Christianity and civilisation

[essence]

Interesting quote below I found in a blog. I have no doubt at all of the influence of Christianity on my own cultural and moral compass, whether I belief in it or not.


Christianity is seen in China as the reason for the West being so successful over 500 years, ... until recently! Niall Ferguson in Civilisation quotes the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on why China lagged Europe for 500 years ''At first we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.''

Zhou Xinping saw christian understanding of trascendence and 'only by accepting this understanding of transcendence as our criterion can we understsand the real meaning of such concepts as freedom, human rights, tolerance, equality, justice, democracy, the rule of law, universality and environmental protection'.

Discuss.

[if I can add my own perspective, I think it is as much to do with transformation as it is with transcendence. The saying of Jesus 'Behold I make all thing new' is deeply embedded into the western mind]

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

Interesting quote below I found in a blog. I have no doubt at all of the influence of Christianity on my own cultural and moral compass, whether I belief in it or not.


Christianity is seen in China as the reason for the West being so successful over 500 years, ... until recently! Niall Ferguson in Civilisation quotes the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on why China lagged Europe for 500 years ''At first we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.''

Zhou Xinping saw christian understanding of trascendence and 'only by accepting this understanding of transcendence as our criterion can we understsand the real meaning of such concepts as freedom, human rights, tolerance, equality, justice, democracy, the rule of law, universality and environmental protection'.

Discuss.

Add to that literacy. The Protestant drive to 'personally' divine God's intent from the Bible required Protestant Christians to read; thus Protestant Christianity encouraged and promoted a literate society. Increased literacy in society created a revolutionary market for books and newspapers and, eventually, social and democratic revolutions as well. Catholic contribution to literacy was different. The Church preserved the works of the ancients. Plus, inquisitive monks like Mendel (a friar) and churchmen like Copernicus sought to 'square' nature with the Bible. It was their attempts to find harmony between nature and religion that helped to inflame the scientific revolution.

EDIT TO ADD: It’s important to remember that the Protestant movement grew out of the Catholic Church’s heuristic treatment of the Bible during the latter Middle Ages. Churchmen were learning and studying ancient languages and reexamining ancient texts written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic seeking to divine and set right God’s ‘true’ word. It was during the course of this study that certain Churchmen, e.g., Jan Hus, Martin Luther, et al., couldn’t reconcile Church policy with the scriptures, and there was an irreconcilable rupture.

[Rakhir]

Not to mention the church was the repository for nearly all knowledge and learning in the known world post Roman Empire.

[essence]

Note the little throw away in the original quote - ....until recently!

I am no historian, but the expansion of Europe worldwide (including US) and the reformation must have been closely linked.

So given that, what can we learn for the future?

[zme]

I can't say I fully agree with the Chinese quote. If Christianity is going to be a reason for success then the success would have come to Asia (more specifically West Asia) because that is where Christianity originated - not the West. The West is where Christianity eventually thrived and became dominant. But there were thriving Christian communities in the east that did not become anywhere near as dominant. Look at the Maronite Christians in Lebanon, the Chaldean in Iraq, Indian christian communities etc. These all predate the western move towards Christianity.
Some of what others have attributed to Christianity is equally true for other religions. The spread of Islam to West Africa was quite heavily driven by the fact that Islam encouraged reading the Koran and this encouraged literacy. This made the Islamic traders more efficient and led to their propagation.
Hinduism has great temples of learning and the oldest library system in the world is the Hindu library at Varanasi.
In my mind the physical/financial dominance of the west can primarily be attributed to militarism. If nothing else this is illustrated by one simple fact. Christianity probably began to dominate the West roughly around the time of conversion of Constantine in the early 300's. But look at this chart of the relative GDP of different countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_%28PPP%29
You will see that India and China alone had stronger economies than all of Western Europe combined till the early 1800's. Yes, either of those countries individually had bigger economies than all western europe combined. China and India combined accounted for about half the world economy for the first 1000 years after Christ was born. Note that this should not be too surprising since they dominated the science and technology of that age and each had well over double the population of Western Europe (as they do today).
This means that for 1500 years the West was Christian but not dominant. Their dominance corresponded to the period when they started colonizing and economically dominating the Americas and looting their wealth, primarily gold. And the 1800's corresponds to the Opium wars and other major battles in India where they slowly started destroying the economies of the major eastern powers. What made them successful against larger and more economically successful civilizations was simply the fact that they were more aggressive and militaristic. This was ultimately ironically illustrated in the Opium wars where the British defeated the Chinese using gunpowder - which was invented by the Chinese. The Chinese just used it for celebration and the europeans learned how to use it for conquest.

