Why Christianity survived.

[Dicky Underpants]

The standard believers' line is something like "it's all part of God's plan throughout history, given a massive leap forward at the Incarnation, and which will eventually be achieved etc etc"

Unlike BlueH, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that this was just the luck of the draw. There had been a number of competing religions in the ancient world which it has been suggested might have become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, Mithraism being the most popular contender, since the latter seemed to be exported wherever there were Roman soldiers. So why did Christianity usurp Mithraism? I suggest it was not all to do with Constantine.

I don't want to go into my own explanations for Christianity's success in depth here, but I'd like to suggest two reasons for starters: unlike Mithraism, Christianity originally allowed women important roles to play (and even when the misogynistic Church fathers held sway, it was still less male-oriented than Mithraism).
The second reason, I suggest, was that Christianity was essentially an end-time religion, with an urgent expectation of the imminent Last Judgement (according to the words of Jesus and St Paul themselves). This sense of an imminent Apocalypse has somehow renewed itself throughout history, and continually added a bit of fiery pepper to the Christian diet, despite the efforts of the traditional Church (pace Origen and Augustine) to allegorise away such literal readings of the NT.
Any non-believers prepared to suggest reasons for Christianity's survival rather than luck?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dicky, I'm afraid I am a believer but what came rapidly into my mind is an adaptation of the old argument less trotted out now by the Forum Scientism Brigade about the success of science namely that Christianity works.

Could it be that certain things are self supporting and immune from what divides stuff up. It is something with it's own inertia available to anyone with a message of forgiveness realised. Also it's both personal and universal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unlike BlueH, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that this was just the luck of the draw.

Yes......... when, where and how does he think the draw was held I wonder.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dicky, I'm afraid I am a believer but what came rapidly into my mind is an adaptation of the old argument less trotted out now by the Forum Scientism Brigade about the success of science namely that Christianity works.

Could it be that certain things are self supporting and immune from what divides stuff up. It is something with it's own inertia available to anyone with a message of forgiveness realised. Also it's both personal and universal.

You speak as if Christianity were some undivided whole, whereas the varieties are innumerable. You could say there's something for everyone - from homophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of racism to ideas of love and forgiveness. But love and forgiveness were not new to Christianity, which even in Christ's reported words have a sting in the tail: "Forgive up to seventy times seven - or else"*
Other reasons for the smorgasbord of Christianity must be sought to explain its survival. Of the millions professing to be Christian today, it's probably more a matter of rituals which have governed people's lives down the ages, without too much soul-searching about 'forgiveness'. There are priests there for births, marriages and deaths - a lot of people are content to think that somebody (usually a priest) 'knows what it's all about', and when bad things happen, no doubt everything will turn out well on the 'other side'. But the dynamism given to Christianity by apocalyptic thought - even before the Reformation - should not be underestimated.

*I have to admit that the idea that "one's sins are forgiven" is life enhancing if you are a guilt-tormented soul. But a lot of the guilt has often been caused by Christian belief in the first place.

[wigginhall]

I was trying to remember what C. G. Jung said about this, but he was such a prolix sod, that it's difficult to sort out basic elements.  But I think he argued that Christianity presented various symbols that were appropriate at various times, particularly about individuation.   Also stuff about the ideal, which humans chase after, and self-negation.   

Also interesting is why it has faded in Europe. 

[Shaker]

Dicky, I'm afraid I am a believer but what came rapidly into my mind is an adaptation of the old argument less trotted out now by the Forum Scientism Brigade about the success of science namely that Christianity works.

What does it 'work' at though? What's the criterion of 'working?

Could it be that certain things are self supporting and immune from what divides stuff up. It is something with it's own inertia available to anyone with a message of forgiveness realised.

Unfortunately this comes about by offering 'forgiveness' for those things which it in itself deems to be wrong (and thus in need of forgiveness). As many have pointed out in the past, like every snake oil salesman it invents the 'disease' only in order to flog you the 'cure'.

[Dicky Underpants]

What does it 'work' at though? What's the criterion of 'working?
Unfortunately this comes about by offering 'forgiveness' for those things which it in itself deems to be wrong (and thus in need of forgiveness). As many have pointed out in the past, like every snake oil salesman it invents the 'disease' only in order to flog you the 'cure'.

Spot on.

[Dicky Underpants]

I was trying to remember what C. G. Jung said about this, but he was such a prolix sod, that it's difficult to sort out basic elements.  But I think he argued that Christianity presented various symbols that were appropriate at various times, particularly about individuation.   Also stuff about the ideal, which humans chase after, and self-negation.   

Also interesting is why it has faded in Europe.

wiggi

Didn't he say that it presented a humane variant on the Myth of the Hero as well? Some American critic suggested that Mark's gospel was a kind of inversion of Homer's hero ideals. Then there's those 1000 faces....

