Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

20th Century as Effect of Decline of Christianity?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 20th Century as Effect of Decline of Christianity?
    Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 01:32

This was a small semi-theory I was thinking about in my spare time at work for a few days. 

After reading something on the net about Nazi medical experiments and then reading something about philosophy later, I thought of something.  In Nazi Germany, it was most certainly true that not all Germans agreed to the letter with party philosophy as believed by Hitler and as expressed by Hitler and Rosenburg.  Yet, many Germans accepted many of the broad policies of the Nazis and nonideologues took part in many of them (Eichmann for example).  In that sense, I think a lot of Nazi Germany's character and actions can be better explained not as an embracing of Nazi principles or any narrowly defined set of principles but as a rejection of older Judeo-Christian ethics, into which Darwinistic and racist ideologies flowered.
 
One can then look at all the other plethora of new ideologies that sprang up in Europe in the relatively short period from before the French Revolution till the end of this century.  Why would so many new ideologies be formed?  I think a large part of that is, of course, due to the decline of dogmatic adherence to Christianity and its system of ethics as caused by the rise of scientific reason, the decline in the political power of the church, and the disillusionment felt by many due to urbanization and industrialization.
 
That's my small theory as to one of the reasons why new and powerful systems of thought arose in great numbers in the past two hundred years.  Many of the great political movements of the 20th century (fascism, nazism, communism, liberalism, objectivism, etc.) could be viewed as political outgrowths of systems of ethics and belief that are deeply contradictory with Christian dogma, which was losing its grip on many millions of people at their times.
 
I have not heard someone say such a theory before, but I would not be surprised if it had been said or heard by one of you all before, as I'm sure people smarter than myself had thought of such questions and come up with good answers
 
So,
 
1. Do you think it is accurate to mainly call Nazi society one which emphatically rejected conventional Christian morals?
 
2. To what extent can that be said of other movements?
 
3. Was the decline of Christian ethics and beliefs necessary for the emergence of many of the ideologies of the 19th and 20th Centuries?


Edited by Genghis - 17-Jul-2006 at 01:37
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 06:33

A few thoughts to Q 1:

 

There only is an antagonism between Nazi ideology and Christianity, if you see the latter in its ideal and purest form, in which as organised form it never existed. Christian morals can not be judged other than as they manifested themselves in history, and the morals of the Nazi society can be found in many Christian societies over the ages.

Nazism and organised Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

If you define Nazism as fascism with an additional racist component, then firstly in some fascist societies Christianity served as ideological base, as it did in Francos Spain, and secondly the Anti-Semite racism of the Nazis had its historical roots in the centuries old persecution of the Jewish people by the Christian churches and its adherents.

There was of course a tendency amongst the Nazi movement that sought to re-instate the old pagan Nordic religions, but it was never more than a tiny minority, ridiculed and not taken serious at all.

 

 

 

The Nazis relationship to Christianity and organised Christian Churches is rather a complex one.

While both the main Christian branches in Germany, the Protestants and Catholics, on an official level sought to accommodate themselves with the Nazi-Regime ( See the Reichskonkordat between Hitler and the Vatican from July 1933, or the Protestant Reichskirche under Reichsbischof Mller), many of the individuals (Bischof Graf von Galen, Bonhffer) or groups ( Weisse Rose) in the German resistance were religiously motivated.

The more nationalist/conservative wings of the Christian Churches regarded Nazism, that did not have any clear position on religion, either as the lesser evil in comparison to Communism, or indeed supported it more or less enthusiastically in sympathy with their authoritarian and chauvinistic politics.

 

[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 04:24
It's certainly arguable than the overall improvement in human behaviour in the 20th century, with its much greater concern for the rights and welfare of the underprivileged, is due to the decline of Christian influence.
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 11:52
Originally posted by gcle2003

It's certainly arguable than the overall improvement in human behaviour in the 20th century, with its much greater concern for the rights and welfare of the underprivileged, is due to the decline of Christian influence.
 
Yes, because such secular humanistic ideas were one of the ideas that grew up in the vacuum of Christian dogma, the others being Communism, Social Darwinism, Liberal Capitalism, etc.
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 17:33
You should read Modris Eksteins' "Rites of Spring" - a cultural history centered around the 1st world war. I'm currently working on a review essay on it, which I will finish this week. I will post it, because I believe it to be of great relevance to your question.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 05:15
Originally posted by Genghis

Originally posted by gcle2003

It's certainly arguable than the overall improvement in human behaviour in the 20th century, with its much greater concern for the rights and welfare of the underprivileged, is due to the decline of Christian influence.
 
Yes, because such secular humanistic ideas were one of the ideas that grew up in the vacuum of Christian dogma, the others being Communism, Social Darwinism, Liberal Capitalism, etc.
 
Liberal Capitalism is neither 20th century or non-Christian. Have you read Tawney?
 
That apart, so what? The point is that Christian influence has diminshed in the 20th century, and at the end of the century the mass (not of course all) of mankind worldwide enjoyed freer, fuller, more comfortable and longer lives than they had at the beginning, a great many of them in states that only achieved independence during the century.
 