Not that Christianity has not done many great things for many people. But to think that it is the reason for Western dominance is a stretch. Or to even think that Christianity is Western for that matter. Christ was born and lived in the Middle East - in Asia.

[Rakhir]

Note that more of the great leaps have taken place by civilizations in conflict. The necessity of moving forward has always been a result of conflict. Those cultures spoken of in earlier posts are predominately Asian and have nearly always had a large measure of stability allowing for stable, if slow growth.

The Middle East is interesting as well. On the whole up to and including leaders like Saladin and Suleiman the Magnificent the nations making up the present day Mid East were quite proficient in math, science, physics and medicine. Sometime after the death of Suleiman they degenerated into theocratic states which persecuted such learned men and were basically stuck in the 13th century until T.E. Lawrence came along and dragged a number of them into the 20th century kicking and screaming all the way.

[Little Stevie]

Well distilled, zme!

Many of the so-called Christian leanings toward some sort of a rule of law was actually attributable to their adoption of various concepts in the Hammurabi Code.

In addition, the Ten Commandments haven't changed at all from the the time Moses brought the tablets down from the mountain.

I disagree with most of the premise that Zhou Xinping is trying to "sell".

[essence]

This brings to mind one of my favourite quotes from Deleuze:


That is why conflicts, oppositions and contradictions seemed to us to be surface effects and conscious epiphenomena, while the unconscious lived on problems and differences. History progresses not by negation and the negation of negation, but by deciding problems and affirming differences. It is no less bloody and cruel as a result. Only the shadows of history live by negation: the good enter into it with all the power of a posited differential or a difference affirmed; they repel shadows into the shadows and deny only as the consequence of a primary positivity and affirmation. For them, as Nietzsche says, affirmation is primary; it affirms difference, while the negative is only a consequence or a reflection in which affirmation is doubled.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by essence

Interesting quote below I found in a blog. I have no doubt at all of the influence of Christianity on my own cultural and moral compass, whether I belief in it or not.


Christianity is seen in China as the reason for the West being so successful over 500 years, ... until recently! Niall Ferguson in Civilisation quotes the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on why China lagged Europe for 500 years ''At first we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.''

Zhou Xinping saw christian understanding of trascendence and 'only by accepting this understanding of transcendence as our criterion can we understsand the real meaning of such concepts as freedom, human rights, tolerance, equality, justice, democracy, the rule of law, universality and environmental protection'.

Discuss.

[if I can add my own perspective, I think it is as much to do with transformation as it is with transcendence. The saying of Jesus 'Behold I make all thing new' is deeply embedded into the western mind]

Wow, how short sighted and stunningly dogmatic this idea of where capitalism emerged, no wonder China beholds itself to communism, slave labor and monarchistic rule. China has no understanding of the history of man or evolution save their own philosophies.

[zme]

Let me add that is is probably misleading to assume that one Chinese scholar speaks for all one billion Chinese. There probably are different schools of thought as to what led to Western dominance. In my mind the answer is pretty simple, the West dominated because it chose to dominate. The Chinese and Indians were preeminent intellectual and scientific powers at one time - far ahead of the west. The simply did not choose to direct their science towards global military conquest. The Chinese are of particular interest. The Chinese admiral Zheng He build probably the greatest fleet history had ever seen and sailed around the world, his maritime and military skills far surpassing anything remotely close in the west. But as was the nature of the Ming dynasty he did not turn his fleet towards military conquest, rather it was for the glorification of the emperor. And the Ming dynasty at some point simply stopped its naval exploration for no particular reason and turned inward. They did not consider the possibility of conquering a large fraction of the world which would have been real easy for them. The europeans were quite different and conquered with every opportunity they got.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...re2/index.html
(and yes, I know the one obvious exception to what I say is Ghengis Khan who was neither Indian nor Chinese nor Japanese)

