Christianity - Has it been a net gain or loss in world history?

[ChristineES]

I have prayed for Osama, as he is much more need of prayer than other people by his hate alone. Jesus Himself say that it is the "sick" who need a "doctor" (symbolically speaking). But I also know that Osama would not want me to pray for him.
I wonder how you would feel, MB, if you found out a Christian was praying for you?

 

[Smoke]

I wonder how you would feel, MB, if you found out a Christian was praying for you?

Just as I feel right now.

I know lots of Christians who pray for me. I have no objection to it in general, though I think the ones who are praying I'll become heterosexual could use a shot of reality.

 

[s2a]

Heya Fluffy,

When I inquired:
Hmmm. Could you cite a relevant example?

You said:

Of moving from the general to the particular? There is no way to tell for sure since if one were guilty of doing this, one would not admit to it and often delude oneself into thinking otherwise. I've done it myself many times so I'm aware of how easy it is. However, I believe you can see clues in the way people write.

Um...hmmmm? I only requested that you provide a relevant example. Your equivocal reply is noted...

The most common clue, apart from the ones I mention in my last post, is when a person's writing mimics their thoughts (i.e. they put forward a general view and then offer 1 or 2 particulars that conform to but do not justify that general view).

Ummmm...OK. So people do, or don't, say what they mean to say?

There are plenty of posts on this thread that I am suspicious of but this is nothing more than my suspicions. I don't wish to accuse anybody of doing this but am instead pointing out the possibility so that each individual can re-evaluate their position in their head without having the consequence (and negative motivator) of losing face.

I remain ambitious, yet inauspicious enough to stand alongside my lent commentaries, whether or not further considerations/review may cause me to "lose face" amongst my peers. Bully fer me.

I submitted:
Again, likely...but not a forgone conclusion.

You conceded:

I agree. I just think that it is an important idea to hold in our minds as we make our own claims. I try to hold it in mine when I make one.

Fair enough.

I offered:
Perhaps it is enough to observe that Christianity has never been either friend or advocate of scientific discoveries...

You rebutted:

It depends how you attain your conclusion. If you are get there by making several historical observations then you still fall into the bias trap if you are unable to cite relevant historical examples. I would add that to do so would require significant historical research and to make such an extreme generalisation would require such a long list of caveats as to make it difficult to do so honestly. Many posters on this thread appear to have taken this route.

I would argue instead that this is but a forum of relative debate...and not an online university with requisite bibliographical references and expectational summary theses in presentation of (albeit informed and experienced) opinion.

Trust me...I could go there...really I could. But these sort of forums are not especially conducive to such presentations, and (perhaps) properly so. Most members/contributors skim or scroll past my posts (that are, by policy) limited to the constraints imposed by this forum alone...and are often castigated/excoriated as long-winded, bombastic, overly-verbose, or worse. Must I submit a 40 page substantiation and researched thesis to adequately present my more modest and succinct commentary? I could...but not in RF.

On the other hand you appear to be formulating your conclusion from an analysis of faith and naturalism which is an entirely different matter. I do think that it is a stronger argument. Much tighter at the very least.

Interesting conclusion. Know that I am neither advocate nor conscript of "naturalism", per se.

I said:
Or, to parrot a more popular axiom, "Two wrongs, don't make a right". But...equality of error should not suggest equality of legitimacy.

I'm not sure if I quite understand you here. I agree that a poorly justified claim that Christianity is bad does not automatically legitimise Christianity.

Well, that's point one.

I feel that unless we are able to make well justified claims that we should then withhold judgement.

That would be point two (against).

I would also draw a distinction between legitimising Christianity and legitimising the role that Christianity has played in this world.

OK. Let's then examine that distinction...

The first being an analysis of the positives and negatives that Christianity has brought with it, the second being an analysis of the presence of Christianity compared to its absence. (I go into more depth on this later)

OK...you have the ball.

I said:
Such is but one focal distinction of idealism versus rationalism.

You said:

That is true but I was thinking more along the lines of Humean scepticism.

Hmmm. So was I....

I offered:
We can only wonder upon the potential "top speed" of any car that has no brakes, and is driven only to achieve a maximum velocity...

You said:

But we don't need to quibble about the ends when we don't even know the entire journey yet. To give a very jarring example:
Scenario w/ Christianity: year 0-2000 represents a period of scientific slow down. year 2001 to 20 million represents a golden age of science.
Scenario w/o Christianity: year 0-2000 represents a golden age of science. year 2001 to 20 million represents a period of scientific slow down.

Either of which, either serve to purposefully avoid, or unintentionally misrepresent the primary point tendered.

We can not pretend that Christianity has never existed, nor can we avoid the impacts that Christian beliefs have claimed or asserted as "fact",

I merrily stand by my sweeping conclusion that Christianity has served no determinedly elemental, nor any driving and substantive support of (either for or against) scientific revelations or discoveries over the last 2000 years of recorded history. The evident recollections/accountings of history are self-evident...and consistently damning.

However, that isn't even the issue at hand.