It's arguable that this is no coincidence.
 
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 19:27
I know capitalism isn't 20th Century or non-Christian, the point I was trying to make is that the fixation with it by some and the emergence of a deep belief and faith in the wisdom and justness of the market is.
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 03:35
If you are going to go by a "decline of christianity thesis", then I suspect future historians will date that as beginning around the time of the reformation.
 
I would say that many of the evils of the 20th century were caused by an absence of "Christian" values, you know compassion for your fellow man, etc, etc.
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 09:55
 
Originally posted by Sparten

If you are going to go by a "decline of christianity thesis", then I suspect future historians will date that as beginning around the time of the reformation.
 
I would say that many of the evils of the 20th century were caused by an absence of "Christian" values, you know compassion for your fellow man, etc, etc.
 
 
That's a Christian value? Non-Christians aren't compassionate?
 
The whole drive of Christianity (and most other religions) is that one's duty to God comes ahead of one's duty to one's fellow man. If God says divorce is forbidden, then divorce is forbidden, no matter how much misery the ban may cause. Same goes for abortion. Or homosexuality. Or burning heretics.
 
The point of humanism is that one's duty to one's fellow-man comes first - ahead of one's duty to God or whatever other supernatural being(s) you may believe in, if any.
 
There's no doubt which view is the more compassionate. And the 20th century was more compassionate and less Christian than any since Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
 
(I would accept that some Christians have come to give more prominence to humane concerns: that's one of the signs of the lessening of Christian influence. But that strengthens the point, it doesn't diminish it.)
 
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 20-Jul-2006 at 09:56
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 02:03
AE crashed so I had to post my response on my LJ which means it has a wierd tone, but Ill copy/paste it here:
 
 
Fascism, communism, and other forms of totalitarianism are not caused by industrialization or the loss of religion or any of those things.  The upswing in violence this and the last century have seen has been inspected and attributed to any number of things, but one thing it has not been attributed to is the most likley source...popular government and democracy. 
Fascism, Communism and others are systems of government that thrive on popular support and an establishment of power by charismatic people on the shoulders of the masses.  Democracy, if you will, is a prelude to fascism, or maybe it is just a form of it.  Democracies are easy prey for such movements, and democracies often spring up after such movements are toppled.  They are all forms of mass sanctioned rule, a product one could say, of urbanization.
It is a tool used not by the elites of the blood (bad), or the elites of ability (good), but by the elites of the popularity contest, the people with a pretty smile.  That pretty smile is a way to get the people behind you.  The people, like the animal they are, need nourishment, and that is usually found in the neighbors those brutish people deign to hate because they are different.  To sustain their rule the charismatic people in charge feed their charges with witch hunts.
 You see people at the intellectual bottom are so low that the only way they can feel good about themselves is by making someone lower. In Germany this was the Jews, in America it once was Blacks and now is atheists, migrant workers and homosexuals, and in Soviet Russia it was the wealthy and sucessful Ukranian kulaks and self sufficient Cossacks who had to pay for being a human being who was not a part of the biggest mob.
Fascism and communism, you see, are natural, less moderate versions of popular democratic movements.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 04:01
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Sparten

If you are going to go by a "decline of christianity thesis", then I suspect future historians will date that as beginning around the time of the reformation.
 
I would say that many of the evils of the 20th century were caused by an absence of "Christian" values, you know compassion for your fellow man, etc, etc.
 
 
That's a Christian value? Non-Christians aren't compassionate?
 
The whole drive of Christianity (and most other religions) is that one's duty to God comes ahead of one's duty to one's fellow man. If God says divorce is forbidden, then divorce is forbidden, no matter how much misery the ban may cause. Same goes for abortion. Or homosexuality. Or burning heretics.
 
The point of humanism is that one's duty to one's fellow-man comes first - ahead of one's duty to God or whatever other supernatural being(s) you may believe in, if any.
 
There's no doubt which view is the more compassionate. And the 20th century was more compassionate and less Christian than any since Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
 
(I would accept that some Christians have come to give more prominence to humane concerns: that's one of the signs of the lessening of Christian influence. But that strengthens the point, it doesn't diminish it.)
 
 
 
I agree with you. Thats why I placed the words Chritisan in inverted commas.
 
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 04:27
Originally posted by Sparten

 
I would say that many of the evils of the 20th century were caused by an absence of "Christian" values, you know compassion for your fellow man, etc, etc.
 
 
 
As you seem to have detected an absence of "Christian" values in the 20th century, you might want to enlighten us, in which centuries they were actually present.
 


Edited by Komnenos - 21-Jul-2006 at 04:28
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:47
Among the philosophical stances characterising an increasingly larger percentage from the modern individuals of the so-called "Civilized world" would be also: hedonism, egoism, capitalism and similar ideologies. These ideologies reclaim the priority of the self-interest over the others.
On the other hand, there are aspects of the Christian/traditional mindset which were so far overlooked, aspects like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" (one of the Commandments) or "do to others as you would have others do to you" (if I'm not mistaken it's some verse from Matthew), aspects which crystalized in the morality of some communities (the rural ones being good examples). These "duties to God" seemingly are also concerning our neighbours. While not necessarily intending to discuss theodicees or apparent or real contradictions in the Christian philosophy/doctrines, it seems that there's a Christian moral imperative to care (and act accordingly) about our neighbours. Hence, Christianity vs Humanism appears to be a forced dichotomy if we look at the whole perspective.
 