And led me add that though I firmly believe in capitalism myself I somehow doubt that if Christ were to appear in Western society he would be in unreserved admiration of everything he saw. I think capitalism as an economic organizing principle that leads to efficient use of resources and economic growth is a great thing. The kind of crony capitalism that leads to systematic marginalization of sections of people and obscene opulence of a few is both unchristian and uncapitalistic.
And to think that Christ would look favorably on economic growth through military conquest is laughable. Christ was not even in favor of the Jews taking up arms to free themselves from their own Roman oppressors - "my kingdom is not on this earth". He was probably the first recorded advocate of nonviolence and peaceful coexistence ever.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by zme

I can't say I fully agree with the Chinese quote. If Christianity is going to be a reason for success then the success would have come to Asia (more specifically West Asia) because that is where Christianity originated - not the West. The West is where Christianity eventually thrived and became dominant. But there were thriving Christian communities in the east that did not become anywhere near as dominant. Look at the Maronite Christians in Lebanon, the Chaldean in Iraq, Indian christian communities etc. These all predate the western move towards Christianity.

These examples are not illustrative of Protestant Christianity which encouraged universal literacy among its congregants.

Originally Posted by zme

Some of what others have attributed to Christianity is equally true for other religions. The spread of Islam to West Africa was quite heavily driven by the fact that Islam encouraged reading the Koran and this encouraged literacy. This made the Islamic traders more efficient and led to their propagation.

‘Propagation’ is a key word. Even though Muslims possessed the technology – ink, paper (parchment) and the wine press – Muslims did not invent or readily adopt the printing press with moveable type; Western Europe did. The printing press allowed for the quick dissemination of ideas to remote places. European printers first attended to the demand by literate Christians for Bibles and prayer books, and then, once the market was satiated, the printers turned their attention to other markets, such as science and politics.

Originally Posted by zme

Hinduism has great temples of learning and the oldest library system in the world is the Hindu library at Varanasi.

There was great learning and knowledge among an elite, but not among the masses. This was true of China as well.

Originally Posted by zme

In my mind the physical/financial dominance of the west can primarily be attributed to militarism. If nothing else this is illustrated by one simple fact. Christianity probably began to dominate the West roughly around the time of conversion of Constantine in the early 300's. But look at this chart of the relative GDP of different countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_%28PPP%29
You will see that India and China alone had stronger economies than all of Western Europe combined till the early 1800's. Yes, either of those countries individually had bigger economies than all western europe combined. China and India combined accounted for about half the world economy for the first 1000 years after Christ was born. Note that this should not be too surprising since they dominated the science and technology of that age and each had well over double the population of Western Europe (as they do today).
This means that for 1500 years the West was Christian but not dominant. Their dominance corresponded to the period when they started colonizing and economically dominating the Americas and looting their wealth, primarily gold. And the 1800's corresponds to the Opium wars and other major battles in India where they slowly started destroying the economies of the major eastern powers. What made them successful against larger and more economically successful civilizations was simply the fact that they were more aggressive and militaristic. This was ultimately ironically illustrated in the Opium wars where the British defeated the Chinese using gunpowder - which was invented by the Chinese. The Chinese just used it for celebration and the europeans learned how to use it for conquest.

Islam set astride and monopolized the trade routes to Asia for almost one thousand years, and Muslim traders charged extortionary rates based upon their monopoly. This is what prompted Europeans to bypass Islam and trade directly with the Orient. What the British did in India in the 19th century was no different in kind than what Babur’s Mughals – Muslims – had done in the 16th century. And if Tamerlane, Babur’s great-great-grandfather, had had his way, he would have been the political, military and economic master of India and China in the 14th century– but he died.

