I wouldn’t have made as many concessions to Christianity as you made. I think the collision of Greco-Roman and Germanic culture explains most of what needs explaining. And I think what we call Christianity in the west is so steeped in ancient Greek and Roman thought and mysticism, that we struggle to even distinguish some essence of Christianity separate from those influences. It’s not nothing, but it’s very much over-stated. If I had to choose an influence as a predictor of success, I’d pick Greco-Roman-Germanic over Judeo-Christian most days of the week.
But that’s just nitpicking. This was a good piece of writing and arguing. I’m glad you wrote it and that I read it.
I agree with you, and I think I actually said that I’m conceding too much in a footnote. I couldn’t speak to what you’re talking about with the Germanic culture intersecting with Greco-Roman ones, but i was kinda nodding in the direction you went with being steeped into Greek and Roman culture with the eucharist example.
But anyway, my strategy with these sorts of pieces is to maximally concede some points because (as a true Humean), I like to do the move where we say “even if your premises are correct, the conclusion does not follow” haha
Fair enough. And it’s a good habit to be generous and concede points that aren’t critical for the argument. Sometimes it just feels like a lot of giving with not much reciprocity.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds Scrivener irritating. I think there's something about the evangelist thing where he just turns everything into a gimmick/sales pitch, which he can get away with when he's mostly talking to Christians but in any other context it comes across really badly. I also don't personally think the "everything is Christian but you don't know it" argument helps Christians one bit.
This was initially a longer comment, but after reading Matt Whiteley’s post, I’m just going to say he expressed all my thoughts better than I could’ve and more. lol.
This was really good. I enjoyed both your posts. At the end of the day, what I find to be most relevant about the Dominionist argument is its ability to remind us we have a cultural inheritance, which, in part, is indebted to Christianity.
This appears historically challenged. Christianity existed well before there was a ‘west’ however you want to define that. Christianity is an input to the west.
If you do want to trace some jumping connections between Sumer, Israel, Greece, Rome, Baghdad, medieval Europe, and the Americas the only consistent point is that ideas move across cultures such that who your ancestors were is only little relevance to what you might embrace in the now.
This idea is 100% compatible with my argument. So much so, I’m not quite sure what your criticism is? I basically say Christianity is an input to the west, albeit not in those words.
“There are historically contingent factors that led to western institutions developing as they did, and Christianity is one of many variables.”
What’s more, when people complain about the fall of the west, it has very little to do with Sumer or Baghdad
I may have over read where you wrote “Long story short, I think there’s a good historical case that Christianity changed western values and institutions over time.” I read this as there being ‘western values’ that Christianity came along and changed. Historically an array of factors play into what you could call western values. So we likely are fairly aligned.
Glad I came across this :) I also saw the debate, and I think you express some valid concerns (even though I’m coming from a Christian standpoint).
I wish that Scrivener had been better prepared to back up his sociological claims with some numbers. I also thought he might have made a more compelling case if he had argued for traceable developments within intellectual history (like how the Christian doctrine of creation reasonably gave rise to modern science).
On the positive side, I thought Scrivener was able to press Alex on some of the biblical passages in question, and he also seemed open to considering Alex’s challenges. Good exchange there, I thought.
I wonder about your Japan point…Do you think the current form of the nation has been in existence for long enough to really prove that a non-Christian society can sustain “Christian” values?
Should have said this first, but thanks for your essay 🩵
I don't think liberal democratic capitalist values are exclusively Christian and that it's a mistake to frame Japan's success as sustaining Christian values. As for how long the society has to exist, I think 3 generations (roughly 70 years) is long enough.
Yes, I thought you were very gracious about that in your article. I would agree that Christian values can be understood and adopted by other groups, but I’m skeptical that natural reason alone could have delivered the insights into human nature (and the corollary societal values) that Christianity has. I don’t mean to open a can of worms in the comments section here, so no need to reply on that unless you’d like to. 😊
I’ll also send along an article published just yesterday from John Nelson on the ‘Dominion’ topic. He offers a more modest proposal, and I think you might find his terms acceptable. I really appreciate his work, even though I personally would argue for a stronger version of the thesis.
I think I read it already, thankfully. Having said that, I don't see how a good inquisitive methodology, or the trial and error of human culture throughout history, couldn't deliver on liberal norms with enough time
Okay, but that’s exactly where I would press the point about the rise of modern science. It sounds to me like that is what you are describing in terms of your method. Do you have reason to think that this very method might have emerged somewhere else in the world other than Europe? There was a pretty particular convergence of intellectual commitments involved in the birth of modern science, and I’m not aware of strong evidence that it necessarily was bound to happen by virtue of natural reason alone applied to experience. But I would hear your side of this.
