Let's Give The Muslims A Day Off

[DeistPaladin]

Many of the founders of the scientific method, and some of the most important discoverers in history, were Christians... many influential thinkers were deeply religious or operated within cultures that were predominately Christian...

-A canned Christian apologetic argument, what you might expect to find if you cracked open a book by Josh McDowell. 



Do I really have to explain to you that anyone who lived more than 300 years ago, if they were smart, would at least profess to be a Christian? Do I need to explain to you that people can hold crazy ideas and still be a great scientist or great thinkers in other fields (see Sir Issac "The Alchemist" Newton)? Ever heard of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? 

Example of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
1. "Sir Issac Newton was an alchemist."
2. "Sir Issac Newton made great discoveries in physics." 
3. "Ergo, being an alchemist is what enabled Newton to make great discoveries in physics."

Replace "an alchemist" with "a Christian" and the fallacy is the same. 

Shame on you.

[Pyrrho]

Nestor:

I see you have added content.  Given when and where Mill wrote, one could hardly expect him to completely denounce Christianity.  Mill also pretended that his Utilitarianism fit in with Christianity.  From Utilitarianism:

• We not uncommonly hear the doctrine of utility inveighed against as a godless doctrine. If it be necessary to say anything at all against so mere an assumption, we may say that the question depends upon what idea we have formed of the moral character of the Deity. If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other. If it be meant that utilitarianism does not recognise the revealed will of God as the supreme law of morals, I answer, that a utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God, necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals, must fulfil the requirements of utility in a supreme degree. But others besides utilitarians have been of opinion that the Christian revelation was intended, and is fitted, to inform the hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which should enable them to find for themselves what is right, and incline them to do it when found, rather than to tell them, except in a very general way, what it is; and that we need a doctrine of ethics, carefully followed out, to interpret to us the will God. Whether this opinion is correct or not, it is superfluous here to discuss; since whatever aid religion, either natural or revealed, can afford to ethical investigation, is as open to the utilitarian moralist as to any other. He can use it as the testimony of God to the usefulness or hurtfulness of any given course of action, by as good a right as others can use it for the indication of a transcendental law, having no connection with usefulness or with happiness.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

It is, ahem, a stretch to try to convert Christian ethics into utilitarianism, though we see that Mill wanted to get people believing such a story.  Of course, in his essays on religion (specifically, "Utility of Religion," which he withheld from publication for many years, apparently from a fear of how his ideas on religion might be taken), we find that Mill is not always interested in the truth of an idea, but in its utility instead, which he (rightly) states is a different question from its truth or falsity.  That he thought it useful for people to believe that utilitarianism fit with Christianity I have little doubt, though I have too much respect for his intelligence to believe that that he really regarded that as the truth.  It was useful and safe for him to not speak out against Christianity, and to pretend that his ideas fit it well.

Given the time and place in which he wrote, one should no more take his explicit pronouncements on religion seriously than one normally takes Hume's remarks on God seriously in his discussion "Of Miracles," in which Hume explains why it is unreasonable to believe religious miracles, all while saying that God is real and Christianity is true.  He wisely did not want to get into trouble with people around him, and so he made claims that are not true.

[Mudhammam]

@Deist

So, on the one hand, "Of course they were Christians who were inspired by their faith. But they had no choice." On the other hand, "Christianity had no positive role in the development of Western values."

Makes sense. 

[Pyrrho]

Let's also not forget that secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values.

You should know better than that.  The Age of Enlightenment was largely a rejection of Christian values, as science and reason were valued, and there was a rejection of authority (particularly church authority).  This was partly brought on by the rediscovery of ancient Greek ideas that predate Christianity.

That some authors pretended that what they were up to was Christian means nothing, given what could happen to those who denounced Christianity.

---

@Deist

So, on the one hand, "Of course they were Christians who were inspired by their faith. But they had no choice." On the other hand, "Christianity had no role in the development of Western values."

Makes sense. 

No one said it had "no role."  What we are denying is your claim that "secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values." There was influence, but it was largely other sources that created secular values.

