[Serious] Book reports

[GrandizerII]

And the switch.

What is secular Christianity?

These are questions that Grandizer asked. If you have answers I'd be glad to read them. 

I don't know what "secular Christianity" is; that's a term Grandizer used. Holland posits that dividing the world into religious and secular realms is something that derives from Christian customs, long into Christian history.

---

I'll wait for your response(s) to my other question(s) before I respond, Belaqua.

Fair enough. I'll get to it later today.

Secular Christianity meaning a type of Christianity that advocates for secularism.

Thanks for your elaborations, Belaqua. I'll give this a proper response when I'm back home.

[Acrobat]

Recently the book Dominion by Tom Holland has been getting some attention. It's a single-volume compact history of the changes that Christianity brought to the world, and claims that even non-Christian thinkers today continue to think along the lines that Christianity laid out for us.

I am not claiming the book is great or fault-free or necessary to anyone's education; only that it covers topics which people on this forum sometimes discuss. We might get something from paying it some attention.

I'll post some comments on it when my morning routine settles down later.

Thanks for introducing me to Tom Holland, looks like the next book I want to read. Mind if I asked how you have access to it? Because I don’t show it available till the end of October?

[Belacqua]

Recently the book Dominion by Tom Holland has been getting some attention. It's a single-volume compact history of the changes that Christianity brought to the world, and claims that even non-Christian thinkers today continue to think along the lines that Christianity laid out for us.

I am not claiming the book is great or fault-free or necessary to anyone's education; only that it covers topics which people on this forum sometimes discuss. We might get something from paying it some attention.

I'll post some comments on it when my morning routine settles down later.

Thanks for introducing me to Tom Holland, looks like the next book I want to read. Mind if I asked how you have access to it? Because I don’t show it available till the end of October?

I think you'll like this one. In a way, Charles Taylor's A Secular Age addresses the same thing in a more scholarly way. Holland has more historical anecdotes that make it easier to read. 

If you don't mind a little piracy, the British edition is available now. 

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

[Fake Messiah]

Oh yeah, Christianity was so pro science that it needed a thousand years to re-discover Heliocentrism and then it found it too controversial.

I think you'll like this one. In a way, Charles Taylor's A Secular Age addresses the same thing in a more scholarly way. Holland has more historical anecdotes that make it easier to read. 

If you don't mind a little piracy, the British edition is available now. 

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

Can you guess how many times this book mentions Index Librorum Prohibitorum? Yes, you guessed it: zero times. Yet another book whitewashing Christianity for gullible delusional religious zealots.

[Belacqua]

Oh yeah, Christianity was so pro science that it needed a thousand years to re-discover Heliocentrism and then it found it too controversial.

I think you'll like this one. In a way, Charles Taylor's A Secular Age addresses the same thing in a more scholarly way. Holland has more historical anecdotes that make it easier to read. 

If you don't mind a little piracy, the British edition is available now. 

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

Can you guess how many times this book mentions Index Librorum Prohibitorum? Yes, you guessed it: zero times. Yet another book whitewashing Christianity for gullible delusional religious zealots.

on page 206: 

Abelard, defying the rule that required religiones never to leave a monastery
without express permission, had returned to the road. Variously, he had lived as
a hermit, as an abbot on the wild Atlantic coast, and as a teacher once again in
Paris. His charisma, despite the passing of the years, remained undimmed. So
too his capacity for attracting mingled hostility and adulation. Finally, in his
seventh decade, there came the gravest crisis of all: his formal condemnation as
a heretic. The terms of his punishment were expressed in two letters sent from
Rome in the summer of 1140. Christendom’s most brilliant scholar was
sentenced to have his books burned ‘wherever they may be found’;33 its most
brilliant orator to submit to perpetual silence.

on page 226:

