Did Christianity set the western world back a few centuries?

[JasonDebenah89]

Back in the times of the Roman Republic and Roman empire, things we see today as acceptable such as homosexual relations, prostitution, drug-use, and scientific discoveries were openly accepted and widely practiced. Public health was also encouraged.

Then, after the fall of Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire (then still a largely Pagan society compared to the Christian society of the Byzantine Empire) we started seeing more repression of science, more rigid social structures of class and sexual orientation (it was relatively common for someone born into a poor family to achieve class in ancient Rome, but not when Christianity was most dominant), and more repression of health care for women.

Did Christianity set the western world back following the social progressiveness of the Romans?

[RINO Tom]

I won't address the whole topic right now, but I do have a minor nitpick.  I took a class on classical Greek thinking, and this idea that homosexuality was "accepted" (as it is today in much of the world) is really misunderstood.  Many intellectuals at their little get togethers did, of course, have homosexual relationships.  However, this was a very overthought conclusion to their assumption that women were inferior.  Much of their writing talks about how you can't truly LOVE something that is not your equal, so a true experience of love would have to be with a man.  This did NOT equate to accepting two people, say two men, in a lifelong relationship.  There were plenty of instances of men who wouldn't take a wife and instead took a husband being publicly shamed and even tried for such an offense.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I can't speak to much of this as I am not a classics expert or a Medievalist t, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that Christianity reinforced class distinctions of all things. In any case, unless we want to play Gibbons, I have a hard time imagining that Christianity contributed to the breakdown of the Roman Empire more than garbage leadership did. A lot of the original post sounds mostly like a mid-2000s anti-Bush/anti-Christian strawman and I'm not sure if it invites any rational response. Linking drug use to "progressiveness" is at least mildly amusing. Bourgeois puritan capitalism was the true progressivism.

I won't address the whole topic right now, but I do have a minor nitpick.  I took a class on classical Greek thinking, and this idea that homosexuality was "accepted" (as it is today in much of the world) is really misunderstood.  Many intellectuals at their little get togethers did, of course, have homosexual relationships.  However, this was a very overthought conclusion to their assumption that women were inferior.  Much of their writing talks about how you can't truly LOVE something that is not your equal, so a true experience of love would have to be with a man.  This did NOT equate to accepting two people, say two men, in a lifelong relationship.  There were plenty of instances of men who wouldn't take a wife and instead took a husband being publicly shamed and even tried for such an offense.

I can't remember if it was Hadrian in Rome or one of his less well-regarded fellow Caesars, but there was one who was the "woman" in the relationship, or declared his lover to be his true spouse or something, to great offense to the Roman body politic.

[Dereich]

I can't remember if it was Hadrian in Rome or one of his less well-regarded fellow Caesars, but there was one who was the "woman" in the relationship, or declared his lover to be his true spouse or something, to great offense to the Roman body politic.

I believe you’re thinking of Elagabalus

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If anything, the Western Empire's collapse was aided by the levelling of class distinctions caused by granting everyone Roman citizenship by Caracalla in 212.

The Western Empire lasted as long as it did primarily due to inertia.

[afleitch]

Not really. It didn't exactly encourage innovation, but other parts of the world were guarding and pursuing these interests.

[136or142]

I can't speak to much of this as I am not a classics expert or a Medievalist t, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that Christianity reinforced class distinctions of all things. In any case, unless we want to play Gibbons, I have a hard time imagining that Christianity contributed to the breakdown of the Roman Empire more than garbage leadership did. A lot of the original post sounds mostly like a mid-2000s anti-Bush/anti-Christian strawman and I'm not sure if it invites any rational response. Linking drug use to "progressiveness" is at least mildly amusing. Bourgeois puritan capitalism was the true progressivism.

I won't address the whole topic right now, but I do have a minor nitpick.  I took a class on classical Greek thinking, and this idea that homosexuality was "accepted" (as it is today in much of the world) is really misunderstood.  Many intellectuals at their little get togethers did, of course, have homosexual relationships.  However, this was a very overthought conclusion to their assumption that women were inferior.  Much of their writing talks about how you can't truly LOVE something that is not your equal, so a true experience of love would have to be with a man.  This did NOT equate to accepting two people, say two men, in a lifelong relationship.  There were plenty of instances of men who wouldn't take a wife and instead took a husband being publicly shamed and even tried for such an offense.

I can't remember if it was Hadrian in Rome or one of his less well-regarded fellow Caesars, but there was one who was the "woman" in the relationship, or declared his lover to be his true spouse or something, to great offense to the Roman body politic.

The Christian Church absolutely sided with the Kings and the Feudal Lords to maintain class distinctions.  To say that the Church was not a conservative institution is denying reality.

For most of history the Church afflicted the afflicted and comforted the comfortable.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Christianity introduced a whole new sexual ethic to Western Europe, so you got that part right.

