One of the Whopping Big Contributions of Christianity to Renaissance Humanism!

[Buddha Dharma]

I believe the present trend indicates that the religious right is increasing at the expense of religious moderates, religious views are hardening, and the polls indicate that the humanists are not decreasing, and possibly increasing. Recent polls showing those who have no religious belief is increasing to an all time high of 20%

Yes I am aware of non-religion increasing. I don't think this is a necessarily bad phenomenon. However, sadly that is no guarantee of humanism increasing. As you may have observed on this forum- many atheists are consumerists that glorify greed and hold nihilism in place of established ethics.

Before I get lambasted by atheists for my last statement, I had better clarify I don't mean all atheists. I mean specifically of the Libertarian, economic conservative persuasion. Non-religion increasing is unfortunately no indication of humanist philosophy doing so.

If it were not for the Baha'i Faith I would be in the 'none' category, with Buddhist philosophical leaning.

I see. I thought you had said something about Zen humanism in your post.

I was going to respond to you, but I believe you said your background before becoming Baha'i was Buddhist? Then you already know that Buddhism encompasses a humanist ethos, but I would say even exceeds it. For as you doubtless know, all sentient life is sacred in Buddhism and should be treasured and looked after.

 

[Augustus]

Take this this rude if you like. You cannot separate the history in compartments as you claim.

Why can't I choose which eras of history I am personally interested in and care to discuss on the internet as a leisure activity?

Anyway, even if 100% of modern Christians were young earth creationists who burned 100% of the world's scientists at the stake while putting on rampant displays of anti-science expressive dance, it would still change absolutely nothing about 12th-18thC history

The belief in a literal Genesis in Christianity has always been a disruptive influence on science since Christianity dominated the culture of Europe.

In what way do you believe this has 'always been a disruptive influence'? What actual things were disrupted on a widespread, systematic basis?

I could find you numerous academic historians of science that will argue the precise opposite if you are interested.

As a general overview on the contemporary scholarly consensus:

A widespread myth that refuses to die...maintains that consistent opposition of the Christian church to rational thought in general and the natural sciences in particular, throughout the patristic and medieval periods, retarded the development of a viable scientific tradition, thereby delaying the Scientific Revolution and the origins of modern science by more than a millennium.

Historical scholarship of the past half-century demonstrates that the truth is otherwise.
David C Lindberg in the Cambridge companion to science and religion

Then it maybe concluded that Christianity was a sideshow in the course of the history of the advancement of the sciences.

It may be concluded, although it would be pretty irrational to do so as it contradicts the explicit statements of countless important historical scientists. Moreover, it also goes against a mountain of evidence and the overwhelming majority of contemporary scholars of the history and philosophy of science, but if one prefers ahistorical biased anti-Christian mythology over scholarly analysis that is their prerogative.

Are you aware of any contemporary historians of science who support your view?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why can't I choose which eras of history I am personally interested in and care to discuss on the internet as a leisure activity?

Anyway, even if 100% of modern Christians were young earth creationists who burned 100% of the world's scientists at the stake while putting on rampant displays of anti-science expressive dance, it would still change absolutely nothing about 12th-18thC history



In what way do you believe this has 'always been a disruptive influence'? What actual things were disrupted on a widespread, systematic basis?

I could find you numerous academic historians of science that will argue the precise opposite if you are interested.

As a general overview on the contemporary scholarly consensus:

A widespread myth that refuses to die...maintains that consistent opposition of the Christian church to rational thought in general and the natural sciences in particular, throughout the patristic and medieval periods, retarded the development of a viable scientific tradition, thereby delaying the Scientific Revolution and the origins of modern science by more than a millennium.

Historical scholarship of the past half-century demonstrates that the truth is otherwise.
David C Lindberg in the Cambridge companion to science and religion



It may be concluded, although it would be pretty irrational to do so as it contradicts the explicit statements of countless important historical scientists. Moreover, it also goes against a mountain of evidence and the overwhelming majority of contemporary scholars of the history and philosophy of science, but if one prefers ahistorical biased anti-Christian mythology over scholarly analysis that is their prerogative.

Are you aware of any contemporary historians of science who support your view?

Your ignoring the fact that I did not take an extreme view of Christianity having a 'consistent' anti science history, and you are minimalizing Islamic and other contributors to the development and advancement of science.

More to follow

 

[Augustus]

and you are minimalizing Islamic and other contributors to the development and advancement of science.

Now I've been accused of bias both for Islam and against Islam in the same thread

Obviously science is like a chain with many links, but the thread isn't about ancient Sumarian algebra, it's about why certain events happened in a specific place at a specific time. What were some of the contributing factors to this?

Even then, things I've posted in this thread:

It was in Muslim lands that natural philosophy received the most careful and creative attention from the seventh to the twelfth century.12 The reasons for this had much to do with the rapid spread of Islamic civilization over vast territories in which other cultures had long before laid down deep roots. By virtue of its geography alone, Islam became “the meeting point for Greek, Egyptian, In- dian and Persian traditions of thought, as well as the technology of China.”13

This was an asset of incalculable value. For one thing, practical know-how (like how to produce paper) spread from culture to culture. For another, the multiplicity of intellectual and cultural traditions absorbed by Islam were synthesized in startling and creative ways, lending Islamic culture a richness and authority far beyond what one might expect to find in a relatively young civilization. Indeed, by the start of the ninth century, great numbers of Greek, Indian, and Persian books of philoso- phy and natural philosophy had been translated into Arabic, and by the year 1000 the library of ancient writings available in Ara- bic was vastly superior to the works available in Latin or any other language.

It included a great deal of Indian astronomy and mathematics (translated from Sanskrit and Pahlavi), most of the Hellenistic corpus, and much Greek philosophy. These transla- tions were of immense worth for philosophers of nature of later generations, but the real importance of Arabic-language scholar- ship went far beyond translation alone. Muslim scholars added sophisticated commentaries and glosses to Greek texts and wrote original essays that advanced every major field of inquiry, mathematics, astronomy, optics, and above all medicine. They developed intricate instruments of observation, built (with the support of caliphs) massive observatories, and collected volumes of observations that retained their value for astronomers for long centuries.

Many of these Muslim achievements were, in time, eagerly adopted by Christian philosophers of nature. As Christians slowly reconquered much of Spain and Sicily from Muslim rulers in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, they came into more intimate contact with the large corpus of Arabic texts, translations, and original treatises and discovered as well Greek texts that had previously been lost to them. Christian scholars, aided on occasion by Jews, translated many of these texts into Latin, and this grand body of new materials forever changed the course of Christian philosophy of nature. (Galileo goes to jail)

from G Saliba - Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance.


What are your thoughts on why it developed in Christian Europe, rather than one of the Islamic Empires that you believe were more important?

 

[shunyadragon]

What are your thoughts on why it developed in Christian Europe, rather than one of the Islamic Empires that you believe were more important?

