that wisely persuaded Galileo more
than anything else to recant the pernicious error of heliocentrism."
http://www.weirdload.com/bruno.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
19 Jul 2004 04:31:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:32:21 -0500, -Hector-
<Melitus@Dithryrambic.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:59:15 +0200, AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
...
What scientists have been "killed because they reported
discoveries that countered Christian teachings"? And by whom?
Revising revisionism,
Hector
The first one that comes to mind is surely Giordano Bruno.
Bruno was more philosopher than scientist, if a scientist at
all by conventional standards, and he was more likely put to death for
his theological philosophies than any 'purported' discoveries.
What exactly did he discover, by the way?
"In general, Giordano Bruno paved the way for the cosmology of our
time. To his lasting credit, the most recent empirical discoveries in
astronomy and rational speculations in cosmology (including the
emerging science of exobiology) support many of his brilliant insights
and fascinating intuitions. This is an appropriate legacy from a
daring and profound thinker, who presented an inspiring vision which
still remains relevant and significant for our modern scientific and
philosophical framework. "
http://www.theharbinger.org/xvi/971111/birx.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Abolished Slavery & Created Science |
19 Jul 2004 12:36:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:31:23 -0500, -Hector-
<Melitus@Dithryrambic.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:09:30 +0200, thomas p
<thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:44:50 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZudnV5vrrRLW2TdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Here in reality, the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed specifically to *Defend* slavery on Christian
principles.
Today, those very same | | | | | |