[wigginhall]

wiggi

Didn't he say that it presented a humane variant on the Myth of the Hero as well? Some American critic suggested that Mark's gospel was a kind of inversion of Homer's hero ideals. Then there's those 1000 faces....

Yes, I think he did.  Trouble is, it tends to be circular - X is successful because it presents the hero, and we know it's successful because we like heroes, but we no longer like Christian heroes, we want Wonder Woman!

[Shaker]

I've been reading Jung for several hours today - anybody would think that it was some sort of acausal but meaningful coincidence *cough*

[wigginhall]

What does it 'work' at though? What's the criterion of 'working?
Unfortunately this comes about by offering 'forgiveness' for those things which it in itself deems to be wrong (and thus in need of forgiveness). As many have pointed out in the past, like every snake oil salesman it invents the 'disease' only in order to flog you the 'cure'.

Yes, hence the old joke, Christianity found a solution, and then had to spend centuries working out what the problem is. 

[wigginhall]

I've been reading Jung for several hours today - anybody would think that it was some sort of acausal but meaningful coincidence *cough*

If your kitchen table splits down the middle, when you're reading this post, then we're all in for it.   Not sure what 'it' is, though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You speak as if Christianity were some undivided whole, whereas the varieties are innumerable. You could say there's something for everyone - from homophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of racism to ideas of love and forgiveness. But love and forgiveness were not new to Christianity, which even in Christ's reported words have a sting in the tail: "Forgive up to seventy times seven - or else"*
Other reasons for the smorgasbord of Christianity must be sought to explain its survival. Of the millions professing to be Christian today, it's probably more a matter of rituals which have governed people's lives down the ages, without too much soul-searching about 'forgiveness'. There are priests there for births, marriages and deaths - a lot of people are content to think that somebody (usually a priest) 'knows what it's all about', and when bad things happen, no doubt everything will turn out well on the 'other side'. But the dynamism given to Christianity by apocalyptic thought - even before the Reformation - should not be underestimated.

*I have to admit that the idea that "one's sins are forgiven" is life enhancing if your are a guilt-tormented soul. But a lot of the guilt has often been caused by Christian belief in the first place.

We do need to be focussed otherwise Christianity becomes either ''all things nice'' or ''everything you despised.
I would agree with Wiggs who suggests that Christianity offers a package but we must focus what Christianity is. An essential free Christianity makes a mockery of any debate in other words.
I will answer you on the question of guilt being Christian. Post Christianity i.e. acquisitive materialism is far, far better at making people feel inadequate about themselves in fact commerce is based on it and there is no forgiveness for any non consumer or participant.
So secular society inflicts guilt galore. The mass which allowed themselves to be made to feel guilty in the judgment of a group of priests became the mass of people who allowed themselves to be made to feel inadequate and lacking and feckless and thick by commerce and humanism.

But Christianity is an encounter with God not man. It may induce guilt and inadequacy but, and this is where the forgiveness comes in, the inadequacy is not thence dwelt in.......whereas inadequacy is an absolutely fundamental requirement of modern secular existence.

Also no one is dragooned into religion in anything like the same way as people are dragooned into an appreciation of entrepreneurs, cash, goods, scientific experts, celebrity etc.

[floo]

We do need to be focussed otherwise Christianity becomes either ''all things nice'' or ''everything you despised.
I would agree with Wiggs who suggests that Christianity offers a package but we must focus what Christianity is. An essential free Christianity makes a mockery of any debate in other words.
I will answer you on the question of guilt being Christian. Post Christianity i.e. acquisitive materialism is far, far better at making people feel inadequate about themselves in fact commerce is based on it and there is no forgiveness for any non consumer or participant.
So secular society inflicts guilt galore. The mass which allowed themselves to be made to feel guilty in the judgment of a group of priests became the mass of people who allowed themselves to be made to feel inadequate and lacking and feckless and thick by commerce and humanism.

But Christianity is an encounter with God not man. It may induce guilt and inadequacy but, and this is where the forgiveness comes in, the inadequacy is not thence dwelt in.......whereas inadequacy is an absolutely fundamental requirement of modern secular existence.

Also no one is dragooned into religion in anything like the same way as people are dragooned into an appreciation of entrepreneurs, cash, goods, scientific experts, celebrity etc.

You have to be joking. People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Unlike BlueH, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that this was just the luck of the draw.

Just to be clear, that’s not what I think. Rather the point is that many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight, while competitors fall by the wayside. The QWERTY keyboard layout is an obvious example – very early Remington typewriter keyboards are laid out “ABC…” etc, but the keys kept jamming so there was a re-design to slow down typists that then became embedded even though the rationale for it has now disappeared. The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better, more true etc. The booster rockets on the space shuttle being not wider than two horses’ backsides is another example.