I believe the development and advancement and domination of Christian Europe after ~1000-1500 AD is more because of demographics, resources, and climate, and not religion, which the Arab world was at an overwhelming disadvantage. An interesting book that deals with part of this is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared M. Diamond.

The Arabs developed the best carbon steel in the world, but did not have the resources to exploit their technology on the scale of Europe was able to with inferior steel.

The issue of universities in the Arab world is well documented where the institution involved theology, science and philosophy (primarily Aristotle), actually going back to the 'House of Wisdom' (probably not as comprehensive as later universities) dealing primarily with preserving Greek and Persian philosophy and literature. Caliph al-Mansu was the organizer and funded it, and invited Nestorians and Zoroastrians to be involved.

Mosque centered Universities would be no different in relationship than the chruch center universities.

I believe Renaissance Humanism is rooted in Greek Philosophers, as were early Roman humanist philosophers like Lucretius. Renaissance Humanism was the antithesis of traditional theism and Christianity.

 

[Augustus]

I believe the development and advancement and domination of Christian Europe after ~1000-1500 AD is more because of demographics, resources, and climate, and not religion, which the Arab world was at an overwhelming disadvantage. An interesting book that deals with part of this is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared M. Diamond.

This isn't about the industrial revolution, technology, military and economic power though, but a change in the intellectual traditions that led to a different way of thinking about scientific activities (of course money is important to fund such enquiries, as it was in the post-conquest Islamic Empires).

How would you link the things you have mentioned to the scientific revolution and what was stopping earlier empires from doing these things?

The issue of universities in the Arab world is well documented where the institution involved theology, science and philosophy (primarily Aristotle), actually going back to the 'House of Wisdom' (probably not as comprehensive as later universities) dealing primarily with preserving Greek and Persian philosophy and literature. Caliph al-Mansu was the organizer and funded it, and invited Nestorians and Zoroastrians to be involved.

You are using university as synonymous with 'place of advanced learning', which basically means they go back to numerous libraries in classical antiquity. There was nothing unique about the House of Wisdom to make it something qualitatively different from many other places. It was just more bigger, more impressive and better funded than most.

As I said earlier, it is a question of definitions that is intractable. The university was created in Europe with specific qualities built around a common model. We wouldn't expect institutions of advanced learning in other societies to necessarily be exact copies of the European model.

So it depends if you want university to mean 'place of advanced learning', or specifically the type of establishment created in medieval Europe that they called a university and spread rapidly around Europe.

believe Renaissance Humanism is rooted in Greek Philosophers, as were early Roman humanist philosophers like Lucretius. Renaissance Humanism was the antithesis of traditional theism and Christianity.

Humanism was significantly a movement within Christianity though. There was an influx of texts from the Greek and Arabic worlds due to scholars fleeing due to the decline of the Byzantines, and eventually the fall of Constantinople. This followed a period of greater interaction between the Christian world and the Middle East due to the crusades and crusader states. Much of the funding for the translations of Greek and Arabic manuscripts came from the Church and churchmen and the most famous figure, Erasmus, didn't see his views as being the 'antithesis' of his Catholic faith.

The term humanism wasn't even invented until the 19th C to describe a broad intellectual trend that developed over centuries. When we think of reifying terms like Dark Ages, Renaissance and Enlightenment these seem to symbolise a break from the past, when in reality they were just continuations of trends that began long before.

In relation to science, something I posted in another thread:

I've read some interesting ideas about the contributions of The Fall of Man to European scientific thought. This pushed scientists towards experiment based empiricism due to a decline in faith towards the reliability of reason:

the Augustinian view.. took a much more pessimistic view of our abilities after we all became inheritors of original sin. The Augustinian view was vigorously revived by the leading reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, and embraced by the counter-reforming Catholics, the Jansenists, thereby introducing another important theological element into the mixture of science and religion in the early modern period. The response to this revived Augustinianism, of course, was to reject the Thomist approach which essentially favoured the use of reason, and to develop an empiricist approach, which was in itself rendered even less prone to dogmatic conclusions by scepticism about our ability correctly to interpret observations and other empirical results. 39

The emphasis, accordingly, was on painstaking work to slowly gather knowledge, either by observations or by the careful performance of many experiments , but this was accompanied not by assurances that certainty could be reached in this way, but by diffidence as to whether certain knowledge could ever be achieved.

Harrison’s thesis is undeniably powerful, not only because it is backed by an impressive array of evidence from writers of the period, who all show a clear concern with the state of man after the Fall and its implications for what we can know, but also because it dovetails very neatly with many other aspects of current historiography. It stands alongside the work of Richard H. Popkin and others, for example, on the growth of scepticism from the Renaissance through the early modern period.

Religion and the Scientific Revolution - John Henry


Greek philosophy has always been part of Christianity. Given that many of the Church fathers were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy and the classical traditions, and Greek philosophy had long been part of the curricula in Church funded universities, so in what way do you believe it was the antithesis of traditional Christianity? What even is 'traditional' Christianity?

 

[shunyadragon]

This isn't about the industrial revolution, technology, military and economic power though, but a change in the intellectual traditions that led to a different way of thinking about scientific activities (of course money is important to fund such inquiries, as it was in the post-conquest Islamic Empires).

How would you link the things you have mentioned to the scientific revolution and what was stopping earlier empires from doing these things?

It is about demographics, resources and geography, and not the resulting industrial revolution, scientific advancement, technology, military and economic power, which are the result. I gave a reference which helps explain this. There is absolutely no evidence that it is about Christianity specifically. The evolution of intellectual traditions in both the Islamic and Christian world have their foundation in Greek philosophy.

You are apparently neglecting the driving force of the development and advancement of science with the factors I have referenced in my source when comparing the Islamic world with Christian Europe. We can go into detail in in another thread, but you need to read the reference I provided. These factors as the driving force actually remain throughout history.

You are using university as synonymous with 'place of advanced learning', which basically means they go back to numerous libraries in classical antiquity. There was nothing unique about the House of Wisdom to make it something qualitatively different from many other places. It was just more bigger, more impressive and better funded than most.

It is synonymous with an 'place of advanced learning.' The libraries of antiquity are a part of this evolution of the university, but not the university. As I said before the 'House of Wisdom' is not yet a university. The Islamic universities were a 'place of advanced learning where 'theology, science, and philosophy,' were studied.'

As I said earlier, it is a question of definitions that is intractable. The university was created in Europe with specific qualities built around a common model. We wouldn't expect institutions of advanced learning in other societies to necessarily be exact copies of the European model.

So it depends if you want university to mean 'place of advanced learning', or specifically the type of establishment created in medieval Europe that they called a university and spread rapidly around Europe.

It is a matter of definition and your extreme bias is showing making an artificial distinction that is not there. Universities did not suddenly appear out of thin air they evolved, and the Islamic universities were indeed the first universities.