Plus, there was that pesky Calvinist belief that success, wealth, in this world was an indicator that a believer was among the select few to be redeemed in the hereafter, and it’s the origin of the (in)famous Protestant work-ethic and capitalism.

Originally Posted by zme

Not that Christianity has not done many great things for many people. But to think that it is the reason for Western dominance is a stretch. Or to even think that Christianity is Western for that matter. Christ was born and lived in the Middle East - in Asia.

Again, you are discounting the rate of literacy among the populations. Even today, the literacy rate in a nation is still a marker of how successful that nation is – and will be – in relation to the rest of the world.

[dilbert firestorm]

Niall Ferguson in Civilisation quotes the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on why China lagged Europe for 500 years
<snip>
It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.''

I think Zhou has it right when comparing to China against the West.

He's talking about a foundation of a nation; being successful in what they do, not necessarily in dominance by military means.

FYI, there was period in Chinese history where chinese people were very successful, and like the mid-century muslims (they went a different route, but the effect was the same), corrupt Chinese bureaucrats lost their minds and started levying usurious taxes on successful Chinese citizens who eventually became unproductive.

Christianity also changed the Roman Empire. there were other factors attributed to the rise of the West, but I don't think those other factors would have taken place if the West did not have a christian foundation to start with.

[1NEMESIS]

"Zhou Xinping saw christian understanding of trascendence and 'only by accepting this understanding of transcendence as our criterion can we understsand the real meaning of such concepts as freedom, human rights, tolerance, equality, justice, democracy, the rule of law, universality and environmental protection'."

Unbelievable statement from such a learned individual. Xinping completely dismisses evolution in one sentence and then propagates Christian transcendentalism as the only path to human well being and propagation.

[nevergaveitathought]

Christian concepts of love, work, doing what is right or required, self-help, independence, looking to a transcendant God who will make all things right and that justice is not a requirement left to the adherent...these things and more built the west and of course America. These things laid the foundation of a great nation. Thats not to say that there was perfect adherence nor no other influences.

Colleges, hospitals, aid societies, orphanages, all an outgrowth of Christianity.

Our republican form of government and our constitution, viewing man with the biblical notion of imperfection, set the tone for our nation. establishing safeguards against imperfect men, individual states with autonomy and the pushing of liberty which developed ultimately into liberty for all, our constitution had as a requirement for its highest application a need for self-regulation. john adams said that our constitution was made only "for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".

the view that rights did not come from man or government but were inalienable to individuals, from a creator and not from some whim based on the right of kings....these liberties and freedoms unleashed man

the "until recently" portion of his statement reflects reality, as America has changed and is ever wandering further and further from what made it great. with egalitarianism, liberalism and "democratic" forces swamping the values of the past, with a disregard for the constitution, a teaching of the "faults" of america and not its principles, a rewarding of social pathologies, a punishment for industry, a co-opting of some "Christian" sects and a distain for the actual religious we lurch forward to what?

[essence]

Interesting responses, and all civil and contributory, which is rare for this forum!

I continue to be amazed at what advances have been made in so many areas (health, science, the arts, music, industry, exploration, liberty, etc etc etc) in the last 500 years. I am always amazed at how, in one of my specialities, classical music exploded with so many true geniuses during roughly the nineteenth century. Similarly the explosions of science and industry in the twentieth cintury. What is behind these colossal upheavings? Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Schumann - any other century would have been priviliged to host only one of those.

In the realm of the arts, it has to be something about how society reacts to those who are at the edge, together with all the immense effort which gives the artist/musician the technical ability to express themselves. A culture which puts immense value on education to the highest levels.

-slight side track, and nothing to do with religion, but it is very interesting how both the the beatles and rolling stones worked immensely hard in their formative years. I was reminded by macca's performance at the grammies, and how popular music has rested somewhat on the revolutions of the 60/70's. It made Nicki Minaj seem a bit silly.

As for Chinese opera, I have to leave the room after 2 minutes, but that may just be my prejudices and lack of empathy.....let alone, including Lang Lang, there is no serious asian pianist I would go to listen to.