However, I don't know where you're getting the idea that Christianity made class structures more rigid.  And the public health/science part pure propaganda.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ridiculous and embarrassing pseudo-history.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean a good fifth or so of the Classical world's population were straight-up slaves, so the class distinctions thing kind of depends on whether you'd rather have zero rights now with the possibility of gaining numerous rights at some indeterminate point in the future or few rights now without any serious chance of either gaining any more or losing the ones you have. Social mobility isn't the end-all-be-all if one of the moving parts consists of people who are subjected to unrestricted rape and beatings with no legal or religious recourse. (Slavery existed in the Early Middle Ages too but my understanding is that by the High Middle Ages all or almost all remaining slaves in Western Europe had been incorporated into the general population of technically-free serfs and/or beggars.)

Also, the idea that there was no scientific or technological progress in medieval Western Europe is absolute nonsense, unless you seriously think building a Gothic cathedral didn't require any particularly impressive command of civil engineering, materials science, or optics. Heavy plows and three-field crop rotation were invented in Late Antiquity and were like 80% of the reason why life as a medieval peasant was more or less worth living (the other 20% being the literally over a hundred holidays over the course of the year).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The monastic bookcopying industry did more to preserve classical knowledge in the former western empire than anything else.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The monastic bookcopying industry did more to preserve classical knowledge in the former western empire than anything else.

Yes, the earliest copies of pretty much every notable Classical text date from the Carolingian Renaissance.

[afleitch]

I mean a good fifth or so of the Classical world's population were straight-up slaves, so the class distinctions thing kind of depends on whether you'd rather have zero rights now with the possibility of gaining numerous rights at some indeterminate point in the future or few rights now without any serious chance of either gaining any more or losing the ones you have. Social mobility isn't the end-all-be-all if one of the moving parts consists of people who are subjected to unrestricted rape and beatings with no legal or religious recourse. (Slavery existed in the Early Middle Ages too but my understanding is that by the High Middle Ages all or almost all remaining slaves in Western Europe had been incorporated into the general population of technically-free serfs and/or beggars.

10% of the English population were slaves as recorded in the Domesday Book. The distinction between literal slaves and serfdom was so porous it's disingenuous to suggest serfdom was in any way 'better' and that the distinction itself mattered in practical application. Either way it took over 1000 years after Christianisation of the British Isles for slavery to die out. At least amongst ourselves. In general the west had an abhorrent attitude to slavery and serfdom and the prime motivation for shifts away from this were economic/agricultural (hence it's resurgence in the 1700's) rather than a grand narrative of being 'Christ like' or 'Secularly Englightened.'

Having said that had we all became Quakers a few hundred years ago I can guarantee we'd be on Mars right now.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This is a ridiculous question, not least because it presumes Progress occurs in much the same way as a software update—the narrative arc of history guiding humanity from Barbarism to Enlightenment that climaxes at Modernity. Casting the advent of Christianity in the West as the beginning of a Dark Age that banished the achievements of Classical learning for a millennia is a story that worked well for Renaissance thinkers who wanted to imagine themselves as the saviors of civilization, but bears little relation to actual history, as others in this thread have already pointed out.

[136or142]

So, does anybody seriously think that the Church was at the forefront of advancing the rights of the serfs or advancing knowledge and learning beyond people learning about the Bible?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean a good fifth or so of the Classical world's population were straight-up slaves, so the class distinctions thing kind of depends on whether you'd rather have zero rights now with the possibility of gaining numerous rights at some indeterminate point in the future or few rights now without any serious chance of either gaining any more or losing the ones you have. Social mobility isn't the end-all-be-all if one of the moving parts consists of people who are subjected to unrestricted rape and beatings with no legal or religious recourse. (Slavery existed in the Early Middle Ages too but my understanding is that by the High Middle Ages all or almost all remaining slaves in Western Europe had been incorporated into the general population of technically-free serfs and/or beggars.

10% of the English population were slaves as recorded in the Domesday Book. The distinction between literal slaves and serfdom was so porous it's disingenuous to suggest serfdom was in any way 'better' and that the distinction itself mattered in practical application. Either way it took over 1000 years after Christianisation of the British Isles for slavery to die out. At least amongst ourselves. In general the west had an abhorrent attitude to slavery and serfdom and the prime motivation for shifts away from this were economic/agricultural (hence it's resurgence in the 1700's) rather than a grand narrative of being 'Christ like' or 'Secularly Englightened.'

I was genuinely unaware of much of this (although I'd vaguely heard that slavery persisted in the British Isles longer than in the rest of Western Europe) so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I wasn't trying to imply that Cool Woke Medieval Catholics made things very much better for the agricultural subject classes, just disputing the notion that the transition from Classical paganism to Christianity in and of itself made things worse.

Of course, I was taught Late Antique and medieval history over the course of a mainline Protestant divinity school education, not exactly a pedagogical environment known for its studious avoidance of Whiggish "onwards and upwards" narratives or for critical assessments of Christianity as such, so take my perspective for whatever you feel it's worth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, absolutely.

So, does anybody seriously think that the Church was at the forefront of advancing the rights of the serfs

I don't think anybody in this thread is suggesting this. I certainly wasn't trying to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...insofar as anybody was, yes, of course? Who else in the medieval world would have been?