Humanism was significantly a movement within Christianity though. There was an influx of texts from the Greek and Arabic worlds due to scholars fleeing due to the decline of the Byzantines, and eventually the fall of Constantinople. This followed a period of greater interaction between the Christian world and the Middle East due to the crusades and crusader states. Much of the funding for the translations of Greek and Arabic manuscripts came from the Church and churchmen and the most famous figure, Erasmus, didn't see his views as being the 'antithesis' of his Catholic faith.

The term humanism wasn't even invented until the 19th C to describe a broad intellectual trend that developed over centuries. When we think of reifying terms like Dark Ages, Renaissance and Enlightenment these seem to symbolise a break from the past, when in reality they were just continuations of trends that began long before.

I've read some interesting ideas about the contributions of The Fall of Man to European scientific thought. This pushed scientists towards experiment based empiricism due to a decline in faith towards the reliability of reason:

the Augustinian view.. took a much more pessimistic view of our abilities after we all became inheritors of original sin. The Augustinian view was vigorously revived by the leading reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, and embraced by the counter-reforming Catholics, the Jansenists, thereby introducing another important theological element into the mixture of science and religion in the early modern period. The response to this revived Augustinianism, of course, was to reject the Thomist approach which essentially favoured the use of reason, and to develop an empiricist approach, which was in itself rendered even less prone to dogmatic conclusions by scepticism about our ability correctly to interpret observations and other empirical results. 39

The emphasis, accordingly, was on painstaking work to slowly gather knowledge, either by observations or by the careful performance of many experiments , but this was accompanied not by assurances that certainty could be reached in this way, but by diffidence as to whether certain knowledge could ever be achieved.

Harrison’s thesis is undeniably powerful, not only because it is backed by an impressive array of evidence from writers of the period, who all show a clear concern with the state of man after the Fall and its implications for what we can know, but also because it dovetails very neatly with many other aspects of current historiography. It stands alongside the work of Richard H. Popkin and others, for example, on the growth of scepticism from the Renaissance through the early modern period.

Religion and the Scientific Revolution - John Henry

Greek philosophy has always been part of Christianity. Given that many of the Church fathers were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy and the classical traditions, and Greek philosophy had long been part of the curricula in Church funded universities, so in what way do you believe it was the antithesis of traditional Christianity? What even is 'traditional' Christianity?

Yes humanism has different definitions, but the Renaissance Humanism is rooted in Greek Philosophers, as were early Roman humanist philosophers like Lucretius. Renaissance Humanism was the antithesis of traditional theism and Christianity.

Yes Greek philosophy did become a part of Christianity, and in part corrupted Christianity, but as far as the development of science it was Greek philosophies not Christianity that is the root of the advancement and development of science,

I believe this by the facts of history, and you are shmoozing Christian humanism with Renaissance Humanism to justify an agenda, This is not acceptable.

From: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html

"Humanism is the term generally applied to the predominant social philosophy and intellectual and literary currents of the period from 1400 to 1650. The return to favor of the pagan classics stimulated the philosophy of secularism, the appreciation of worldly pleasures, and above all intensified the assertion of personal independence and individual expression. Zeal for the classics was a result as well as a cause of the growing secular view of life. Expansion of trade, growth of prosperity and luxury, and widening social contacts generated interest in worldly pleasures, in spite of formal allegiance to ascetic Christian doctrine. Men thus affected -- the humanists -- welcomed classical writers who revealed similar social values and secular attitudes.

Historians are pretty much agreed on the general outlines of those mental attitudes and scholarly interests which are assembled under the rubric of humanism. The most fundamental point of agreement is that the humanist mentality stood at a point midway between medieval supernaturalism and the modern scientific and critical attitude. Medievalists see humanism as the terminal product of the Middle Ages. Modern historians are perhaps more apt to view humanism as the germinal period of modernism."

 

[Augustus]

It is about demographics, resources and geography, and not the resulting industrial revolution, scientific advancement, technology, military and economic power, which are the result. I gave a reference which helps explain this.

I had a quick look at my copy, index doesn't seem to suggest anything about the development of modern science. The only entry for science relates to the study of history as a science (not the history of science) , there is no Enlightenment or Renaissance either.

There's a chapter on technology, but that's not science either.

"Demographics + resources + geography" = modern science seems a bit reductionist to me. I'm not sure that is really the argument he makes as his book isn't a history of science.

Can you give me a page number/chapter where it is specifically discussed please?

Will reply to the rest later.

 

[Vouthon]

@Sunstone and @Polymath257 I think these two threads (on Christian contributions to the Renaissance and Enlightenment) are yet more brilliant topics for discussion on the part of our friend Sunstone, and I very much concur with your respective arguments.

If I might respond to @LuisDantas and @It Aint Necessarily So

I think that your standpoints, while both well-articulated and popularly held outside academia, undervalue the enduring significance of the medieval Christian distinction between the ‘law’ (represented by the ius naturale), and ‘legislation’ (that is, positive law) which acted as an indispensable basis for subsequent liberal theories to develop by means of providing a normative, natural-law-based framework for the limitation of political power.

The eminent political scientist Francis Fukuyama has both perceptively and persuasively argued that the rise of the modern constitutional order is a narrative of the “success of resistance to claims of absolutism and a reassertion of the primacy of law” (which I'm sure @LuisDantas and @It Aint Necessarily So would agree with) but crucially Fukuyama, echoing many other scholars, contends that such a radical ideology was originally made far more communicable to society at large and effective when “a religious tradition gives law a sanctity, autonomy, and coherence that it otherwise might not have had”.[1] This role was fulfilled, Fukuyama claims, by the Catholic Church in medieval Europe, to the extent that it was “the guardian" of canon law and a reinterpreted Roman law after the Gregorian Revolution.[2]

There is by now a fairly broad consensus among historians that the idea of natural rights can be traced back at least to the high Middle ages.

I'd like to further opine that "reason and rationality" would not, unfortunately, necessarily lead one to conclude that all human beings share an equality of status and the same inviolable rights in some kind of inevitable logical determinism. I wish it were so, but history proves otherwise. A certain intellectual milieu grounded in but developed from a longstanding natural law tradition was first required for such beliefs to emerge - not spontaneous, deterministic impulses of universal logic that would just magically pop into being like an intellectual version of a miraculous virgin birth.