Anxieties in Paris were heightened by the discovery in 1210
of various heretics whose reading of Aristotle had led them to believe that there
was no life after death. The reaction of the city’s bishop was swift. Ten of the
heretics were burned at the stake. Various commentaries on Aristotle were
burned as well. Aristotle’s own books on natural philosophy were formally
proscribed. ‘They are not to be read at Paris either publicly or in private.’36

on page 275:

Luther, precisely because he scorned to think of himself
as a lawyer, took for granted much of what, over the course of long centuries,
had been achieved by the very legal scholars whose books he had so publicly
burned. Rulers who embraced Luther’s programme of reformatio had little
option but to do the same.

on page 294:

In 1542, an inquisition
modelled on the Spanish example had been established in Rome; in 1558, it had
drawn up a lengthy index of prohibited books; a year later, ten thousand volumes
had been publicly burnt in Venice. Simultaneously, beyond the seas, in the new
worlds opened up by Spanish and Portuguese adventurers, great harvests of souls
had been reaped by Catholic missionaries.

on page 303:

Dressed in the white robe
of a penitent, and kneeling arthritically before his judges, he abjured in a shaking
voice all his heresies. His book was placed on the index of books that it was
forbidden Catholics to read. Galileo himself was sentenced to imprisonment at
the pleasure of the Inquisition. Spared their dungeons by Urban, the most
celebrated natural philosopher in the world spent the remaining nine years of his
life under house arrest.

These are a few of the anecdotes about banned or burned books. There are lots more stories about banned or burned people, too.

[GrandizerII]

@Belaqua:

How would a story like Baucis and Philemon fit into the narrative of "the weak and poor are better than the strong and rich" being Christian? Clearly, the work itself was not Christian and most probably was not influenced by Christian thinking (I think it was written before any of the earliest Christian writings, but could be wrong).

Interestingly, I remember reading this story as a kid and thinking to myself this sounds like a story that could have easily been included in the Bible, considering it was a story about morality rather than a story about the achievements of gods and heroes and wars and such. This brings me to another question.

Is it possible that, rather than Christianity influencing this kind of thinking, it was the circumstances of the time in which Ovid's Baucis and Philemon and the earliest Christian writings were written that, gradually emerging from prior times and following some natural progression in resources and understanding (leading to progression in ethical thinking and such) stimulated the sort of thinking that is apparent in the New Testament?

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua:

How would a story like Baucis and Philemon fit into the narrative of "the weak and poor are better than the strong and rich" being Christian? Clearly, the work itself was not Christian and most probably was not influenced by Christian thinking (I think it was written before any of the earliest Christian writings, but could be wrong).

Interestingly, I remember reading this story as a kid and thinking to myself this sounds like a story that could have easily been included in the Bible, considering it was a story about morality rather than a story about the achievements of gods and heroes and wars and such. This brings me to another question.

Interesting example. Baucis and Philemon are presented positively, yet are certainly not Homeric hero types. 

First, I think we have to be careful not to claim too much. As I said before, everything is made out of prior elements, nothing is entirely new, so if we can point to various atypical examples it won't be too surprising. 

It may be that Holland has exaggerated the change, since a dramatic presentation is bound to sell more books. Or it may be that while there were pointers here and there before, Christianity really did re-order values -- say it was 90/10 in favor of tough heroes before, and then it was 10/90. That would count as a big deal, I think. 

So yes, I agree with you that Ovid's story is a good example of poor people behaving well. And it is a good example of the widespread belief that treating strangers well is a moral thing to do. In the end they are saved by the gods for their goodness, if I remember right. 

One small thing to keep in mind -- Ovid has a reputation as an ironist or a smart-aleck. His book on the arts of love, for example, are completely tongue-in-cheek and were never meant to be read as real advice. So I'd want to back off slightly before I concluded that any of his stories is meant as a straightforward moral tale, along the lines of Aesop. Augustus exiled him, after all. 

Is it possible that, rather than Christianity influencing this kind of thinking, it was the circumstances of the time in which Ovid's Baucis and Philemon and the earliest Christian writings were written that, gradually emerging from prior times and following some natural progression in resources and understanding (leading to progression in ethical thinking and such) stimulated the sort of thinking that is apparent in the New Testament?

