Reader AH sent along an article by Rodney Stark that explores "How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science".
When Europeans first began to explore the globe, their greatest surprise was not the existence of the Western Hemisphere, but the extent of their own technological superiority over the rest of the world. Not only were the proud Maya, Aztec, and Inca nations helpless in the face of European intruders, so were the fabled civilizations of the East: China, India, and Islamic nations were "backward" by comparison with 15th-century Europe. How had that happened? Why was it that, although many civilizations had pursued alchemy, the study led to chemistry only in Europe? Why was it that, for centuries, Europeans were the only ones possessed of eyeglasses, chimneys, reliable clocks, heavy cavalry, or a system of music notation? How had the nations that had arisen from the rubble of Rome so greatly surpassed the rest of the world?
He goes on to discuss how Christianity, as a lived-out religion with far more practical impact on daily life than the other religions of the world, led to greater respect for man, greater freedom, capitalism, and the rationality required for scientific research.
Christian faith in reason and in progress was the foundation on which Western success was achieved. As the distinguished philosopher Alfred North Whitehead put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose only in Europe because only there did people think that science could be done and should be done, a faith "derivative from medieval theology."Moreover the medieval Christian faith in reason and progress was constantly reinforced by actual progress, by technical and organizational innovations, many of them fostered by Christianity. For the past several centuries, far too many of us have been misled by the incredible fiction that, from the fall of Rome until about the 15th century, Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages — centuries of ignorance, superstition, and misery — from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously, rescued; first by the Ren-aissance and then by the Enlightenment. But, as even dictionaries and encyclopedias recently have begun to acknowledge, it was all a lie!
It was during the so-called Dark Ages that European technology and science overtook and surpassed the rest of the world. Some of that involved original inventions and discoveries; some of it came from Asia. But what was so remarkable was the way that the full capacities of new technologies were recognized and widely adopted. By the 10th century Europe already was far ahead in terms of farm-ing equipment and techniques, had unmatched capacities in the use of water and wind power, and possessed superior military equipment and tactics. Not to be overlooked in all that medieval progress was the invention of a whole new way to organize and operate commerce and industry: capitalism.
He continues with a fascinating account of how the Church's monastic orders began lending money at interest and selling products at market-clearing prices.
This article's premise is totally off base. There is no fundamental connection between Christianity and reason, no matter how he's defining "reason". Lots of religions used logic extensively, such as with astronomy. Heck, Pythagoras started a geometry cult! There was no shortage of respect for logic, reason, or observation in the world. The problem was with who was allowed to use it.
The key premise of Christianity is that each person is a child of God, and carries infinite moral worth. It was revolutionary in ancient times, and it's still controversial today. From that premise, you get political stability. You get the idea of limited government: The king is not God; he's just a man under God. That was a big change from prior thinking. That political stability is what leads to innovation.
Invention strikes a civilization at random. And when it strikes, the question is: Does the person who thought up this invention have an opportunity and incentive to develop it?
Ask any venture capitalist: Ideas are a dime a dozen. People come up with clever ideas all the time simply in the course of living their lives. They don't need some special religious permission to think logically or observe the world around them.
What limits progress is not the supply of ideas, but willingness to put capital behind them. And that willingness in turn depends on whether the investor believes that he will be able to enjoy the benefits of his investment, rather than seeing them seized by the government.
Ben, where are you getting your ideologies? Your comments flow nicely from one another, but they lack solid foundations.
"The key premise of Christianity is that each person is a child of God, and carries infinite moral worth."
This is a convienient claim. It sounds as if it came from The Jesus Seminar, though you might have seen it elsewhere. If this one idea was at the root of Christianity, then you could leisurely hack away at it, while acknowledging that both Christianity and innovation stem from that root. However, neither Jesus nor the majority of Christians lay their foundations as you suppose they do.
Consider what Jesus says of the fig tree that bears no fruit--He says that it should be cut down! In that statement, He sets a standard similar to "of whom much is given, much is expected." Although Jesus generally condemns the misuse of authority, the root of His thinking is not human equality. Rather, it is based in a deep understanding of nature. Just as a farmer selects which crops to cut down and which to nurish, so God's creation "naturally" selects productive individuals to prosper.
Furthermore, if you look at derived foundations of the faith, you will come across statements like the Apostle's Creed, which are not based on the "infinite moral worth" of humans.
"Invention strikes a civilization at random."
Are you aware that people sit down and invent things in a somewhat organized ways every day? Yes, people come up with clever ideas all the time, but there is no reason to label these ideas as occuring "at random." If you do not understand how inventions happen, then you should read about creativity, not stochastic processes.
"What limits progress is not the supply of ideas, but willingness to put capital behind them."
Sorry, Ben, this line of ideology might be useful for the purpose of motivating investors, but it is not the bottom line on innovation. In fact, historically, a lot of inventors have worked mundane jobs in order to fund their favorite hobbies. Furthermore, great ideas still have the power to move capital. For example, consider the wealth of Google's founders, which comes from a philosophy of 10 things, not from government policies or angel investors.