As Sunstone has correctly stated in some depth in his excellent OPs, this was not the position advocated by the classical philosophers of ancient Greece and nor, for that matter, was it the position advocated by a number of prominent intellectuals a hundred years ago prior to the outbreak of the First World War. As I quoted on the other thread mentioned by Sunstone, the great Stoic philosopher Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65), a contemporary of Jesus Christ, articulated the mainstream position of his society that some human beings were inherently worthless and were unworthy of being kept alive, and that "drowning" them as children was a necessary work of "reason":

"We put down mad dogs; we kill the wild, untamed ox; we use the knife on sick sheep to stop their infecting the flock; we destroy abnormal offspring at birth; children, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown. Yet this is not the work of anger, but of reason - to separate the sound from the worthless"

- (Seneca, Lucius Annaeus (1995). Seneca: Moral and Political Essays. Cambridge University Press. p. 32. ISBN 0-5213-4818-8. Retrieved November 2, 2013.)
​

One could claim - and indeed at the dawn of the twentieth century perhaps a majority of leading European intellectuals did unfortunately claim - that social progress illuminated by reason required involuntary sterilization of people with inherited disorders or disabilities, so as to improve the overall health and well-being of society:


The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

Britain and America are two countries that, in recent years, have led the world in attempting to give disabled people rights and equality...It may appear on the surface that the UK and USA have nothing in common with Nazi Germany, a regime that is estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number.

However, there is a dark side to the history of the two partners in the "special relationship" that has quietly been forgotten and swept under the carpet. It is a history that is deeply uncomfortable, disturbing and shameful and which seems to contradict the values America and Britain claim to uphold. This makes it even more vital that light is shone upon this history...

With the spread of ideas about "the survival of the fittest", social Darwinists started to question the wisdom of providing care to the "weak" on the grounds this would enable people to live and reproduce who were not meant to survive. They feared that offering medical treatment and social services to disabled people would undermine the natural struggle for existence and lead to the degeneration of the human race.

Such views took hold not only in Germany but also particularly strongly in America and Britain. The existence of disabled people was increasingly seen in the UK and USA as a threat to social progress...

Advocates of eugenics made significant advances during the Edwardian period. In 1907, the Eugenics Education Society was founded in Britain to campaign for sterilisation and marriage restrictions for the weak to prevent the degeneration of Britain's population.

A year later, Sir James Crichton-Brown, giving evidence before the 1908 Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, recommended the compulsory sterilisation of those with learning disabilities and mental illness, describing them as "our social rubbish" which should be "swept up and garnered and utilised as far as possible".

He went on to complain, "We pay much attention to the breeding of our horses, our cattle, our dogs and poultry, even our flowers and vegetables; surely it's not too much to ask that a little care be bestowed upon the breeding and rearing of our race". Crichton-Brown was in distinguished company. In a memo to the prime minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race".​

Again, while these modern versions are or were influenced by contemporary pseudo-science, they're ultimately indebted to the ancient Greeks, who thought in much the same way.

(continued....)

​

 

[Vouthon]

Now, the Renaissance humanists and the Enlightenment thinkers did believe in the inherent equality of all human beings and as Sunstone explains, their movement was rather egalitarian and grassroots as opposed to elitist, just like modern secular humanism. They didn't derive this from studying the classics, nor was it a natural consequence of the dictates of rational thought, given that hundreds of years later supposedly more advanced intellectuals of the 19th and early 20th centuries parted ways with them in this respect and re-introduced a biologically based social elitism guided by eugenics.

In fact, the majority of contemporary scholars trace the origin of ‘modern’ individual rights to the medieval Christian Church, arguing that between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, canonists and decretalists “worked out a series of definitions of ius naturale as subjective right"[3] that were subsequently embellished by theorists as diverse as the Franciscan nominalist Ockham and Bartolome de las Casa, an early advocate for the rights of indigenous people, to serve as fuel for subsequent generations.

Decretal X.1.2.6, a famous canonistic text by Pope Innocent III, is a case in point. The pope ruled in this text that the minority faction in an ecclesiastical corporation were not liable to be deprived of their individual rights as a result of a majority vote. A gloss interpreted this as implying that a majority vote could trump individual rights only in specific situations and otherwise unanimity of consent was required. Ockham utilized this as substantive proof for his argument that imperial power should be limited and could not aspire to plena potestas (plenitude of power), interpreting it as a proof-text for limited government:

“the people cannot confer absolute power on an emperor…because the people itself does not possess such a power over its own individual members”.[4]​

This same decretal was seized upon by Bartolome de las Casas to buttress his defence of the native Indians then enslaved by the Spanish Empire, whereupon he contended that “the consent of a whole people or city could not prejudice the right of a single person withholding consent”[5] such that were a majority to freely subject themselves to a foreign monarch’s imperium, their decision had no power to prejudice a dissident minority. This impelled him towards the conclusion that:

“all, both great and small, the whole people and individual persons, are to be summoned and their consent sought and obtained”.[6]​

Las Casas argued that the consent omnes et singuli (by each individual person) was a requisite for Spanish sovereignty over the Indians to be legitimate, since otherwise “it would detract from the right of each one if they all lost sweet liberty”.[7] The fact that such an individualized idea of consent was advanced by a pre-Lockean Catholic philosopher wholly indebted to medieval theology, whom Reid opines delivered a stronger argument on behalf of natural human rights than the “pen of John Locke”,[8] is clearly significant because it illustrates where Locke and other enlightenment intellectuals got these ideas from in the first place: medieval Christianity.

The sixteenth-century Anglican ecclesiastic Richard Hooker, whom Locke copiously references in the footnotes of his Second Treatise, drew himself extensively on medieval Thomistic interpretations of natural law.[1] Hooker concurs substantially with Aquinas and Giles that, in his own words, “natural bindeth universally, that which is positive not so”,[2] arguing in lieu of the medieval tradition before him that positive law need not be obeyed where it is seen to conflict with natural law. In his Second Treatise Locke frames his argument on behalf of limited government in this same language of natural law, stating:

“For so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of nature.”[3]​

He proceeds to reference with approval a maxim from the “judicious Hooker” (as he calls him) that “the Laws of Nature, do bind Men”,[4] elsewhere citing Hooker once more in defence of the idea that there is no binding conscientious obligation to obey unjust positive legislation should it diverge from divine law: “Laws […] we must obey, unless there be reason shewed which may necessarily enforce that the law of reason, or of God, doth enjoin the contrary, Hook.Eccl.Pol.l.i.sect.16”. The pre-eminent authority of ‘law’ over ‘legislation’, derived originally from the medieval Christian distinction between the pre-ordained natural law discoverable by reason and the socially constructed positive law of monarchs, is still a staple feature in the epistemologies of modern liberal constitutionalists as Thomas explains:

“Liberal constitutionalis[m]… ground law in some normative, non-purposive basis. Law is viewed as necessarily prior to both government and legislation and as a means of preventing government from overstepping its proper limits”.[1]

​

It is scarcely a surprise, therefore, that the political theory of the neoliberal ideologue Friedrich Hayek held to the notion of the ‘rule of law’ as a “pre-existing body of law representing the will of the whole community”,[2] one “higher than the will of the current government and that limits the scope of that government’s acts”,[3] such that, “law came before legislation”.[4]

​

This also serves to demonstrate that medieval notions of limitation on the nature and exercise of political power are inherently related to contestations within the domain of ecclesiology (church governance), which as a result should be understood as a key source for modern constitutional theory. In this respect the early-twentieth century historian Neville Figgis contended that the 15th century ‘conciliar theory’ of the Catholic Church represented “the culmination of medieval constitutionalism”[9] and in a broader sense “forms the watershed between the medieval and modern world”.[10] It thus seems fair to agree with the contention of Rosenthal:

“Too much of our understanding of intellectual history remains trapped in a simple duality between medieval and modern political thought”.[11]



​

 

[Vouthon]

Some of my sources:

[1] Fukuyama, F. Political Order and Political Decay p. 12

[2] Ibid.