A quick Google indicates that the story wasn't known before Ovid. Is that what you've heard? So it makes sense to think that there might have been a fairly widespread change in values in the area. Something that people in the year 1AD are able to think, while Homer wouldn't. It is certainly believable that Christianity reflected a more general change in the Roman world. If it turned out that things were headed that way, more or less anyway, but Christianity happened to be the system that rode the wave, that wouldn't surprise me. If Christianity had been TOO alien of a system, it couldn't have caught on.

[GrandizerII]

Is it possible that, rather than Christianity influencing this kind of thinking, it was the circumstances of the time in which Ovid's Baucis and Philemon and the earliest Christian writings were written that, gradually emerging from prior times and following some natural progression in resources and understanding (leading to progression in ethical thinking and such) stimulated the sort of thinking that is apparent in the New Testament?

A quick Google indicates that the story wasn't known before Ovid. Is that what you've heard? So it makes sense to think that there might have been a fairly widespread change in values in the area. Something that people in the year 1AD are able to think, while Homer wouldn't. It is certainly believable that Christianity reflected a more general change in the Roman world. If it turned out that things were headed that way, more or less anyway, but Christianity happened to be the system that rode the wave, that wouldn't surprise me. If Christianity had been TOO alien of a system, it couldn't have caught on.

To answer your question, yes, that's what I read on Wiki, though it's clear that the story nevertheless shares a few themes found in the Old Testament and perhaps prior pagan sources.

What do you think of this perspective?

In the early 19th century, Ludwig Feuerbach gave the immortal reply to those who insist that modern life owes much to its Christian prototype. What if, the German philosopher asked, Christians had incubated some early versions of modern ideas that eventually required toppling Christianity itself to come into their own? If so, then in spite of its opposition to paganism, Christianity had to be smashed as the last form of idolatry — the worship of a human fiction rather than the embrace of the full possibilities and powers of human beings themselves.

https://www.ft.com/content/ffa37216-d30b...ef889b4137

Another notable quote from the article:

Yet the illustration of the conquest of the west by Christianity risks becoming so total that it explains everything and nothing: “There were many gateways, many roads,” writes Holland. “The only constant was that they all had their origins in Christendom.”

---

Weird, the article was accessible before.

[Belacqua]

What do you think of this perspective?

In the early 19th century, Ludwig Feuerbach gave the immortal reply to those who insist that modern life owes much to its Christian prototype. What if, the German philosopher asked, Christians had incubated some early versions of modern ideas that eventually required toppling Christianity itself to come into their own? If so, then in spite of its opposition to paganism, Christianity had to be smashed as the last form of idolatry — the worship of a human fiction rather than the embrace of the full possibilities and powers of human beings themselves.

https://www.ft.com/content/ffa37216-d30b...ef889b4137

Another notable quote from the article:

Yet the illustration of the conquest of the west by Christianity risks becoming so total that it explains everything and nothing: “There were many gateways, many roads,” writes Holland. “The only constant was that they all had their origins in Christendom.”

Sad to say, despite my willingness to pirate whatever is available, I can't get to the FT article. I suspect it is a good one. 

Overall, I think Dominion isn't as groundbreaking as maybe some of the reviews are saying. Holland writes very readable history, but the two-thirds I've read so far is almost entirely narrative, not particularly structured toward building up the conclusion that's advertised. At this point I'm going to guess that his conclusions are found more fully argued in Charles Taylor and, somewhat, in Feuerbach. That guy's still relevant because so few have gone beyond him. 

Like it or not, the real game-changer books don't get the push from the publishers that readable history books can enjoy. Probably this one is popularizing ideas that have been around for awhile -- though given the popularity of "New Atheist" books it maybe bears repeating. 