What indeed could be a good example of opposition to Christianity would be the Individualism.


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Jul-2006 at 08:00
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 05:35
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Among the philosophical stances characterising an increasingly larger percentage from the modern individuals of the so-called "Civilized world" would be also: hedonism, egoism, capitalism and similar ideologies.
Hedonism and egoism - which are not really ideologies anyway - are scarcely new, and certainly did not increase in the 20th century.
 
Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism, and moreover it can hardly be said to have spread during the 20th century, which in fact saw the spread of political movements opposed to capitalism, whether it be Communism of various types, secular Socialism, Christian Socialism, Ba'athist socialism or whatever.
 
The virtually unchallenged heyday of capitalism was the mid to late 19th century - a period in which Christianity was also dominant. The movements that opposed capitalism, whether Fabian or Marxist, menshevik or Bolshevik, tended also to oppose  organised religion.
 
(I realise there were some Christian groups also opposed to free capitalism; that's why I mentioned Christian socialists above.)
 
These ideologies reclaim the priority of the self-interest over the others.
On the other hand, there are aspects of the Christian/traditional mindset which were so far overlooked, aspects like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" (one of the Commandments) or "do to others as you would have others do to you" (if I'm not mistaken it's some verse from Matthew), aspects which crystalized in the morality of some communities (the rural ones being good examples).
Neither of those are specifically Christian commandments. You find them in pretty well all religions - and non-religious philosophies like Kant's - including the pre-Christian ones.
 
What is important in this context is that to Jesus the command 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is second behind the prime duty to love God.
 
Mark 12:30-31
 
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;' this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

(My emphasis of course.)
 
(There's quite a good article on this at wikipedia
including a discussion of the rules' logical weaknesses.)
 
 
 These "duties to God" seemingly are also concerning our neighbours. While not necessarily intending to discuss theodicees or apparent or real contradictions in the Christian philosophy/doctrines, it seems that there's a Christian moral imperative to care (and act accordingly) about our neighbours. Hence, Christianity vs Humanism appears to be a forced dichotomy if we look at the whole perspective.
The very phrase 'moral imperative' reeks of Kant.
 
Anyway what Christians should do isn't the point. It's what on the whole they did do. And that record isn't particularly good when it comes to dealing with people who don't agree with them.
 
Moreover, it is undoubtedly true that the prime Christian imperative is to do God's will, irrespective of its effect on people. The humanist says 'look after people - God, if any, can take care of himself.'
 
What indeed could be a good example of opposition to Christianity would be the Individualism.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 06:40
Hedonism and egoism - which are not really ideologies anyway - are scarcely new, and certainly did not increase in the 20th century
AFAIK an ideology is a set of ideas reflecting the beliefs of an individual or a group of individuals, ideas which somehow illustrate a social/cultural integration of this individual or group of individuals.
Egoism may be also rational (to think that acting for your own self is the best thing to do) and also ethical (to think that is morale to act for your own self). Hedonism is a similar position which replaces the own interest with the own pleasure.
Both are not new, being known to an extent to Ancient Graeco-Roman world (see Epicureanism, for instance).
I'm not sure if the beginning of 20th century is a relevant starting point, but it seems quite obvious that their spreadout is reversely proportional with the influence of Christian values, which are somehow opposite.
 
Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism,
I'm not sure I follow that.
 
and moreover it can hardly be said to have spread during the 20th century, which in fact saw the spread of political movements opposed to capitalism, whether it be Communism of various types, secular Socialism, Christian Socialism, Ba'athist socialism or whatever.
True enough (though 20th century saw also the developments of many other movements - why political movements? - supporting capitalism), but I was talking under a larger perspective of the "modern individuals of the so-called 'Civillized world'. Modernity, AFAIK, stretches few centuries behind us Wink
 
The virtually unchallenged heyday of capitalism was the mid to late 19th century - a period in which Christianity was also dominant.
Such correlations remind me of the decreasing number of pirates and the increasing global average temperature. LOL Coexistence is not necessarily causation.
 
Neither of those are specifically Christian commandments.
I'm not sure what's your point here. It was insinuated above in the thread that Christianity is a "duty to God" and therefore it's not "Humanistic". I merely argued against that, I'm not revealing its specifics or attempting to provide it as "Teh Way".
 
What is important in this context is that to Jesus the command 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is second behind the prime duty to love God.
 
Mark 12:30-31
 
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;' this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

On what theological basis you argue that the order of issuing is the order of importance? Also you're starting with the premise that these commandements would eventually contradict therefore one would have sometime to choose between them, a premise which is not given. You're assuming that could be such a case for one to love God he should not love (hate) his neighbour, therefore attempting to be Christian (according to your interpretation) would annihilate the Humanist dimension.
I recommend you to read also from Matthew the "Blessings" and all the following verses. It is even said there somewhere that if one expects a heavenly reward he should love even his enemy.
And to open a door to more recent interpretations, we can talk about pity and kindness, cherished by Christian theologicians and apologists and sometimes pointed out as harmful by some anti-Christian philosophers and ethicians.
Also see the seven virtues and the seven deadly sins.
You repeated this in your message and claimed it's "undoubtely true". A rushy conclusion, I'd say.
 