[3] Reid, CJ. ‘Medieval Origins of the Western Natural Rights Tradition: The Achievement of Brian Tierney,’ in Cornell Law Review, Vol. 83, Issue 2 (1998) p. 444


[4] Ockham quoted in Tierney, B. The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150-1625 (Atlanta, 1997) p. 184


[5] Ibid. p. 285


[6] Ibid.


[7] Bartolome De Las Casas quoted in Tierney, B. ‘Natural Rights: Before and after Columbus’ in Fulton Lectures (1994) p. 9


[8] Reid, C. ‘Medieval Origins of the Western Natural Law Tradition,’ p. 82


[9] Figgis, N. quoted in Oakley, F. The Conciliarist Tradition : Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870 (Oxford, 2003) p. 223


[10] Nelson, B. The Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical Evolution (Basingstoke, 2006) p. 151


[11] Rosenthal, A.S., ed., Crown Under Law: Richard Hooker, John Locke and the Ascent of Modern (Maryland, 2008) p. 72


[12] Constitution Society, Locke, Second Treatise of Government. Chap. II. Sec.12 [Online] Available from: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm


[13] Ibid. s.15


[14] Thomas, R. Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law (Oxford, 2000) p. 10


[15] Fukuyama, F. The Origins of Political Order p. 253


[16] Ibid.


[17] Defains, B. ‘The Norm and Judge in Hayek’s Liberalism,’ in Aimar, T., Birner, J., Garrouste, P. F.A. Hayek as a Political Economist: Economic Analysis and Values (London, 2002) p. 202


[18] Figgis, N. quoted in Oakley, F. The Conciliarist Tradition : Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870 (Oxford, 2003) p. 223


[19] Rosenthal, A.S. Crown Under Law p. 246

 

[Rational Agnostic]

CAUTION: The following views are my own and are offered here not as Gospel Truths, but rather to stimulate conversation. Having said that, I am of course undoubtedly right about everything I say. ​

I am of the alarming and insufferable opinion that the Renaissance begins on April 26, 1336 with Petrarch's attaining the summit of Mont Ventoux.

Safer, more conservative souls -- including many scholars -- have dated the Renaissance from when Petrarch began his ascent of the mountain, or from when he descended from it, but I myself snort loudly and decisively at all such overly-cautious interpretations: 'Twas when he summitted the mountain that the Renaissance began.

It was then that Petrarch (after reading a chance passage in Augustine's Confessions) was stunned into silence by the thought (which he attributed not to Augustine, but rather to "Pagan philosophers") that "...nothing is wonderful but the soul, which, when great itself, finds nothing great outside itself."

Thus began the Renaissance -- with a thought.

Here are two takeaways from that thought. First, Petrarch effectively makes humanity (i.e. "the human soul") the source of all value in this world. Second, he ascribes the view that humanity is the source of all value, not to Christian theologians, but to "Pagan philosophers". Thus, the Renaissance has sometimes been seen by low and scurrilous sorts of people as merely a rebirth of ancient Grecco-Roman humanism.

However, I myself feel deeply compelled to submit to you my unbearable opinion that Renaissance humanism, although heavily inspired and informed by humanistic Grecco-Roman philosophies, etc, also owed a lot to Christianity. Bushels and bushels, in fact!

I believe we see this not only in the incidental fact that most of the early Renaissance thinkers, including Petrarch himself, were churchmen, but also in the more significant fact that Renaissance humanism was not the province of a relatively small elite -- as had been classical humanism -- but was intended from its start to be a broad based, almost democratic movement of the whole citizenry.

By why would it be significant that the early proponents of Renaissance humanism sought to make it as broad based as possible? It is significant, I believe, because I say so because they did so influenced by the Christian notion of the "equality of all souls".

Or at least something similar to that.

The notion that everyone is equal on the level of the soul (and somewhat later on the notions that everyone ought to be equal before the law, have equal opportunities in life, etc, etc.) would have been inconceivable to classical thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Those thinkers accepted as fact that some lives -- usually the lives of the poor and powerless -- were of less worth and value than other lives -- usually the lives of the rich and powerful.

Christians, on the other hand, saw everyone as equal before God. They were apparently inspired by Judaism's social consciousness to see folks that way, although it seems they added their own twist to it by expanding on and universalizing that social consciousness. Thus, when the noble moment in history arrived to invent Renaissance humanism, the guiding lights of the movement (who, as I have noted, were for the most part Christian clergymen) simply found it natural to make the movement as broad based and inclusive as possible because they believed in the equality of souls baseball, and apple pie. Had those folks been ancient Grecco-Roman Pagans, they would more likely have focused any such movement more or less on the nobles alone.

It should go almost without saying that today's humanism is a direct descendant of Renaissance humanism. Although it has changed and evolved over the centuries, humanism even today is an essentially democratic movement and ideology. Thank you, Christianity!

And that is, more or less, your Uncle Sunstone's take on just one of the whopping big contributions of Christianity to humanism and ultimately to the modern world. I believe there are several other contributions that I might or might not post about in the near future.

Comments? Observations? Mouth-frothing Rants? Deranged off-topic meanderings?


Special thanks to @Vouthon for having inspired this thread's topic by a post of his in another thread.

I agree, and I also believe that the moral viewpoints of most people in the West (including non-religious and atheists) have been shaped (whether they know it or not) by Christian morality and Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. This of course does not mean that other claims of Christianity about the nature of reality are correct, however.

 

[Augustus]

It is synonymous with an 'place of advanced learning.' The libraries of antiquity are a part of this evolution of the university, but not the university. As I said before the 'House of Wisdom' is not yet a university. The Islamic universities were a 'place of advanced learning where 'theology, science, and philosophy,' were studied.'

Can you tell me the specific evolution that differentiates between 'not a university', and 'university'? It can't simply be a place that teaches theology, science and philosophy.

Plenty of places have taught science and philosophy at advanced levels since classical antiquity. Adding theology to the mix doesn't really change much. Also seeing as something like Neoplatonist philosophy was also 'theological', it had already been done.

By your definition, these weren't the first universities, just the oldest ones still in operation.

It is a matter of definition and your extreme bias is showing making an artificial distinction that is not there. Universities did not suddenly appear out of thin air they evolved, and the Islamic universities were indeed the first universities.

I took the middle ground and presented 2 different ways of looking at the topic and get accused of 'extreme bias' for not accepting your personal diktat unquestioningly?