I think it would happen eventually, inside or outside of Europe. We have instances of different societies being technologically innovative. Even then, I don’t think Christianity itself can be attributed as the sole variable for scientific progress. It seems like most inventors and scientists that we hear about are German, English, Italian, or French. Admittedly, that’s a big chunk of Europe, but where are the Spaniard or Portuguese or Croatian or Estonian world-changing scientists? Heck, just peaking at Nobel laureates, there are more Japanese than Swiss.
Anyway, when we talk about Europe or Christianity in broad terms, it allows us to pick outliers as representative of the whole. It would be weird to attribute Christianity for Europe’s outsized accomplishments if Europe was a minority of Christians. Similarly, it would be weird for Ukrainians to claim a shared lineage with the French just because they share a continent.
When you realize that Christianity was one variable among others that led to these institutions, it undermines the Dominionist argument. Because it’s then Christianity + (something). Separation of state and church, a culture of toleration, developed commercial culture incentivized to invent and solve problems. And so from the secularist perspective, why do we have to say those other variables couldn’t have happened elsewhere? I’m more inclined to think the commercial culture of Europe (which was antithetical to many Christian attitudes) had more to do with free inquiry and liberalism than Christianity.
If it was just Christianity, it would happen in all places of Christianity. If it was “Europeanness” it would happen in all Europe. Yet it only happened in subsets of Europe and Christendom (western, not really spain or Portugal or eastern Europe). This suggests other institutional and cultural trends were more important. What’s more, I don’t think it’s irrelevant that our methodology of science and discovery became more efficient as it became more secular, or that nonbelief among scientists and philosophers became more common. If one were to concede that Christianity was endowed with these special tools to discover science, it’s odd that belief among high performing scientists craters over night.
In all, it seems your argument depends on this idea that the scientific method or institutions caring about empirical truth and coming to an agreement on the optimal process of doing so was an impossibly small needle to thread that only a miracle or divine revelation could get us there. I just see the surrounding evidence and confounding variables and think that it was inevitable upon reaching a certain level of economic development and properly aligned institutions.
Thank you for such a thoughtful reply! I think we may not be as far apart as it seems. I fully concede the point that Christianity was not the sole variable in the development of modern science, and I would agree with your assertions about many of the factors that you touch on.
But I still think it’s worth considering which unique ingredients might have come from Christianity—because honestly I think it’s quite a historical puzzle that modern science didn’t emerge sooner, given how advanced many other cultures were with technology, logic, and math.
If I had to pick one exemplary point with regard to Christianity’s specific contribution in the convergence of ideas that gave rise to modern science, I would choose the doctrine of creation and the implication of metaphysical contingency—with its own implications for physical contingency and an inductive scientific method (focused on efficient causality, in the Aristotelean sense).
That’s a bit of a simplified version of a much more fleshed-out argument that I would make here, but I hope it at least gives a glimpse of how I might defend the claim.
I like your threading the needle metaphor. Yes, I do think that captures what I’m trying to say, but no miracle necessary. Just providence. 😉
Japan remains a complicated example for me because we have good evidence that it intentionally adopted aspects of Western culture after seeing the fruits. No surprise that it would reap the benefits, I think.
And I don’t mean to claim that liberal democratic values aren’t universal human values. From a natural law standpoint, in particular, indeed they are. But I think it’s worth considering why the socio-cultural conditions in the West allowed for their flourishing.
I saw a previous comment highlighting the importance of Greco-Roman culture, and I agree that it’s hard to overstate its importance at a foundational level. Still, I think there are some unique insights that came from the Judeo-Christian faith that we should recognize as indispensable.
I don't think I necessarily disagree with much of that. I said in a footnote, I think norms, values, etc are convergent. Much as different branches of the evolutionary tree will create similar traits given similar pressures(think of how birds and bats can both fly, but they are far removed from each other evolutionarily). I'm all for acknowledging and raising a glass to specific contributors to our values, but I haven't seen many if any supremely good Christian values that couldn't be both understood and adopted by other groups.
Thank you. You said it well.