The very phrase 'moral imperative' reeks of Kant.
I was aware of that but it's not only Kant. A large part of the modern ethics addresses the "ought". Your objection is ... ?
 
Anyway what Christians should do isn't the point. It's what on the whole they did do. And that record isn't particularly good when it comes to dealing with people who don't agree with them.
But this is the only point that can be made, otherwise I fail to see how you identify a certain action as being Christian or non-Christian. If one's Christian and he throws a chewing-gum on the street, would you accuse Christians as being "gum-throwers"? Confused
And let me give an example. Observing the quarrels between Christians and their opponents, the latter defending atheism say "atheists cannot be held responsible for certain actions - as exponents of the atheism, of course - because their atheism does not have any morale imperatives".
And what record is not good? We miss in most of the cases a detailed and accurate perspective upon people's mentality in a certain age and time. And even so, many of the so called "Christian" mentalities aren't Christian at all, if we're to look with care. I exemplified earlier with the rural world, it is in fact Pagano-Christian, not only Christian.


Edited by Chilbudios - 22-Jul-2006 at 07:04
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 20:42

This was a small semi-theory I was thinking about in my spare time at work for a few days. 

After reading something on the net about Nazi medical experiments and then reading something about philosophy later, I thought of something.  In Nazi Germany, it was most certainly true that not all Germans agreed to the letter with party philosophy as believed by Hitler and as expressed by Hitler and Rosenburg.  Yet, many Germans accepted many of the broad policies of the Nazis and nonideologues took part in many of them (Eichmann for example).  In that sense, I think a lot of Nazi Germany's character and actions can be better explained not as an embracing of Nazi principles or any narrowly defined set of principles but as a rejection of older Judeo-Christian ethics, into which Darwinistic and racist ideologies flowered.

 

Till now, my only objection to your theory is that there is no such a coherent and clear "judeo-christian ethics" (and even less an absolute positive one, and even less such a patent in matter of morals!!!); the moral world view evolved continously from some tribal ethics as described in O.T. through a middleage view (that he too suffer a lot of change with the time . . .), till the current "teology of love" (the history and meaning of such a concept as "spirituality" help a lot in grasping that reality). On the other hand, I feel necessary to stress that "darwinism" as ideological and philosophical weltanschaung, should not put any blame to the homonym scientific term (if such a concept is still in use in biology - I doubt that, because the preffered label is "theory of evolution"). And by the way, Hitler himself was a selfdeclared christian (catholic), so  . . .

 

 

 

One can then look at all the other plethora of new ideologies that sprang up in Europe in the relatively short period from before the French Revolution till the end of this century.  Why would so many new ideologies be formed?  I think a large part of that is, of course, due to the decline of dogmatic adherence to Christianity and its system of ethics as caused by the rise of scientific reason, the decline in the political power of the church, and the disillusionment felt by many due to urbanization and industrialization.

 

Any "disillusionment felt by many due to urbanization and industrialization" was clearly a subjective one. The facts are showing that life improved with the arrival of such social and economical changes.

But you are right, the plethora of new ideologies has a lot in common with the fact that christianism blocked too much time the freedom of thinking; no freedom of thinking and speaking his mind, no ideology . . .

 

 

That's my small theory as to one of the reasons why new and powerful systems of thought arose in great numbers in the past two hundred years.  Many of the great political movements of the 20th century (fascism, nazism, communism, liberalism, objectivism, etc.) could be viewed as political outgrowths of systems of ethics and belief that are deeply contradictory with Christian dogma, which was losing its grip on many millions of people at their times.

 

Christianism is/was himself an ideology in the larger sens of the term. And to what you rightfully state here, I maybe feel usefull to say only that all these ideologies are owing a lot to christianism, even when they seem to be so contradictory . . .

 

 

 

I have not heard someone say such a theory before, but I would not be surprised if it had been said or heard by one of you all before, as I'm sure people smarter than myself had thought of such questions and come up with good answers

So, 

1. Do you think it is accurate to mainly call Nazi society one which emphatically rejected conventional Christian morals?

 

As said before, there is no unique "conventional christian morals"; the meaning vary from a theologian to another and from an period of history to another. Just take the risk to try define what you call "conventional christian morals" and suddenly youll find to which extent you are on a slippery slope and never ending the need to define and redefine . . .

 

 

2. To what extent can that be said of other movements?

 3. Was the decline of Christian ethics and beliefs necessary for the emergence of many of the ideologies of the 19th and 20th Centuries?

 

If we take into account the lack of freedoms all the time christianism was influential, we can say that. 



Edited by Corlanx - 23-Jul-2006 at 20:46
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 21:10
Among the philosophical stances characterising an increasingly larger percentage from the modern individuals of the so-called "Civilized world" would be also: hedonism, egoism, capitalism and similar ideologies. These ideologies reclaim the priority of the self-interest over the others.
 