Some more 'extreme bias' for you:

"No one today would dispute the fact that universities, in the sense in which the term is now generally understood, were a creation of the Middle Ages, appearing for the first time between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is no doubt true that other civilizations, prior to, or wholly alien to, the medieval West, such as the Roman Empire, Byzantium, Islam, or China, were familiar with forms of higher education which a number of historians, for the sake of convenience, have sometimes described as universities.Yet a closer look makes it plain that the institutional reality was altogether different and, no matter what has been said on the subject, there is no real link such as would justify us in associating them with medieval universities in the West. Until there is definite proof to the contrary, these latter must be regarded as the sole source of the model which gradually spread through the whole of Europe and then to the whole world. We are therefore concerned with what is indisputably an original institution, which can only be defined in terms of a historical analysis of its emergence and its mode of operation in concrete circumstances."

A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages

We can go into detail in in another thread, but you need to read the reference I provided.

I did ask for a page/chapter number but no joy on that front...

Yes humanism has different definitions, but the Renaissance Humanism is rooted in Greek Philosophers, as were early Roman humanist philosophers like Lucretius. Renaissance Humanism was the antithesis of traditional theism and Christianity.

Reasoning behind it being the antithesis?

I asked for your definition of 'traditional Christianity', but again, not forthcoming.

I believe this by the facts of history, and you are shmoozing Christian humanism with Renaissance Humanism to justify an agenda, This is not acceptable.

No I'm not because they are completely different things.

"Renaissance humanism must be kept free from any hint of either "humanitarianism" or "humanism" in its modern sense of rational, non-religious approach to life ... the word "humanism" will mislead ... if it is seen in opposition to a Christianity its students in the main wished to supplement, not contradict, through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom"

A Concise encyclopaedia of the Italian Renaissance



Why do you always feel the need to accuse others of extreme bias merely for having the temerity to disagree with your unsupported statements (often not even arguments)? I have no 'agenda' because I'm not a Christian. My views reflect the scholarly sources I have read on the subject.

There is nothing I say that could not be supported with academic references, something which you don't do for your own arguments. I would be happy to discuss this topic with you where we are not allowed to say anything without supporting it with academic resources, but can't really be bothered as a single sided endeavour where you just dismiss it out of hand by stating your own opinions as unquestionable facts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you tell me the specific evolution that differentiates between 'not a university', and 'university'? It can't simply be a place that teaches theology, science and philosophy.

You are the one trying to make a distinction as to what is a university and what is excluding early Islamic universities not me. I consider your view prejudiced,

Plenty of places have taught science and philosophy at advanced levels since classical antiquity. Adding theology to the mix doesn't really change much. Also seeing as something like Neoplatonist philosophy was also 'theological', it had already been done.

I do not believe there were plenty of places,

By your definition, these weren't the first universities, just the oldest ones still in operation.

From: University of Al Quaraouiyine - Wikipedia

"The University of al-Qarawiyyin, also written Al Quaraouiyine or Al-Karaouine (Arabic: جامعة القرويين‎; Berber languages: ⵜⵉⵎⵣⴳⵉⴷⴰ ⵏ ⵍⵇⴰⵕⴰⵡⵉⵢⵢⵉⵏ; French: Université Al Quaraouiyine), is a university located in Fez, Morocco. It is the oldest existing, continually operating and the first degree-awarding educational institution in the world according to UNESCO and Guinness World Records[5][6] and is sometimes referred to as the oldest university.[7] It was founded by Fatima al-Fihri in 859 with an associated madrasa, which subsequently became one of the leading spiritual and educational centers of the historic Muslim world. It was incorporated into Morocco's modern state university system in 1963."

I took the middle ground and presented 2 different ways of looking at the topic and get accused of 'extreme bias' for not accepting your personal diktat unquestioningly?

I have provided my references as above and you are ignoring them.

I did ask for a page/chapter number but no joy on that front...

I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant do your own research as to the success of Europe after ~1000 AD as per the resources such as timber, iron. and climate for agriculture.

Reasoning behind it being the antithesis?

From: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html
Humanism is the term generally applied to the predominant social philosophy and intellectual and literary currents of the period from 1400 to 1650. The return to favor of the pagan classics stimulated the philosophy of secularism, the appreciation of worldly pleasures, and above all intensified the assertion of personal independence and individual expression. Zeal for the classics was a result as well as a cause of the growing secular view of life. Expansion of trade, growth of prosperity and luxury, and widening social contacts generated interest in worldly pleasures, in spite of formal allegiance to ascetic Christian doctrine. Men thus affected -- the humanists -- welcomed classical writers who revealed similar social values and secular attitudes.

Historians are pretty much agreed on the general outlines of those mental attitudes and scholarly interests which are assembled under the rubric of humanism. The most fundamental point of agreement is that the humanist mentality stood at a point midway between medieval supernaturalism and the modern scientific and critical attitude. Medievalists see humanism as the terminal product of the Middle Ages. Modern historians are perhaps more apt to view humanism as the germinal period of modernism.

Perhaps the most we can assume is that the man of the Renaissance lived, as it were, between two worlds. The world of the medieval Christian matrix, in which the significance of every phenomenon was ultimately determined through uniform points of view, no longer existed for him. On the other hand, he had not yet found in a system of scientific concepts and social principles stability and security for his life. In other words, Renaissance man may indeed have found himself suspended between faith and reason.

As the grip of medieval supernaturalism began to diminish, secular and human interests became more prominent. The facts of individual experience in the here and now became more interesting than the shadowy afterlife. Reliance upon faith and God weakened. Fortuna (chance) gradually replaced Providence as the universal frame of reference. The present world became an end in itself instead of simply preparation of a world to come. Indeed, as the age of Renaissance humanism wore on, the distinction between this world (the City of Man) and the next (the City of God) tended to disappear."

Christian humanism evolved in the Renaissance period also, but it is not the same . . .

From: Christian humanism - Wikipedia
Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism.[citation needed] It regards humanist principles like universal human dignity and individual freedom and the primacy of human happiness as essential and principal components of, or at least compatible with, the teachings of Jesus.[citation needed] Christian humanism can be seen as a philosophical union of Christian ethics and humanist principles.[1] The term humanism was coined by theologian Friedrich Niethammer at the beginning of the 19th century.

 

[Augustus]

You are the one trying to make a distinction as to what is a university and what is excluding early Islamic universities not me. I consider your view prejudiced,

Factually, a university had specific characteristics that enable it to be a university. You must meet certain criteria to qualify. This is a tangible reality. You are arguing that acknowledging this tangible reality is 'prejudiced'.

I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant do your own research as to the success of Europe after ~1000 AD as per the resources such as timber, iron. and climate for agriculture.

Good grief. You are how old? "I know but I'm not telling you, na na na na na"

You have lost track of the topic, and told me to read a 500 page book that says nothing about the topic we were discussing which was the influence of Christianity on the rise of modern science.