I disagree...

At the moment we are in an age where scientific discovery is increasing at an exponential rate. This is the direct result of a reality that (unfortunately) includes Christianity.

I said:
True, but irrelevant (beyond it's concerted efforts to obfuscate/marginalize/misrepresent such discoveries) within that ongoing pursuit...

You replied:

"We would have to attain that by an entirely different route if something as far reaching as Christianity were removed."

Bunk. This is tantamount to saying that logic, reason, or critical review are unsustainable in (or confronted by) the utter absence of emotion.

To justify that possibility we are then in the realm of "what if" which I tackle with my 2nd and 3rd points.

Um...OK...

I said:
However...it's hard to realize any destination with enhanced alacrity when you are trapped behind a vehicle purposely driven to slow it's ongoing pursuit.

Christianity may not be particularly effective in suppressing human innovation, but it has labored tirelessly and purposefully to inhibit human implementations of insight, wisdom, and inspirational revelations at ever turn and challenge such "scientific" insights/revelations suggest/propose/conclude.

You countered:

I specifically disagree with this point. For example, lets say that if Christianity had not arisen, another religion that was more repressive that Christianity would have arisen instead. In this scenario, scientific slow down would have occurred for another 3000 years beyond the current year. In this case, Christianity is responsible for scientific slow down but represents a net gain to science since it protects us from this other scenario.

So...your argument in favor of Christianity is that "things could've been worse" (under/within some other faith-based religion)?

Perhaps so...but this hardly strikes me as a compelling endorsement of/for Christian beliefs, or as any sort of counter argument against an atheistic/skeptical perspective predicated upon reasonable doubts or burdened proofs. It's hard to faithfully embrace any "lesser of two evils" conundrum as (at best) a mitigation of (only but two available) choices. In any case, your point does not elevate Christianity beyond a "what if" scenario of virtually infinite alternative choices and outcomes.

Again, I would submit and insist that the stated "goals" of Christian beliefs have not, on the whole...or even in any major part...contributed to more propitious outcomes than it promises will (or should) arise within claims that piously-held adherent beliefs infer that they might/should/will. Wishing, hoping, or "praying" for desirable outcomes ultimately render lousy, unpredictable results. Is this the very best the human condition should ever expect from it's own inherent capacities and qualities to actually exercise reason and logic in defining deterministic choices and goals?

The point is not that this is a likely scenario but that we really have no idea what possibilities are likely in the absence of Christianity and without a way of measuring certain variables to a much greater degree that is provided to us by the discipline of history, I don't see how it is currently possible either.

As a prima facie point,I agree. But...I have no interest in rewriting history. I only seek to impact the potentials of reason upon the ideals, decisions, and resultant consequences that an unclear future portends...

 

[s2a]

Let's revisit the OP inquiry, shall we?

"Christianity--Has it been a net gain or loss in world history?"

In terms of furthering intellectual inquiry; in supporting scientific discovery/revelation; in promoting thought beyond rote adherence to Scriptural dogmatic principles/commandments?

I'd have to reiterate a big, fat, NO...in cold, candid conclusion. Could it have been worse?
Sure.
Could it have been better?
Likely, but I would persist in my evaluations/conclusions that science and reason, (if and when) allowing both disciplines to prevail over raw human emotion and superstitious beliefs alone...presents a more hopeful and prospectively illuminating path to enlightenment, revelation, and any relevant existential "truths" of human existence. Myths, superstitions, folklore, and faith-based beliefs rely upon claims that can neither be verified, or falsified. All emotional appeals/claims present poor foundation for establishing informed and rational conclusions of a broader perspective that only demands evidential substantiations and informed specualtions derived therefrom.

I said:
Then it would only be fair to ruminate upon the directly manifested effects that Christianity has managed to deflect...

You offered:

Yes we can analyse the effect that Christianity has had on this world. We just cannot analyse the impact of Christianity in terms of counterfactuals and without doing so we cannot form a conclusion about whether Christianity is a net gain or loss.

Perhaps too true...

...but then...in fair perspective...shall we argue for or against indoor plumbing as a "net gain or loss"? Howzabout light bulbs? Or electricity? Or the internet? All present their own accounting litany of "plusses and minuses".

Let's consider...we can conceive of "a world without cell phones" (for those of us over the age of 40 or so). Was "the world" a "better" place before the introduction of cellular technology, or is it "better" now? Is a sense of privacy and solitude (removed from the immediacy of phone contact) more valuable than the availability of immediate access to our most intimate and personal moments of "alone-time"?

Indeed, what is "gained", versus what is "lost within the very recent advent of cell phones? Is mere convenience, or (perhaps) majority popular (or proliferated) religious belief, to be the prevailing and defining standard of what constitutes a "gain"?

Does Christianity even compete with flushing indoor toilets in such a comparison?

The reason for this is the Humean sceptic line with regards to defining causation as an observation that A regularly follows B since this cannot be used to infer that if not B then not A (i.e. we cannot give an account of causation in terms of counterfactuals).

True enough...

