Let's Give The Muslims A Day Off

[DeistPaladin]

I didn't say that it was Newton's---or anyone's---belief in Christianity that led to their scientific discoveries, or that "Enlightenment comes from Christianity." Stop lying. You've already debased yourself enough. What I actually said was that "secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values," which I then elaborated upon (had you been paying better attention) by pointing out that certain "secular values" (as I take them to include), such as human equality and separation of church and state, were developed in the West in part by ideas that have a long tradition in Christian morality. My point about Christian thinkers that were pivotal in setting the ground and shaping the Enlightenment---philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, Descartes, and Pascal, and scientists such as Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and Newton, to name only a handful---is that they were influenced by their Christian faith in the idea that Reason reigns supreme and reveals a divine order in the cosmos, because the Creator would do nothing without a perfect or reasonable plan.

The word you're looking for is "deism" not "Christianity". 

It is true that deism in its birth first went through a phase where it was a watered-down version of Christianity. It's full break with Christianity wouldn't happen until the late 18th century. The original deists, in an act of compartmentalization (or cynics might speculate simply the lack of a death-wish, since heretics were still being burned at the stake) did not deny the divinity of Jesus but still suggested looking to the order of the universe rather than scripture to understand God. Nevertheless, looking to the universe instead of traditional beliefs, scripture or priestly authority nonetheless represents a departure from Christianity, not a conclusion of Christianity. You are assuming that "God" = "Christian", which ironically would be an example of the black-and-white thinking you accuse me of. 

But it's not just your stubborn clinging to fallacies despite how you should know better that I find so irritating (it's true, that had you been a Christian I would probably just say "oh, a Christian" and not held you to such a high standard). What's so offensive about your claim is despite how Christian leaders burned intellectuals at the stake and Christianity itself has time and time again thrown up roadblocks to our progress both sociologically and scientifically, that now we should offer any credit for our progress to this ideology. After being dragged, kicking and screaming and with much human suffering, into the modern age, Christianity now has the gall to say, "Oh, I told you so all along. You're welcome."

And like it or not, this is boilerplate Christian apologetics. 

---

That's true.
I'm not sure what I'm suggesting.  
Why did the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. happen in Western Europe? Why not Eastern Europe or China or the Ottoman Empire?

I have a speculation on the matter I'd like to offer for consideration.

I've studied in business school that success leads to complacency while failure can sometimes lead to innovation. When corporations are successful, I've studied many cases where an atmosphere of arrogance and complacency settle in. The management becomes convinced of their invincibility, as if past success and current dominance of the market were any guarantee that old strategies will continue to work as they always have. They resist change and stop innovating because why rock the boat? The adoption of such an attitude often marks a turning point toward decline and fall. Meanwhile, "lean and hungry" businesses that are startups sometimes embrace new developments or changes in the market, take advantage of them and catch the complacent current champions of the market by surprise. Also, corporations that enter a phase of decline will sometimes be more open to new ideas and strategies. The panic that comes from loss sometimes forces management to re-think old ways.

After the Fall of Rome, European civilization had largely failed, certainly in comparison to its former glory. For all the romance about knights and castles, it was called "The Dark Ages" for a reason. With new trade routes opened to other worlds, Europe was confronted with how much better the rest of the world lived. The failures of European civilization forced it to open up to new ideas, which may have been what made industrialization possible. After all, the Industrial Revolution represented not just a breakthrough in technology but a social restructuring. Cultures that had been more successful, such as China or the Middle East, would be more inclined to stay with traditional values because it had worked so well in the past and thus wouldn't have made that shift. 

When these other cultures were confronted with a post-industrial Europe (along with its deplorable aggression and colonization), they reacted as some previously successful corporations do when confronted by younger challengers. Sometimes the reaction is to try to retreat "back to the good old days" and traditional values, as China did, while others embrace change, trying to learn from the west so we can fend off the west, as Japan did. 

Pain is an excellent teacher if we are willing to learn from it. I once heard a wise man say, "when people succeed, they tend to party; when they fail, they tend to ponder." 

This strikes me as a more compelling explanation than either race or religion but I'm open to rational arguments to the contrary.