I wouldn’t have made as many concessions to Christianity as you made. I think the collision of Greco-Roman and Germanic culture explains most of what needs explaining. And I think what we call Christianity in the west is so steeped in ancient Greek and Roman thought and mysticism, that we struggle to even distinguish some essence of Christianity separate from those influences. It’s not nothing, but it’s very much over-stated. If I had to choose an influence as a predictor of success, I’d pick Greco-Roman-Germanic over Judeo-Christian most days of the week.
But that’s just nitpicking. This was a good piece of writing and arguing. I’m glad you wrote it and that I read it.
I agree with you, and I think I actually said that I’m conceding too much in a footnote. I couldn’t speak to what you’re talking about with the Germanic culture intersecting with Greco-Roman ones, but i was kinda nodding in the direction you went with being steeped into Greek and Roman culture with the eucharist example.
But anyway, my strategy with these sorts of pieces is to maximally concede some points because (as a true Humean), I like to do the move where we say “even if your premises are correct, the conclusion does not follow” haha
Fair enough. And it’s a good habit to be generous and concede points that aren’t critical for the argument. Sometimes it just feels like a lot of giving with not much reciprocity.
True, but I think it's extremely compelling for neutral readers!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds Scrivener irritating. I think there's something about the evangelist thing where he just turns everything into a gimmick/sales pitch, which he can get away with when he's mostly talking to Christians but in any other context it comes across really badly. I also don't personally think the "everything is Christian but you don't know it" argument helps Christians one bit.
Let's just say when I was editing/revising that I deleted a part where I said he was either a grifter, an idiot, or a bigot lol
This was initially a longer comment, but after reading Matt Whiteley’s post, I’m just going to say he expressed all my thoughts better than I could’ve and more. lol.
This was really good. I enjoyed both your posts. At the end of the day, what I find to be most relevant about the Dominionist argument is its ability to remind us we have a cultural inheritance, which, in part, is indebted to Christianity.
This appears historically challenged. Christianity existed well before there was a ‘west’ however you want to define that. Christianity is an input to the west.
If you do want to trace some jumping connections between Sumer, Israel, Greece, Rome, Baghdad, medieval Europe, and the Americas the only consistent point is that ideas move across cultures such that who your ancestors were is only little relevance to what you might embrace in the now.
This idea is 100% compatible with my argument. So much so, I’m not quite sure what your criticism is? I basically say Christianity is an input to the west, albeit not in those words.
“There are historically contingent factors that led to western institutions developing as they did, and Christianity is one of many variables.”
What’s more, when people complain about the fall of the west, it has very little to do with Sumer or Baghdad
I may have over read where you wrote “Long story short, I think there’s a good historical case that Christianity changed western values and institutions over time.” I read this as there being ‘western values’ that Christianity came along and changed. Historically an array of factors play into what you could call western values. So we likely are fairly aligned.
You might want to read Peter Heather’s Christendom: The Triumph of a religion for a post christian examination of how Christianity (the version you were brought up in) came to be the dominant religion of western Europe. See review at https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/06/06/the-workings-of-the-spirit-christendom-peter-heather/
Glad I came across this :) I also saw the debate, and I think you express some valid concerns (even though I’m coming from a Christian standpoint).
I wish that Scrivener had been better prepared to back up his sociological claims with some numbers. I also thought he might have made a more compelling case if he had argued for traceable developments within intellectual history (like how the Christian doctrine of creation reasonably gave rise to modern science).
On the positive side, I thought Scrivener was able to press Alex on some of the biblical passages in question, and he also seemed open to considering Alex’s challenges. Good exchange there, I thought.
I wonder about your Japan point…Do you think the current form of the nation has been in existence for long enough to really prove that a non-Christian society can sustain “Christian” values?
Should have said this first, but thanks for your essay 🩵
I don't think liberal democratic capitalist values are exclusively Christian and that it's a mistake to frame Japan's success as sustaining Christian values. As for how long the society has to exist, I think 3 generations (roughly 70 years) is long enough.
https://substack.com/@behindthegospels/note/p-186419086?r=4e2oyp&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Yes, I thought you were very gracious about that in your article. I would agree that Christian values can be understood and adopted by other groups, but I’m skeptical that natural reason alone could have delivered the insights into human nature (and the corollary societal values) that Christianity has. I don’t mean to open a can of worms in the comments section here, so no need to reply on that unless you’d like to. 😊
I’ll also send along an article published just yesterday from John Nelson on the ‘Dominion’ topic. He offers a more modest proposal, and I think you might find his terms acceptable. I really appreciate his work, even though I personally would argue for a stronger version of the thesis.
