All three would be considered heretics, though.
1 Like
I’m going to go back on topic.
If you think Taiwan is a craphole country, I just heard a story of someone paying 400 dollars (like US dollars) a month for insurance, who never missed any payment. Has a medical emergency that happens to be an out of network hospital, racks up a charge of close to half a million that insurance will not pay. He of course has to go bankrupt and lose everything.
Be glad this would never happen in Taiwan.
4 Likes
Comparing Catholics and Protestants, the first to get rich were Spanish Catholics and not the Protestants. Silver from the Americas allowed them to trade with the Chinese which mean they dominated Europe for the better part of a century while the Protestants played catch up. That had nothing to do with the religion of either.
The Spanish took a risk by not following tradition and it paid off.
You’ve heard of Archimedes right? Pythagoras? Greek ideas of math and science were the furthest that Europe advanced until the Genoese started trading with Muslims.
Without the Arabs, the Europeans wouldn’t have banks, stocks, capitalism. You try doing all that with Roman numerals.
6 Likes
I’m not sure if that’s entirely true by the enlightenment period. David Hume is thought to have used atheism to gain attention while being believer. Atheism and Deism was starting to gain popularity if you were a philosopher.
It’s been a while since I’ve read those but Descartes Discourse in Method comes to mind. It’s his most famous, and where the phrase I think , therefore I am comes from. It was meant to be on how to seek truth through science. In his work, he often talked about rationally why god exists and that god must be the most perfect “prime reality”.
Yet centuries later, there are some differences in economic development. Again, proving my point that Christianity was one of the most influential ideas in Europe.
You are again confusing progress to influence. Every part that you point to that Christianity held things back is another reason why it was influential.
No it’s definitely true. Even Hume was a skeptic but never claimed to be an atheist. It was a problem for him and would have been much more so if he had come right out with it.
At the peak of Enlightment ideals in one sense in the revolutionary US, Thomas Paine went from a national hero to a despised lunatic overnight because he came out as an atheist.
Sure, many thinkers were explicitly religious and tried to make everything fit in one package.
Is everything you’ve just said not more evidence of how influential Christianity was? It was intertwined with everything, for Better or worse.
Well, worse would be an oppressive mind-control and totalitarian-supported regime that stifled progress and had to be broken free from. That would not be a good influence. Intertwined, yes, but what came first, Christianity or Western thought? As I said, it’s very hard to say.
The further you move through time the less influential religion is and the more influential the exchange of ideas becomes. Middle Ages → Renaissance/Age of Exploration → Enlightenment
The Columbian Exchange is the reason Europe overtook China in becoming the most advanced civilization on Earth. Up until the 15th Century, Europe primarily exported textiles like wool which the Chinese had little use for. The Chinese considered Europe a backwater and focused on trade with Arabs who continued to advance in science, math and technology.
It wasn’t until the Spanish had new crops from the Americas from the Columbian Exchange - tobacco, maize, potatoes, tomatoes, etc. and silver…that the Europeans finally had something the Chinese wanted.
You are confusing causation and correlation. You seem to think people are most successful because they’re protestant vs. catholic. That is ludicrous.
Yes Europeans ideas were put through the lens of Christianity because it was the predominant religion, but that doesn’t mean Christianity made them influential. The spread of European influence was based on challenging religion, not embracing it.
2 Likes
No I don’t. I clearly said. I’m going to reframe from replying back to you as this is a habit you continue to do. Attacking positions I did not take.
Funny place this is.
Here, I see a debate about enlightenment but if I go to the main page, I can see someone desperately needing advice about who would be willing to clean a smelly shoe.
I’m more interested in the smelly shoe issue and that’s coming from someone who studied philosophy and politics at uni!
1 Like
It doesn’t seem like we will agree. But to me, I can’t think of a more influential idea. From the spread of Christianity in Rome to even have emperors adapting it. To out last Rome where the next most powerful institution being the Catholic Church. To having it as the most printed and read documents.
It’s been a part of everything in Europe for so long that in my opinion, it’s the most influential idea.
If there is a disparity then it is correlation and not causation. The disparity certainly depends on what time you talking about like I pointed out. Right now? 15th century?
I haven’t seen any evidence to show that there is any causation at all. That is still up to you to show.
If you want me to have a productive discussion next time, reframe from putting positions in my mouth. I’d be happy to give you more but not when im having to refute things you said I said.
Just my 2c
To me, it’s just a chicken and egg kind of question. There was going to be one religion or another!
I did say right off:
Yes, hard to get agreement on this question 
Good talking to you, of course!
1 Like
Very poor form, I agree.
I love how we got here from “tired of living in this shithole” lol. I guess it makes sense
6 Likes
I’m quoting you. Not the only causation, but a causation. How did being protestant as a religion make people more economically successful than catholics?
Not the only causation, but a causation. Coinciding with the rise of capitalism is correlation not causation. Unless you can show otherwise.
I’ll give you an example:
The adoption of Arabic numerals through trade with the Genoese led to the establishment of the first banks in northern Italy. Those early banks started trading in government securities.
The profitablity of trading spices from Asia led to the first stock trading by the Dutch East India Company.
So what specifically about Protestantism led to the rise of capitalism and economic disparity with Catholics?
I have an exercise for you. Try saying out loud: “forward center”. Or try this one: “short stop”.
2 Likes
Shortstop is one word.
1 Like