[Serious] Book reports

[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.