If this is rejected, then we still have the difficulty of gathering the necessary historical information to make such an account properly grounded. And I mean specific information about exactly the way the world was 2000 years ago.

Hmmm. Whilst true that we can not claim to accurately account of every and all things/events that transpired 2000 years ago, we can (and fairly so) apply the same established sets of evaluation and review to any claims attributed to either past or present. Even exegetical (Biblical) historians often disagree as to the claimed "truths" (as accounted) within (the "historical" record of) the "Bible". Now what?

One might readily falsify or "disprove" similarly irreligious claims espoused by a particular, and disconcerting individual, but appeals to emotion poorly serve the broadest opportunities afforded by either enlightenment or experience.

I said:
I but argue that mankind's perspective (on whole) need not be reliant upon faith-based appeals to emotion and unsupported claims...

In which case I agree but feel that you evaluating Christianity in terms of positive and negative and not net gain and net loss. I again point out that the current political climate that causes us to gain these liberal values is derived directly from a history that includes Christianity and even if the sole purpose of Christianity is to provide such a climate and then die, it would still be a part of reality that we would not wish to have never been.

Hmmm. An interesting summary, which deserves further review.

I said:
WE can act to affect direct and immediate "positive" changes.

You offered

Of course when we talk about the future then we can only enact what we perceive to be positive changes and hope that these translate directly into a net gain. We have no rational basis to do so but the mind is currently too small to do anything else. It could be that your positive changes result in the next Hitler. I am reminded of a Simpson's episode in which world peace and the destruction of all weaponry allow Earth to be enslaved by alien invaders.

Ah, but this is really just begging the question itself, and only proposes an argument premised upon adverse consequences/outcomes. Indeed, it may be rational (enough) to obliquely assert that: "The future is unknown (or unknowable)"; but only if any/all impacting influences/conditions/knowledge are utterly removed from such an analysis. True enough that no one in any present moment can reliably predict/validate/substantiate any claim of absolute certitude of future events/outcomes (beyond the claims of religious beliefs); but reasonable speculations can be (and often enough are) borne out as not only likely, but inevitably realized realities of established and evidential fact. Such is all but the stuff of testable hypotheses and theories. These particular premised "conjectures" are NOT wild and spurious claims/guesses...or faith-based claims...but summary predictions that are bound by presentable confirming evidences of same.

[I do not "predict" that either the human condition would be--by some default--intrinsically improved or enhanced by the complete rejection of Christianity in particular, or faith-based superstitions/mythologies in general. I simply submit that it's never been tried; and that religion, on it's face and as a whole, remains a consistent failure in affecting any lasting or meaningful "net gains" (or results) in otherwise significantly altering any otherwise lasting and abiding continuations of human suffering, persecution, poverty, and authoritatively imposed injustice...that fail to adequately remonstrate or eradicate the fears, ignorance, fealties, or stupidities that religion insists as [the] lone provisor of truth, wisdom, insight, and irrevocable "answer".

I but advocate reason as an operative humanistic perspective. Christianity is neither "good", nor "bad" (per se). It's just a demonstrably ongoing failure in effecting it's stated and specified goals by (it's own outlined) methods of faith-based beliefs. Maybe, just maybe...some day...reason will be embraced and established as the "norm"...and superstition.myth. legend, and supernaturalism will earn their due as wishful thinking and hope...against almost all prevailing circumstances.

When I said:
I must concede that my drawn conclusions are (predominantly) predicated upon prospective evaluations of resultant gain/loss...

This is the position I find myself in as well. However, whilst I disagree with many epistemological and ontological claims offered by Christianity as well as the results that those claims appear to have had on this world, I find myself unable to say that I would prefer a reality in which Christianity had never existed.

OK. I will be like John Lennon, and only "Imagine" other possibilities...

 

[kai]

i voted a loss , as a whole its not Benefited us as a species at all ,

 

[Protester]

Maybe it's me, but that does not look like a simple question.
I can answer regarding myself but as regards 'the world' I don't know because I'm not sure what would be included in a definition of Christian in a 'world' sense. For example the Catholic Church teaches that the use of condoms is not acceptable in the fight against aids. This is not a teaching that I would consider a Christian teaching rather I consider it a Catholic teaching.
Christianity as I understand it has been good for the world, but I understand Christian in a broad, liberal sense, not a dogmatic one.
What do you mean by Christian?

Unfortunately, in back of most peoples mine, people would say, "Yes," to the following question, Is Christianity a white man's religion? As this short monograph points out, this is not the case, even taking into account where Christianity is the strongest.

Christianity has stopped human sacrifice, gave women a higher standing--they are not just property and baby machines, and because of the where Christianity did spring from, it's Judeo-Western roots help push rational thinking. Oh, What is the Origin of Christianity? will give you some idea what a Christian is and especially was.

 

[F0uad]

Christianity as a state: its a loss(I THINK) in some-ways: no religion tolerance, no science and no freedom of thinking..

Christians as individuals: It has and had many great individuals and lets hope more come so its a +.