Please try to explain us how you measure the egoism in the history! 
 
 
On the other hand, there are aspects of the Christian/traditional mindset which were so far overlooked,
 
Maybe because they were too often just theoretically claimed, but (almost) never applied . . .
 
 aspects like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" (one of the Commandments) or "do to others as you would have others do to you" (if I'm not mistaken it's some verse from Matthew), aspects which crystalized in the morality of some communities (the rural ones being good examples).
 
Well, I really have some problems putting in connection what you describe as a rurally practiced moralitym with what I know from history the rural morality looked like!
 
 
These "duties to God" seemingly are also concerning our neighbours. While not necessarily intending to discuss theodicees or apparent or real contradictions in the Christian philosophy/doctrines, it seems that there's a Christian moral imperative to care (and act accordingly) about our neighbours. Hence, Christianity vs Humanism appears to be a forced dichotomy if we look at the whole perspective.
 
The dichotomy is absolute in terms of historical experience and theoretically false because what YOU describe as "christian ethics" is just a fraction from what was christian ethics manifested through ages and just a fraction of what one can extact as ethics from the religious text of this cult  . . .
 
What indeed could be a good example of opposition to Christianity would be the Individualism.
 
Not exactly! You can find some elements that makes christianism an individualism generating ideology, specially when you look at him as an outgrowth of the so tribal (= collectivist) judaism  . . . The accent put on personal responsability and individual saving is such an example, but you can find probably others.
 
And to open a door to more recent interpretations, we can talk about pity and kindness, cherished by Christian theologicians and apologists and sometimes pointed out as harmful by some anti-Christian philosophers and ethicians.
 
Antichristian =/= humanist. So?
(I appreciate a lot you stressing that we have to deal here with "a more recent interpretation", but we all wolud have been infinitely more happy if christianism didn't manifest this "esprit d'escalier" in matters of ethics . . .


Edited by Corlanx - 23-Jul-2006 at 21:25
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 05:08
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Hedonism and egoism - which are not really ideologies anyway - are scarcely new, and certainly did not increase in the 20th century
AFAIK an ideology is a set of ideas reflecting the beliefs of an individual or a group of individuals, ideas which somehow illustrate a social/cultural integration of this individual or group of individuals.
Hedonism and egoism are both essentially individualistic - denials of a community spirit. An ideology necessarily implies a shared set of values and shared goals, just as a religion does.
 
Egoism may be also rational (to think that acting for your own self is the best thing to do) and also ethical (to think that is morale to act for your own self). Hedonism is a similar position which replaces the own interest with the own pleasure.
Both are not new, being known to an extent to Ancient Graeco-Roman world (see Epicureanism, for instance).
I'm not sure that Epicurus is really relevant here: this view of Epicureanism, while proverbial, is unjustified.
I'm not sure if the beginning of 20th century is a relevant starting point, but it seems quite obvious that their spreadout is reversely proportional with the influence of Christian values, which are somehow opposite.
'Quite obvious'? How? Throughout the 20th century (I'd agree that's not a good start date, but we're stuck with it) egoism has been in retreat. Hedonism has been on the upswing, and I'll concur that hedonism conflicts with Puritanism: I don't dispute that hedonism has increased with the decline of puritamism; I'm just rather pleased that it has.
 
(Arguably the best statement of hedonistic doctrine comes from a well-known source - "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.")
 
Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism,
I'm not sure I follow that.
 
The correlation between the growth of liberal capitalism and the growth of puritanism, both over time, and by country, is undeniable. There is some dispute over whether the Puritanism led to the liberal capitalism, or vice versa, but they were certainly closely linked.
 
 
and moreover it can hardly be said to have spread during the 20th century, which in fact saw the spread of political movements opposed to capitalism, whether it be Communism of various types, secular Socialism, Christian Socialism, Ba'athist socialism or whatever.
True enough (though 20th century saw also the developments of many other movements - why political movements? - supporting capitalism), but I was talking under a larger perspective of the "modern individuals of the so-called 'Civillized world'. Modernity, AFAIK, stretches few centuries behind us Wink
 
The virtually unchallenged heyday of capitalism was the mid to late 19th century - a period in which Christianity was also dominant.
Such correlations remind me of the decreasing number of pirates and the increasing global average temperature. LOL Coexistence is not necessarily causation.
 
Neither of those are specifically Christian commandments.
I'm not sure what's your point here. It was insinuated above in the thread that Christianity is a "duty to God" and therefore it's not "Humanistic". I merely argued against that, I'm not revealing its specifics or attempting to provide it as "Teh Way".
 
What is important in this context is that to Jesus the command 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is second behind the prime duty to love God.
 
Mark 12:30-31
 
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;' this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

On what theological basis you argue that the order of issuing is the order of importance?
 
It's not the order of issuance, its the definite indication that one's FIRST duty is to God. Which is of course also the situation with the ten commandments.
 
It's also not a theological basis but a linguistic one. 'First' means 'primary'.
 