That is, rather than luck of the draw there are good reasons for survival only they’re often not the reasons people paste on with hindsight.

Christianity seems to me to be a fairly obvious example of this same survivor bias. Some would claim that its success is a function of the truth of its claims (“God”, resurrection etc) just as they might assume they QWERTY is somehow more efficient, whereas there are in fact countless explanations for survival that wouldn’t require a word of truth in the stories.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Dicky,

Just to be clear, that’s not what I think. Rather the point is that many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight, while competitors fall by the wayside. The QWERTY keyboard layout is an obvious example – very early Remington typewriter keyboards are laid out “ABC…” etc, but the keys kept jamming so there was a re-design to slow down typists that then became embedded even though the rationale for it has now disappeared. The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better, more true etc.     

But you've already demonstrated that qwerty was superior to ABC have you not?

[ProfessorDavey]

But you've already demonstrated that qwerty was superior to ABC have you not?

No QWERTY was a solution to inferior engineering of other parts of the typewriter - in other words it slowed typists down to a rate that allowed the mechanical parts to operate without jamming.

Once the other mechanisms had been improved, or as now, been replaced by completely electronic operation QWERTY became inferior, but became the standard layout, so has been retained regardless of its current inferiority to alternatives.

[SteveH]

You have to be joking. People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.

Fallacy of hasty generalisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No QWERTY was a solution to inferior engineering of other parts of the typewriter - in other words it slowed typists down to a rate that allowed the mechanical parts to operate without jamming.

Once the other mechanisms had been improved, or as now, been replaced by completely electronic operation QWERTY became inferior, but became the standard layout, so has been retained regardless of its current inferiority to alternatives.

but BHS suggests that Qwerty's success is based on it's superiority over ABC. In other words superiority cannot be airbrushed out of the Qwerty story.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fallacy of hasty generalisation.

Fallacy of hastily assuming generalisation:

Floo said:

'People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.'

She never claimed that 'all people' are dragooned, or that 'all religious people' are dragooned into religious belief. That would have been a generalisation - she claimed people, which means that some are, and all she needs to verify this is a couple of examples - she isn't extrapolating to all. There is, as far as I can see, no generalisation going on here.

[SteveH]

but BHS suggests that Qwerty's success is based on it's superiority over ABC. In other words superiority cannot be airbrushed out of the Qwerty story.

Sigh...
Qwerty was successful precisely because it slowed typists down, and was thus inferior to other arrangements, but in the early days that stopped typewriters jamming. That is no longer a problem, but we keep the slow, inefficient qwerty arrangement because everyone's got used to it. It really is quite simple. Do try to keep up. ("its superiority", by the way - no apostrophe.)

[SteveH]

Fallacy of hastily assuming generalisation:

Floo said:

'People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.'

She never claimed that 'all people' are dragooned, or that 'all religious people' are dragooned into religious belief. That would have been a generalisation - she claimed people, which means that some are, and all she needs to verify this is a couple of examples - she isn't extrapolating to all. There is, as far as I can see, no generalisation going on here.

Yes, well, I wasn't being altogether serious, as the laughing smiley indicated. See the "Some new logical fallacies" thread.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Liar Boy,

Sigh...
Qwerty was successful precisely because it slowed typists down, and was thus inferior to other arrangements, but in the early days that stopped typewriters jamming. That is no longer a problem, but we keep the slow, inefficient qwerty arrangement because everyone's got used to it. It really is quite simple. Do try to keep up. ("its superiority", by the way - no apostrophe.)

Now try reading what I actually said: "...many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight"; "...even though the rationale for it has now disappeared"; "The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better..."; "That is, rather than luck of the draw there are good reasons for survival only they’re often not the reasons people paste on with hindsight."

It's a common mistake - looking at survivors and retro-fitting with hindsight explanations for their successes that actually have nothing to do with the real reasons.

To put it another way, the only person who needs to "keep up" here is you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Liar Boy,

but BHS suggests that Qwerty's success is based on it's superiority over ABC. In other words superiority cannot be airbrushed out of the Qwerty story.

Oh dear.

See above.

[SteveH]

Liar Boy,

Now try reading what I actually said: "...many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight"; "...even though the rationale for it has now disappeared"; "The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better..."; "That is, rather than luck of the draw there are good reasons for survival only they’re often not the reasons people paste on with hindsight."

It's a common mistake - looking at survivors and retro-fitting with hindsight explanations for their successes that actually have nothing to do with the real reasons.

To put it another way, the only person who needs to "keep up" here is you.

I was replying to Vlad, not you.