[DeistPaladin]

@Deist

So, on the one hand, "Of course they were Christians who were inspired by their faith. But they had no choice." On the other hand, "Christianity had no role in the development of Western values."

Makes sense. 

Ah so we're adding straw man to your use of fallacies in order to defend a canned sleazy Christian apologetic argument?

When did I acknowledge that Christianity inspired anything scientific. Did Newton's alchemy inspire his contribution to physics? Or do you just apply this special pleading to Christianity.

And speaking of special pleading, do you believe that Christianity is to be absolved for its atrocities and anti-intellectual acts but if great thinkers happened to be Christian, well obviously there's a connection? 

Shame on you. 

[Mudhammam]

Let's also not forget that secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values.

You should know better than that.  The Age of Enlightenment was largely a rejection of Christian values, as science and reason were valued, and there was a rejection of authority (particularly church authority).  This was partly brought on by the rediscovery of ancient Greek ideas that predate Christianity.

That some authors pretended that what they were up to was Christian means nothing, given what could happen to those who denounced Christianity.

---

@Deist

So, on the one hand, "Of course they were Christians who were inspired by their faith. But they had no choice." On the other hand, "Christianity had no role in the development of Western values."

Makes sense. 

No one said it had "no role."  What we are denying is your claim that "secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values."  There was influence, but it was largely other sources that created secular values.

Okay, maybe I slightly overstated things. But I'm looking at it from the perspective of Nietzsche, who saw much of the ethics advocated by the Enlightenment as Christian in nature but without the theology. That was one of the main points of "Beyond Good and Evil." 

@Deist
How many times are you going to repeat, "Shame on you"? Moralizing adds nothing to your argument except obnoxious pretension.

[Pyrrho]

Nietzsche was wrong.  He was wrong about quite a lot, but he managed to write in a manner that gets people believing he is right, even when they know he is wrong.  A great example of this is his idea that what does not kill you makes you stronger.  Many people believe it when they read it, even though they all know that it is false, because what doesn't kill you can leave you crippled and maimed.  Everyone knows that what does not kill you can leave you crippled and maimed, which is weaker, not stronger.  Everyone knows he is wrong.  And yet, there is something in how he says it that gets people to believe him anyway.

[Mudhammam]

Nietzsche was wrong.  He was wrong about quite a lot, but he managed to write in a manner that gets people believing he is right, even when they know he is wrong.  A great example of this is his idea that what does not kill you makes you stronger.  Many people believe it when they read it, even though they all know that it is false, because what doesn't kill you can leave you crippled and maimed.  Everyone knows that what does not kill you can leave you crippled and maimed, which is weaker, not stronger.  Everyone knows he is wrong.  And yet, there is something in how he says it that gets people to believe him anyway.

 That quote originally came from Goethe but your point is taken. I don't agree with a lot of what Nietzsche said but I think some of his  criticism in this regards was legitimate. 

[Polaris]

Christians are getting soft it seems. None of that matches what happened in one day in Kenya....well Lord's Army was not taken into account for that one as one of the only people who called it Christian was some idiot at Fox News bashing Obama sending troops to combat them....didn't they delve into animism?

[Nope]

Why do you say that?

For one, most of the secularists throughout the Enlightenment were raised in the Church, so many of their values were shaped by principles they had been taught as children. This includes the idea of universal human rights, whether because we are endowed with them by a Creator or because of the rationale of the Golden Rule (I'm not claiming that the Golden Rule is original with Christianity, but it certainly was its most important promotional tool). This was not an idea you found anywhere in the ancient world until Christianity:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." - Paul in Galatians.
Separation of church and state also had a basis in the teachings of Jesus:
"Render that which is of Caesar unto Caesar, and that which is of God unto God."
Those are two extremely important aspects of modern-day secular ethics that Christianity had a dominant role in shaping.
 

The New Testament contradicts itself almost as much as the Old Testament. The verses about equality are beautiful but sadly there are other parts that completely contradict the spirit of the verse you quoted. 

Ephesians 6: 5

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ



Colossians 3:22

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.


Titus 2:9-10
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.