I think I read it already, thankfully. Having said that, I don't see how a good inquisitive methodology, or the trial and error of human culture throughout history, couldn't deliver on liberal norms with enough time
Okay, but that’s exactly where I would press the point about the rise of modern science. It sounds to me like that is what you are describing in terms of your method. Do you have reason to think that this very method might have emerged somewhere else in the world other than Europe? There was a pretty particular convergence of intellectual commitments involved in the birth of modern science, and I’m not aware of strong evidence that it necessarily was bound to happen by virtue of natural reason alone applied to experience. But I would hear your side of this.
I think it would happen eventually, inside or outside of Europe. We have instances of different societies being technologically innovative. Even then, I don’t think Christianity itself can be attributed as the sole variable for scientific progress. It seems like most inventors and scientists that we hear about are German, English, Italian, or French. Admittedly, that’s a big chunk of Europe, but where are the Spaniard or Portuguese or Croatian or Estonian world-changing scientists? Heck, just peaking at Nobel laureates, there are more Japanese than Swiss.
Anyway, when we talk about Europe or Christianity in broad terms, it allows us to pick outliers as representative of the whole. It would be weird to attribute Christianity for Europe’s outsized accomplishments if Europe was a minority of Christians. Similarly, it would be weird for Ukrainians to claim a shared lineage with the French just because they share a continent.
When you realize that Christianity was one variable among others that led to these institutions, it undermines the Dominionist argument. Because it’s then Christianity + (something). Separation of state and church, a culture of toleration, developed commercial culture incentivized to invent and solve problems. And so from the secularist perspective, why do we have to say those other variables couldn’t have happened elsewhere? I’m more inclined to think the commercial culture of Europe (which was antithetical to many Christian attitudes) had more to do with free inquiry and liberalism than Christianity.
If it was just Christianity, it would happen in all places of Christianity. If it was “Europeanness” it would happen in all Europe. Yet it only happened in subsets of Europe and Christendom (western, not really spain or Portugal or eastern Europe). This suggests other institutional and cultural trends were more important. What’s more, I don’t think it’s irrelevant that our methodology of science and discovery became more efficient as it became more secular, or that nonbelief among scientists and philosophers became more common. If one were to concede that Christianity was endowed with these special tools to discover science, it’s odd that belief among high performing scientists craters over night.
In all, it seems your argument depends on this idea that the scientific method or institutions caring about empirical truth and coming to an agreement on the optimal process of doing so was an impossibly small needle to thread that only a miracle or divine revelation could get us there. I just see the surrounding evidence and confounding variables and think that it was inevitable upon reaching a certain level of economic development and properly aligned institutions.
Thank you for such a thoughtful reply! I think we may not be as far apart as it seems. I fully concede the point that Christianity was not the sole variable in the development of modern science, and I would agree with your assertions about many of the factors that you touch on.
But I still think it’s worth considering which unique ingredients might have come from Christianity—because honestly I think it’s quite a historical puzzle that modern science didn’t emerge sooner, given how advanced many other cultures were with technology, logic, and math.
If I had to pick one exemplary point with regard to Christianity’s specific contribution in the convergence of ideas that gave rise to modern science, I would choose the doctrine of creation and the implication of metaphysical contingency—with its own implications for physical contingency and an inductive scientific method (focused on efficient causality, in the Aristotelean sense).
That’s a bit of a simplified version of a much more fleshed-out argument that I would make here, but I hope it at least gives a glimpse of how I might defend the claim.
I like your threading the needle metaphor. Yes, I do think that captures what I’m trying to say, but no miracle necessary. Just providence. 😉
Japan remains a complicated example for me because we have good evidence that it intentionally adopted aspects of Western culture after seeing the fruits. No surprise that it would reap the benefits, I think.
And I don’t mean to claim that liberal democratic values aren’t universal human values. From a natural law standpoint, in particular, indeed they are. But I think it’s worth considering why the socio-cultural conditions in the West allowed for their flourishing.
I saw a previous comment highlighting the importance of Greco-Roman culture, and I agree that it’s hard to overstate its importance at a foundational level. Still, I think there are some unique insights that came from the Judeo-Christian faith that we should recognize as indispensable.
I don't think I necessarily disagree with much of that. I said in a footnote, I think norms, values, etc are convergent. Much as different branches of the evolutionary tree will create similar traits given similar pressures(think of how birds and bats can both fly, but they are far removed from each other evolutionarily). I'm all for acknowledging and raising a glass to specific contributors to our values, but I haven't seen many if any supremely good Christian values that couldn't be both understood and adopted by other groups.