I do think that Holland acknowledges the inherent contradiction built into the Christian project. I wish I could remember now where it was spelled out -- probably a review, but I can't remember. Somewhere it has been stated that if Christianity got the ball rolling on the idea that history is a progress toward a just utopia, and if it is the moral duty of the morally woke to destroy their immoral predecessors, then the very values of Christianity demand the eventual destruction of Christianity. 

And this is in line with what he claims the message is. People who know way more about ancient history than I do could look for the seeds of this message of progress in Plato or other non-Christian sources. It's certainly true that Christianity absorbed whatever it needed from everywhere else. But in the history that actually played out, it was the Christian project that embodied the message of moral progress -- often carried out as internal struggle by Christian critics against other Christians. 

I do think that belief (intellectual assent to a proposition) as a moral issue has come to us from Christianity. Before that morality was about what you do. And this does mean that the people who scold us on this forum for insufficiently believing what we ought to believe (in their opinion) means they are continuing the Christian project. 

I think the claim he makes in the interview bears thinking about: he says that modern atheists who oppose Christianity are in fact carrying on a moral project begun by Christianity, of stamping out immoral belief in order to make a better world. But when they imagine a better world, it is one which Christianity pictured -- not Homer or Aristotle. 

I'll read to the end and see if he starts to sum things up more conceptually, or if it's all narrative history.

[Fake Messiah]

Oh yeah, Christianity was so pro science that it needed a thousand years to re-discover Heliocentrism and then it found it too controversial.


Can you guess how many times this book mentions Index Librorum Prohibitorum? Yes, you guessed it: zero times. Yet another book whitewashing Christianity for gullible delusional religious zealots.

on page 206: 

Abelard, defying the rule that required religiones never to leave a monastery
without express permission, had returned to the road. Variously, he had lived as
a hermit, as an abbot on the wild Atlantic coast, and as a teacher once again in
Paris. His charisma, despite the passing of the years, remained undimmed. So
too his capacity for attracting mingled hostility and adulation. Finally, in his
seventh decade, there came the gravest crisis of all: his formal condemnation as
a heretic. The terms of his punishment were expressed in two letters sent from
Rome in the summer of 1140. Christendom’s most brilliant scholar was
sentenced to have his books burned ‘wherever they may be found’;33 its most
brilliant orator to submit to perpetual silence.

on page 226:

Anxieties in Paris were heightened by the discovery in 1210
of various heretics whose reading of Aristotle had led them to believe that there
was no life after death. The reaction of the city’s bishop was swift. Ten of the
heretics were burned at the stake. Various commentaries on Aristotle were
burned as well. Aristotle’s own books on natural philosophy were formally
proscribed. ‘They are not to be read at Paris either publicly or in private.’36

on page 275:

Luther, precisely because he scorned to think of himself
as a lawyer, took for granted much of what, over the course of long centuries,
had been achieved by the very legal scholars whose books he had so publicly
burned. Rulers who embraced Luther’s programme of reformatio had little
option but to do the same.

on page 294:

In 1542, an inquisition
modelled on the Spanish example had been established in Rome; in 1558, it had
drawn up a lengthy index of prohibited books; a year later, ten thousand volumes
had been publicly burnt in Venice. Simultaneously, beyond the seas, in the new
worlds opened up by Spanish and Portuguese adventurers, great harvests of souls
had been reaped by Catholic missionaries.

on page 303:

Dressed in the white robe
of a penitent, and kneeling arthritically before his judges, he abjured in a shaking
voice all his heresies. His book was placed on the index of books that it was
forbidden Catholics to read. Galileo himself was sentenced to imprisonment at
the pleasure of the Inquisition. Spared their dungeons by Urban, the most
celebrated natural philosopher in the world spent the remaining nine years of his
life under house arrest.

These are a few of the anecdotes about banned or burned books. There are lots more stories about banned or burned people, too.

Here you go what? That it took Christianity a thousand years to re-discover Heliocentrism? No thanks. I don't need that kind of organizations in charge of anything, let alone science.