Moreover it is certainly established doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, at least according to the Jesuits with whom I have argued in the past. For instance, whether allowing divorce increases human misery or diminishes it is held to be irrelevant, since allowing it is contrary to the will of God.
 
 
Also you're starting with the premise that these commandements would eventually contradict therefore one would have sometime to choose between them,
 
No I'm not. I'm starting from the premise that such a contradiction MIGHT occur. Which it may, and indeed has. Such a contradiction exists right now over divorce and over homosexual marriage, for instance.
 
Of course, the contradictions vary according to how you define 'God's will' and as a matter of practical politics the Christian churches (some of them) have been watering down their definitions for some time now. Faced with the requirements of an old interpretation of God's will, many teachers simply say that the old interpretation was mistaken, and that, for instance, yes, it's perfectly OK to have homsexual bishops.
 
a premise which is not given. You're assuming that could be such a case for one to love God he should not love (hate) his neighbour, therefore attempting to be Christian (according to your interpretation) would annihilate the Humanist dimension.
I recommend you to read also from Matthew the "Blessings" and all the following verses.
I have of course done that many many times. Have you ever heard a fundamentalist Baptist preach on the passage, and come up with the argument that, for instance, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" doesn't mean that those who are pure in heart will be blessed: it means that you (his congregation) are pure in heart because you are blessed (chosen by the Lord).
 
Such contrivances apart I have no problem with the Beatitudes. I just wish the Christian churches followed them a little more devotedly.
 
Actually instead of the 20th century effect of the decline of Christianity, a more interesting topic might be the decline of the influence of Jesus on Christianity over the years.
 
 
It is even said there somewhere that if one expects a heavenly reward he should love even his enemy.
And to open a door to more recent interpretations, we can talk about pity and kindness, cherished by Christian theologicians and apologists and sometimes pointed out as harmful by some anti-Christian philosophers and ethicians.
 
What 'anti-Christian' has ever condemned 'pity and kindness'? How much 'pity and kindness' was evinced in burning heretics, or ostracising unmarried mothers, or penalising homosexuals? Did you ever read The Scarlet Letter?
 
It is true that humanistic doctrines have been creeping into Christianity over the last hundred years or so, in self-defence, since otherwise the flight from Christianity would have been even more intense. However, what that represents is a triumph of humanism and a weakening of the basic Christian teachings.
 
Also see the seven virtues and the seven deadly sins.
You repeated this in your message and claimed it's "undoubtely true". A rushy conclusion, I'd say.
 
The very phrase 'moral imperative' reeks of Kant.
I was aware of that but it's not only Kant. A large part of the modern ethics addresses the "ought". Your objection is ... ?
 
Anyway what Christians should do isn't the point. It's what on the whole they did do. And that record isn't particularly good when it comes to dealing with people who don't agree with them.
But this is the only point that can be made, otherwise I fail to see how you identify a certain action as being Christian or non-Christian. If one's Christian and he throws a chewing-gum on the street, would you accuse Christians as being "gum-throwers"? Confused
No, but if most Christians did, and Christian leaders advocated doing it, and even specially blessed the people who did it, then I would call Christians gum-throwers.
And let me give an example. Observing the quarrels between Christians and their opponents, the latter defending atheism say "atheists cannot be held responsible for certain actions - as exponents of the atheism, of course - because their atheism does not have any morale imperatives".
Nobody say that. That's a silly straw man. Of course atheists like anyone else should be held responsible for their actions.
 
And what record is not good? We miss in most of the cases a detailed and accurate perspective upon people's mentality in a certain age and time. And even so, many of the so called "Christian" mentalities aren't Christian at all, if we're to look with care. I exemplified earlier with the rural world, it is in fact Pagano-Christian, not only Christian.


Edited by gcle2003 - 24-Jul-2006 at 05:16
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 08:28

Originally posted by gcle2003

Hedonism and egoism are both essentially individualistic - denials of a community spirit. An ideology necessarily implies a shared set of values and shared goals, just as a religion does.

Huh? To share a value does not mean to share a benefit. According to you, Randian objectivism is not an ideology. Social darwinism is not an ideology. I'm sorry, this is getting too preposterous for me to continue it. Shocked

I'm not sure that Epicurus is really relevant here: this view of Epicureanism, while proverbial, is unjustified.
But it's not about Epicurus. Though I include him, I'm rather talking about his followers, about their oppositions (with Stoicism, for instance - it's a relevant antagonism for what Epicurean claims stand for) and the values they emphasized. Basically, the Greek thought has three dimensions: the logic, the physics and the ethics. I focused on the latter when I invoked the ancient heritage of egoism and hedonism.