If I present any academic information, you ignore it and resort to insults. I don't mind the insults, but would like you to reply to the material like I have replied to yours (universities, renaissance, etc.), often with academic resources (which are simply ignored as you reply to everything in the post except them).

I'm happy to discuss the issue with published academic material only (not wikipedia and blogs). Despite your claims of my 'ignorance' and 'extreme bias', I can do this. If you are interested, let me know.

If not, one more for the road:

Although they disagree about nuances, today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well as Protestantism) move many early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically.4 Historians have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious re- sults; the very notion that nature is lawful, some scholars argue, was borrowed from Christian theology.5 Christian convictions also affected how nature was studied. For example, in the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine’s notion of original sin (which held that Adam’s Fall left humans implacably dam- aged) was embraced by advocates of “experimental natural phi- losophy.” As they saw it, fallen humans lacked the grace to understand the workings of the world through cogitation alone, requiring in their disgraced state painstaking experiment and ob- servation to arrive at knowledge of how nature works (though our knowledge even then could never be certain). In this way, Christian doctrine lent urgency to experiment.6

Historians have also found that changing Christian approaches to interpreting the Bible affected the way nature was studied in crucial ways. For example, Reformation leaders disparaged alle- gorical readings of Scripture, counseling their congregations to read Holy Writ literally. This approach to the Bible led some scholars to change the way they studied nature, no longer seeking the allegorical meaning of plants and animals and instead seeking what they took to be a more straightforward description of the material world.7 Also, many of those today considered “fore- fathers” of modern science found in Christianity legitimation of their pursuits. René Descartes (1596–1650) boasted of his physics that “my new philosophy is in much better agreement with all the truths of faith than that of Aristotle.”8 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) believed that his system restored the original divine wisdom God had provided to Moses and had no doubt that his Christianity bolstered his physics—and that his physics bolstered his Christi- anity.9 Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. (Noah J Efron - Ch9 in Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion - Harvard University Press)

 

[shunyadragon]

Factually, a university had specific characteristics that enable it to be a university. You must meet certain criteria to qualify. This is a tangible reality. You are arguing that acknowledging this tangible reality is 'prejudiced'.

Ignoring my references that the Islamic university is designated as the first university represents a prejudiced view clinging to splitting frog hairs over 'exactly what is a university.'

I gave a good reference that describes the Islamic university as the first university and again you chose to ignore it.

Good grief. You are how old? "I know but I'm not telling you, na na na na na"

Phfffffft! Splate!!

You have lost track of the topic, and told me to read a 500 page book that says nothing about the topic we were discussing which was the influence of Christianity on the rise of modern science.

If I present any academic information, you ignore it and resort to insults. I don't mind the insults, but would like you to reply to the material like I have replied to yours (universities, renaissance, etc.), often with academic resources (which are simply ignored as you reply to everything in the post except them).

I'm happy to discuss the issue with published academic material only (not wikipedia and blogs). Despite your claims of my 'ignorance' and 'extreme bias', I can do this. If you are interested, let me know.

If not, one more for the road:

Although they disagree about nuances, today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well as Protestantism) move many early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically.4 Historians have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious re- sults; the very notion that nature is lawful, some scholars argue, was borrowed from Christian theology.5 Christian convictions also affected how nature was studied. For example, in the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine’s notion of original sin (which held that Adam’s Fall left humans implacably dam- aged) was embraced by advocates of “experimental natural phi- losophy.” As they saw it, fallen humans lacked the grace to understand the workings of the world through cogitation alone, requiring in their disgraced state painstaking experiment and ob- servation to arrive at knowledge of how nature works (though our knowledge even then could never be certain). In this way, Christian doctrine lent urgency to experiment.6

Historians have also found that changing Christian approaches to interpreting the Bible affected the way nature was studied in crucial ways. For example, Reformation leaders disparaged alle- gorical readings of Scripture, counseling their congregations to read Holy Writ literally. This approach to the Bible led some scholars to change the way they studied nature, no longer seeking the allegorical meaning of plants and animals and instead seeking what they took to be a more straightforward description of the material world.7 Also, many of those today considered “fore- fathers” of modern science found in Christianity legitimation of their pursuits. René Descartes (1596–1650) boasted of his physics that “my new philosophy is in much better agreement with all the truths of faith than that of Aristotle.”8 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) believed that his system restored the original divine wisdom God had provided to Moses and had no doubt that his Christianity bolstered his physics—and that his physics bolstered his Christi- anity.9 Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. (Noah J Efron - Ch9 in Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion - Harvard University Press)

The claim that Newtons science was supported by his faith in Christianity is at best anecdotal. I believe the evolution of Greek philosophy was the inspiration for the development and advancement of science in Islam and Christian Europe.

I have presented my references and you chose to ignore them, including definitions from reliable sources that define Renaissance Humanism versus Christian humanism. Yes, Christian Humanism had its distinctive and important influence, particularly in the reform movements of Christianity, but than again like Martin Luther reform did not necessarily include science.

 

[Vouthon]

Because it is pertinent to the topic at hand, I invite folks to read this article by Professor Larry Siedentop, one of the world's most esteemed authorities on the history of liberalism, published in the UK Financial Times business newspaper:

Subscribe to read

Remember the religious roots of liberal thought
​

Selective memory of our past lies behind our current crisis of identity, writes Larry Siedentop

The paterfamilias was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals.

It was the Christian movement that began to challenge this understanding. Pauline belief in the equality of souls in the eyes of God – the discovery of human freedom and its potential – created a point of view that would transform the meaning of “society”.

This began to undercut traditional inequalities of status. It was nothing short of a moral revolution, and it laid the foundation for the social revolution that followed. The individual gradually displaced the family, tribe or caste as the basis of social organisation.

This was a centuries-long process. By the 12th and 13th centuries the Papacy sponsored the creation of a legal system for the Church, founded on the assumption of moral equality. Canon lawyers assumed that the basic organising unit of the legal system was the individual (or “soul”).

Working from that assumption, canonists transformed the ancient doctrine of natural law (“everything in its place”) into a theory of natural rights – the forerunner of modern liberal rights theory.

By the 15th century these intellectual developments contributed to a reform movement (“Conciliarism”) calling for something like representative government in the Church.

The failure of that reform movement lay behind the outbreak of the Reformation, which led to religious wars and growing pressure across Europe for the separation of Church and state. By the 18th century such pressure had become a virulent anticlericalism, which reshaped the writing of western history and with it our understanding of ourselves.

It is this selective memory of our past that lies behind our failure to see that it was moral intuitions generated by Christianity that were turned against the coercive claims of the Church – intuitions founded on belief in free will, which led to the conclusion that enforced belief is a contradiction in terms.