Of course, Jesus was not instructing his followers to kill individuals who fail to produce material goods. The parable mentioned above, found in Luke 13, is an illustration of God's wrath toward those who are given much spiritual fertilizer yet produce no spiritual fruit themselves.
David, I don't think that we understand each other. I wasn't saying that the child-of-God premise is the one idea at the root of Christianity. Rather, my point is that this aspect of Christianity has had the most impact from a broad historical perspective. Remember, that was the topic of the article that Michael was commenting on: What features of Christianity led to Europe's technological dominance?
On non-productive fruit trees, I don't understand what you're saying.
On invention being random, again you've missed the context. My point is that governments cannot predict who will produce the next big invention, so a command-and-control government stifles innovation by denying most of its citizens acess to capital and intellectual property protection.
As for capital and invention, you're right that good inventions will always attract capital---but only within the right political context. In the broad view of human civilization, modern America is quite exceptional in that a lone tinkerer can spend time developing an invention with the expectation that he'll reap some personal benefit from his effort. We're also exceptional in that investors can put money behind risky ventures with some confidence that they will enjoy any fruits of success.
In most times and places, an inventor can reasonably expect to see his ideas taken by the government without compensation. Most governments have seen individual innovation as threats to the state's power, not as a path to progress. In a government where money and power flow primarily from politics, tinkerers have little incentive to work on private invention, and investors have little incentive to fund them.
This is the same kind of point that John Derbyshire missed when he embarrassed himself on NRO's The Corner by announcing that only hard science had benefitted mankind, and fields like philosophy and theology were basically worthless. As Jonah Goldberg put it, the scientist won't do much inventing until he's protected by a set of social ideas that prevent thugs from bashing in the scientist's head. Christianity is one of those ideas.
Our discussion has gone tangent to the original subject, but I think the real question is "What is the root of U.S. productivity?"
You seem to advocate this:
(mysterious unreasonable foundation) -> philosophy of infinite moral worth -> political stability -> environment of innovation and investment -> productivity
I am advocating this:
Foundation: God's thoughts and purposes.
Distribution A: God creates the physical universe.
Distribution B: God gives spiritual insights to people.
Result: Individual observation and prayer rationally leads to an understanding of personal worth and purpose that is absolute, not relative to other people. The fig tree (person) is not infinitely valuable, but value is defined by the ability to produce (spiritual) fruit. A person can come to this realization through the words of Jesus, or independently through observation and prayer.
In other words, the root of political stability is individual observation, prayer, and reason. When enough people within a group do these things, the group tends to move toward stability. Furthermore, I think that creativity comes from a similar process, but I won't defend that here. Once you have political stability and creativity, then I agree that investment works properly in that environment, resulting in productivity.
David: [Describing me as having a]"(mysterious unreasonable foundation)"
OK, we're done. You don't know what I think, but you're sure that it's unreasonable. That means that you're not worth talking to. Bye.
Ben, you are the one who claimed in your original post that Christianity is disassociated from reason. Therefore, I added the word "mysterious" to your claim of an "unreasonable" foundation. You're sure that there is no connection between Christianity and reason. Where are you getting that ideology?
... (clarification) From what ideology do you derive the idea that "There is no fundamental connection between Christianity and reason"?
David, did you actually read the article that Michael linked to? If not, then that explains quite a lot, because you're reading something into my post that wasn't there.
Christianity is not fundamentally about reason in the same sense that it's not fundamentally about astronomy or eating mushrooms. That doesn't mean that Christianity is against reason. It just means that reason versus non-reason is not a major issue in Christianity, which is precisely the opposite of the article that Michael linked to.
Christianity is primarily concerned with all sorts of other more theological concerns, such as faith, sin, grace, good works, and salvation. Reason simply doesn't belong on that list; it's not really a theological issue. It's just a modern issue, and a rather phony one at that.
Ben, I must admit that I only skimmed the article at first. Now, having read it carefully, I would say Stark advocates this:
Christian beliefs in the first millenium -> "faith in reason" -> monastic organization -> capitalism -> productivity
All three of us want to claim that our logic is reasonable, of course. But, I wanted to challenge you on the foundations of your arguments.
What are the roots of science, capitalism, productivity? Does God play a role or not?
Thank you for reading my posts.
David: "What are the roots of science, capitalism, productivity? Does God play a role or not?"
My theory: A belief in a basic moral and spiritual equality of all men kept Christian governments from moving too far towards totalitarianism. This created the political conditions that allowed capitalism, science, etc to flourish.
But Christianity doesn't directly permit people to think rationally. What does it even mean to think rationally? Is there a large group of people somewhere that thinks irrationally?
BB: I'd argue that most Islamofascists act irrationally. So do environmentalists. We recently had a town hall meeting at our church which 100 members of our community attended, all to protest against us leasing some of our property to Verizon for a cell tower because they were afraid all their kids would get brain cancer. So yes, there are large groups of people who act irrationally.