'Quite obvious'? How? Throughout the 20th century (I'd agree that's not a good start date, but we're stuck with it) egoism has been in retreat.
I see we're on the opposite sides of the fence, but so far none of us provided some good arguments on it.
What are the signs of the retreat of egoism? From my European experience (anecdotic evidence, I know, but let's start it somehow) the most "cold" and cautious people I've met  in the most civilized countries of Western Europe. In a trivial way, I could easier persuade some Balkanic average man from some "unpolluted" (because country sides become more and more affected by the progress) country side to give me - a stranger - a bed for the night than some townsman from the opposite side of the Europe. I realize the causes and even the picturing are rather complex but this would be a starting point. Next question would be: is he really believing that - can we talk about an ethic of carelessness regarding such issues? Again, my experience says so. Its in fact a combination between lack of trust and selfishness. On one hand the townsman doesn't trust me, on the other hand why would be bother with me? Also, at the same level of own experience and uneducated inferences, I remark the following - momentarily simple - patterns:

- "civilized" townsman: house goods/luxury/wealth (mistrust), relatively busy life (lack of time and energy)
- "uncivilized" country side man: his wealth is his land and his familiy (trust, he has little to be stolen anyway), slow-paced life (plenty of time and energy)
 
If you're willing to participate we can add some more factors and some more educated opinions and attempt a true analysis on how egoism does or would grow/fall as the man is taken under various factors.
 
Hedonism has been on the upswing, and I'll concur that hedonism conflicts with Puritanism: I don't dispute that hedonism has increased with the decline of puritamism; I'm just rather pleased that it has.
I don't think they are true opposites. An "ethic Puritanism" was a rather localized manifestation (the spreadout of the term is that many Protestant branches were later classified as "Puritan"). And it sounds rather weird to claim that the South-European or East-European (or from any other Christian cultural background) flavours of hedonism oppose Puritanism or that they raised as Puritanism declined. Also hedonism does not mean only the allowance of pleasure (which I suspect you targeted when you refered to Puritanism), but the priority of pleasure.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.")
This is not hedonism. Generally I see nothing hedonistic in claiming some type of equality among humans.

The correlation between the growth of liberal capitalism and the growth of puritanism, both over time, and by country, is undeniable. There is some dispute over whether the Puritanism led to the liberal capitalism, or vice versa, but they were certainly closely linked.
The same pirates and the global average temperature. LOL
What arguments are for it, others than the simple coexistence?

It's not the order of issuance, its the definite indication that one's FIRST duty is to God. Which is of course also the situation with the ten commandments.
 
It's also not a theological basis but a linguistic one. 'First' means 'primary'.
It writes nowhere in that text that it's the primary duty to God. For the record, in Latin the terms are "primum mandatum" and "secundum", in Greek the terms are "prote entole" and "deutera", therefore I'd say the English translation hides no hints.
I also recommend a dictionary for such linguistic puzzles:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/first
"preceding all others in time, order, or importance"
So what about this "hierarchy of duties", or to paraphrase the definition "why importance and not time/order?"
Also, as a theological question, how the love for an abstract god - as the Christian God became - can be manifested otherwise than believing in him and loving his creation?

Moreover it is certainly established doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, at least according to the Jesuits with whom I have argued in the past. For instance, whether allowing divorce increases human misery or diminishes it is held to be irrelevant, since allowing it is contrary to the will of God.

No I'm not. I'm starting from the premise that such a contradiction MIGHT occur. Which it may, and indeed has. Such a contradiction exists right now over divorce and over homosexual marriage, for instance.

Of course, the contradictions vary according to how you define 'God's will' and as a matter of practical politics the Christian churches (some of them) have been watering down their definitions for some time now. Faced with the requirements of an old interpretation of God's will, many teachers simply say that the old interpretation was mistaken, and that, for instance, yes, it's perfectly OK to have homsexual bishops.

Like you're suggesting, it's all a matter of interpretation and I am doubtful about the value of these particular cases (for instance, some clerics say that there are other alternatives, that the couple can be saved with counseling, prayer, etc. - I'm not discussing the valability of their solutions, just the fact they think they take the best solution for the better of the each one; also in some views the divorce is a "great evil", so to put it simply, only a much "greater good" would justify it - I've heard, for instance, that divorce is easier accepted if one loses his faith).

However, there's also a fallacy in equivocating "love" with "not giving someone what he wants", which is not true in the Christian worldview (or should I say "most worldviews" as you already started to discuss on particular cases).
However, even when applying "medieval measures", some claim they do it for the love of God and his creatures. Not long ago, in my country, some fanatics exorcized an epileptic woman for her own's sake (as I remember the responsible priest suggested).
 
So, as far as the responsible ones, believe they act for the good of others (it ultimately breaks down at what each one sees as "good"), I think there's no ethical contradiction.
 
 
I have of course done that many many times. Have you ever heard a fundamentalist Baptist preach on the passage, and come up with the argument that, for instance, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" doesn't mean that those who are pure in heart will be blessed: it means that you (his congregation) are pure in heart because you are blessed (chosen by the Lord).
 
Such contrivances apart I have no problem with the Beatitudes. I just wish the Christian churches followed them a little more devotedly.
No, but I've listened some other preachings on the same topic emphasizing no particular points about the priest or the church. Anyway, the point was that adding these, it becomes rather clear than the love for man is not secondary in importance.
 
Actually instead of the 20th century effect of the decline of Christianity, a more interesting topic might be the decline of the influence of Jesus on Christianity over the years.
Of course, but you brought this point when you disagreed that Christianity values the love for others at the highest degree.