So it is no accident that the west generated a rights-based culture of principles rather than of rules. It is our enormous strength, reflected in the liberation of women and a refusal to accept that apostasy is a crime. We should acknowledge the religious sources of liberal secularism. That would strengthen the west, making it better able to shape the conversation of mankind.

The writer is an emeritus fellow of Keble College, Oxford, and author of ‘Inventing the Individual’​

 

[shunyadragon]

Because it is pertinent to the topic at hand, I invite folks to read this article by Professor Larry Siedentop, one of the world's most esteemed authorities on the history of liberalism, published in the UK Financial Times business newspaper:

Subscribe to read

Remember the religious roots of liberal thought
​

Selective memory of our past lies behind our current crisis of identity, writes Larry Siedentop

The paterfamilias was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals.

It was the Christian movement that began to challenge this understanding. Pauline belief in the equality of souls in the eyes of God – the discovery of human freedom and its potential – created a point of view that would transform the meaning of “society”.

This began to undercut traditional inequalities of status. It was nothing short of a moral revolution, and it laid the foundation for the social revolution that followed. The individual gradually displaced the family, tribe or caste as the basis of social organisation.

This was a centuries-long process. By the 12th and 13th centuries the Papacy sponsored the creation of a legal system for the Church, founded on the assumption of moral equality. Canon lawyers assumed that the basic organising unit of the legal system was the individual (or “soul”).

Working from that assumption, canonists transformed the ancient doctrine of natural law (“everything in its place”) into a theory of natural rights – the forerunner of modern liberal rights theory.

By the 15th century these intellectual developments contributed to a reform movement (“Conciliarism”) calling for something like representative government in the Church.

The failure of that reform movement lay behind the outbreak of the Reformation, which led to religious wars and growing pressure across Europe for the separation of Church and state. By the 18th century such pressure had become a virulent anticlericalism, which reshaped the writing of western history and with it our understanding of ourselves.

It is this selective memory of our past that lies behind our failure to see that it was moral intuitions generated by Christianity that were turned against the coercive claims of the Church – intuitions founded on belief in free will, which led to the conclusion that enforced belief is a contradiction in terms.

So it is no accident that the west generated a rights-based culture of principles rather than of rules. It is our enormous strength, reflected in the liberation of women and a refusal to accept that apostasy is a crime. We should acknowledge the religious sources of liberal secularism. That would strengthen the west, making it better able to shape the conversation of mankind.

The writer is an emeritus fellow of Keble College, Oxford, and author of ‘Inventing the Individual’​

I gave my references and I stand by them. Greek philosophy was the origin of the Renaissance Humanism. Christian Humanism had its influence, particularly in the reform movements of Christianity. as defined by the reference. More to follow. I believe this is a conflict between religious apologetic scholarship and secular scholarship.

From: The Origins of Humanism - Renaissance and Reformation - Oxford Bibliographies

"Italian humanism began in the northern third of the Italian peninsula, which constituted the southern kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire. Except for legal commentaries on Roman and canon law and practical manuals of letter writing, this area of Italy made almost no contribution to European culture before the 13th century. In contrast, a significant change in the culture of the area occurred then. While legal studies and practical rhetoric retained their importance, the composition of Latin and vernacular poetry flourished, the translation of ancient Latin literary and scholarly work became an industry, and natural science and theology emerged as topics of major interest. Whereas in northern Europe intellectual life was dominated by clerics throughout the Middle Ages, from at least the early 12th century, laymen in this area of Italy played a significant role in what scholarly and literary work was produced. At least by the second half of the 13th century, they constituted the majority of grammar teachers and professors at the universities. It is fair to say that the buoyant Italian culture of the 13th century was, with the exception of theology and canon law, largely a lay enterprise. When laymen approached the writings of the ancients, therefore, they came to these works with different questions from those of northern European clerics. The evolution of Italian humanism, grounded as it was on the study and imitation of the ancients, was marked from its beginnings with the concerns of lay society. Herein lay its claim to be a major progenitor of the modern world."

 

[Vouthon]

I gave my references and I stand by them. Greek philosophy was the origin of the Renaissance Humanism. Christian Humanism had its influence, as defined by the reference. More to follow. I believe this is a conflict between religious apologetic scholarship and secular scholarship.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumption here.

Professor Siedentop is an atheist scholar of liberal thought and is merely summing up the consensus among fellow scholars such as Brian Tierney, Pennington, Canning, Annabel Brett and Francis Fukuyama, among many others.

If you think it's religious apologetic then you obviously cannot be up-to-speed with the latest scholarship.

The argument is simple and extremely well-evidenced: the 12th century canon lawyers of the church were the first to conceive of natural law in a subjective way as implying inviolable natural rights inherent to every individual. This idea doesn't surface anywhere in classical thought, because the ancient Greeks and Romans understood natural law to be an objective order out there in the universe, not an inherent faculty or power within individuals that gave them a set of inviolable rights which their governments (under mere positive, human law) couldn't infringe, and which thereby placed theoretical limitations upon the exercise of executive or royal power.

This ultimately fed into the ecclesiastical conciliarism pioneered by the likes of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, which was then translated into political theory: leading to the combined ideals of limited government with a higher pre-existent law, distinct from legislation, that circumscribed the exercise of political power within a framework upholding the natural rights of individual subjects as the pre-eminent constituent element of society - the most important precondition for modern liberalism.

I can cite numerous authorities and contemporary sources corroborating this, if you'd like me to do so.

 

[shunyadragon]

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumption here.

Professor Siedentop is an atheist scholar of liberal thought and is merely summing up the consensus among fellow scholars such as Brian Tierney, Pennington, Canning, Annabel Brett and Francis Fukuyama, among many others.

If you think it's religious apologetic then you obviously cannot be up-to-speed with the latest scholarship.

The argument is simple and extremely well-evidenced: the 12th century canon lawyers of the church were the first to conceive of natural law in a subjective way as implying inviolable natural rights inherent to every individual. This idea doesn't surface anywhere in classical thought, because the ancient Greeks and Romans understood natural law to be an objective order out there in the universe, not an inherent faculty or power within individuals that gave them a set of inviolable rights which their governments (under mere positive, human law) couldn't infringe, and which thereby placed theoretical limitations upon the exercise of executive or royal power.

This ultimately fed into the ecclesiastical conciliarism pioneered by the likes of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, which was then translated into political theory: leading to the combined ideals of limited government with a higher pre-existent law, distinct from legislation, that circumscribed the exercise of political power within a framework upholding the natural rights of individual subjects as the pre-eminent constituent element of society - the most important precondition for modern liberalism.

I can cite numerous authorities and contemporary sources corroborating this, if you'd like me to do so.

They are not my assumptions.

I gave my references and they are current scholarship including Oxford biographies. Claims of liberalism does not help you case. The difference and the influence of Renaissance Humanism and Christian Humanism is clear and specific as defined from good sources. The site Oxford Biographies goes into the considerable more detail as the origin, differences and influences of Renaissance Humanism and Christian humanism.