What 'anti-Christian' has ever condemned 'pity and kindness'? How much 'pity and kindness' was evinced in burning heretics, or ostracising unmarried mothers, or penalising homosexuals? Did you ever read The Scarlet Letter?
To follow my above examples: Randian objectivists, social Darwinists, ethical egoists and other such species.
The point about burning and ostracising is rather irrelevant, as we were in the field of ethics. I really wondered how long until Christian-bashing hyperbolas pop up?
I've also heard of World Wars, Holocaust and other modern genocides (in Russia, in China, etc.), Jeffrey Dahmer (a notorious homosexual among others, as you kept bringing the homosexuals issue) and other evidences of "Secular Humanism", but it really doesn't bring any weight, as the correlation is irrelevant, their simple presence is a red herring and really point to nowhere.

As a - enlightening, hopefully - paranthesis, the Communist regime (a secular one) in Romania promoted similar politics (banning abortions, homosexuality, etc.) to force a demographic growth. 
 
It is true that humanistic doctrines have been creeping into Christianity over the last hundred years or so, in self-defence, since otherwise the flight from Christianity would have been even more intense. However, what that represents is a triumph of humanism and a weakening of the basic Christian teachings.
I've not seen any strong argument that Christianity as a - let's say - millenium long Graeco-Latin synthesis spiced up with local colors was a non-Humanist philosophy based on non-Humanist ethics. So as long as we're debating on these points, let's not repeat our conclusions until we can make some arguments.

No, but if most Christians did, and Christian leaders advocated doing it, and even specially blessed the people who did it, then I would call Christians gum-throwers.
If the (almost) entire Europe was Christian, how would you make the difference if it's Christianity the cause or any other? If the entire world did it, though Christianity was not even representative for the entire world, why would you keep such label? If the connections between the doctrines and the results are weak, why not research and argue first and conclude later, if it's anything to conclude upon?

Nobody say that. That's a silly straw man. Of course atheists like anyone else should be held responsible for their actions.
You're not reading what you're replying to. I've said "as exponents of the atheism". Do you bash atheists (and consequently atheism, to paraphrase you: if most atheists - in some countries - did it, and the atheist leaders advocated doing it) for Communism? I hope not. And as I'm not throwing a blame on atheism because I realize that there's no ethical constraint on the atheist to force him act in a certain harmful - in my view - way, I should realize that in many cases I can't throw a blame nor on Christianity or many other -isms or -logies which were loaded with burdens of the past.

 


Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Jul-2006 at 09:04
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 08:55

Originally posted by Corlanx

Please try to explain us how you measure the egoism in the history!
Why would I want to measure such thing? LOL

Maybe because they were too often just theoretically claimed, but (almost) never applied . . .

Anticipating a bit, I'd want to remind that "Christians as gum-throwers" analogy.

Well, I really have some problems putting in connection what you describe as a rurally practiced moralitym with what I know from history the rural morality looked like!
I know not only from history, but also from ethnography (especially East-European) and my own experiences (anecdotic evidences, yes I know, I won't insist on them) some shreds of the rural morality and it seems to support my point. What "rurally practiced morality" do you have in mind?

The dichotomy is absolute in terms of historical experience and theoretically false because what YOU describe as "christian ethics" is just a fraction from what was christian ethics manifested through ages and just a fraction of what one can extact as ethics from the religious text of this cult  . . .
I am not following this.
What do I describe as "Christian ethics"? What is the Christian ethics manifested through ages? What means "manifested ethics" anyway? Are you talking about acts/behaviours? If so, how do you know that one's act to throw a gum is a reflection of his Christian beliefs and not a reflection of his Gumthrowism beliefs? What arguments do you have to support your "the dichotomy is absolute" claim. Whose historical experience? How is the large body outside this "fraction" endangering my point?


Not exactly! You can find some elements that makes christianism an individualism generating ideology, specially when you look at him as an outgrowth of the so tribal (= collectivist) judaism  . . .
The accent put on personal responsability and individual saving is such an example, but you can find probably others.
Though I'm not agreeing with the characterisation of Christianity, I'd like to focus on a different point. How many philosophies (having a certain extent) do not treat humanity like an ant farm? Individualism does not mean what these "similarities" seem to suggest, individualism it's an emphasis on the personal liberties and self-interest. Of course, if you focus on some rather recent reformated Christian Churches/sects from Western Europe, the discussion may get some nuances.

Antichristian =/= humanist. So?
I was talking about the criticism which comes from some philosophies which have an inherent anti-Christian dimension, like I exemplified above: social Darwinism, ethical egoism and others like that. I don't understand what bothers you.

I appreciate a lot you stressing that we have to deal here with "a more recent interpretation",
"More recent" in that context meant from 2nd century AD onward LOL

but we all wolud have been infinitely more happy if christianism didn't manifest this "esprit d'escalier" in matters of ethics . . .
Oh, "eye for an eye" suits you better?
These "would" arguments are usually doomed to fail. A lot of anti-Christians think that if there would be no Christianity humanity would have lived in some kind of golden age of peace and prosperity and equality. Well, I wouldn't stop one's dreams LOL

 



Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Jul-2006 at 08:58
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.