[136or142]

I mean a good fifth or so of the Classical world's population were straight-up slaves, so the class distinctions thing kind of depends on whether you'd rather have zero rights now with the possibility of gaining numerous rights at some indeterminate point in the future or few rights now without any serious chance of either gaining any more or losing the ones you have. Social mobility isn't the end-all-be-all if one of the moving parts consists of people who are subjected to unrestricted rape and beatings with no legal or religious recourse. (Slavery existed in the Early Middle Ages too but my understanding is that by the High Middle Ages all or almost all remaining slaves in Western Europe had been incorporated into the general population of technically-free serfs and/or beggars.

10% of the English population were slaves as recorded in the Domesday Book. The distinction between literal slaves and serfdom was so porous it's disingenuous to suggest serfdom was in any way 'better' and that the distinction itself mattered in practical application. Either way it took over 1000 years after Christianisation of the British Isles for slavery to die out. At least amongst ourselves. In general the west had an abhorrent attitude to slavery and serfdom and the prime motivation for shifts away from this were economic/agricultural (hence it's resurgence in the 1700's) rather than a grand narrative of being 'Christ like' or 'Secularly Englightened.'

I was genuinely unaware of much of this (although I'd vaguely heard that slavery persisted in the British Isles longer than in the rest of Western Europe) so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I wasn't trying to imply that Cool Woke Medieval Catholics made things very much better for the agricultural subject classes, just disputing the notion that the transition from Classical paganism to Christianity in and of itself made things worse.

Of course, I was taught Late Antique and medieval history over the course of a mainline Protestant divinity school education, not exactly a pedagogical environment known for its studious avoidance of Whiggish "onwards and upwards" narratives or for critical assessments of Christianity as such, so take my perspective for whatever you feel it's worth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, absolutely.

So, does anybody seriously think that the Church was at the forefront of advancing the rights of the serfs

I don't think anybody in this thread is suggesting this. I certainly wasn't trying to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...insofar as anybody was, yes, of course? Who else in the medieval world would have been?

What exactly did the Church do to advance knowledge?  In addition to the famous stories of killing people as heretics who dared to argue Church orthodoxy, they seemed to have pretty much kept Ancient texts to themselves.

As far as I'm aware it was mostly the traders along the Mediterranean who advanced knowledge.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You and I seem to mean different things by "advance knowledge". Obviously the traders, proto-capitalists, and Sabir-speakers of the medieval world were much more pluralistic and culturally "progressive" elements of society than the Church was (no historian of the Middle Ages whom I'm aware of denies this, including conservative Catholic ones), but when I hear not-otherwise-defined phrases like "advance knowledge and learning" in a discussion of medieval Europe I tend to think of the sort of text-based work that was going on mostly in the monastic orders (and among a few other specialized professions like scribes and chroniclers). To completely dismiss this work is effectively to dismiss the importance of texts and literacy in the history of ideas in general.

[136or142]

You and I seem to mean different things by "advance knowledge". Obviously the traders, proto-capitalists, and Sabir-speakers of the medieval world were much more pluralistic and culturally "progressive" elements of society than the Church was (no historian of the Middle Ages whom I'm aware of denies this, including conservative Catholic ones), but when I hear not-otherwise-defined phrases like "advance knowledge and learning" in a discussion of medieval Europe I tend to think of the sort of text-based work that was going on mostly in the monastic orders (and among a few other specialized professions like scribes and chroniclers). To completely dismiss this work is effectively to dismiss the importance of texts and literacy in the history of ideas in general.

As far as I know, these Church based scholars kept their learning to themselves.  So, they didn't advance knowledge among the wider population in the same way that the traders did.

Most of the comments here seem to have regarded the question with aggregate analysis rather than marginal analysis.  In the aggregate, Ancient Rome was not all that 'progressive' so it was not really set back, however, in terms of marginal analysis: would the Medieval world have been further ahead if not for the Church, I don't see how anybody can seriously dispute that for much of the Middle Ages.  

On the one hand, there is little question that the Church prevented Europe from falling to barbarism.  
On the other hand, I think there is also little question that the Church:

1.Punished would-be scholars who deviated from Church orthodoxy.
2.Sided with conservative institutions like the Kings and the Lords to preserve feudalism.
3.Kept the 'ancient knowledge' mostly or entirely to themselves.
4.Focused people on learning about religion at the expense of learning about the natural sciences.

It is true that the Medieval Society advanced technologically with important developments such as the plow (early but much less efficient versions were used in Ancient times), milling machines and water power, and even eye glasses in the high Middle Ages, however, I think this prior lack of invention was more to do with the anti-technology ideology of Ancient Rome than any great advance by Medieval Society.

In answer to the question, I don't think there is any question that the Church did set the Western World back a few centuries from what it otherwise could have achieved.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The question shows that the asker has primarily a linear rather than a cyclical view of history. Even before the Christian Era, society has never been an always upward thing, not even materially.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You and I seem to mean different things by "advance knowledge". Obviously the traders, proto-capitalists, and Sabir-speakers of the medieval world were much more pluralistic and culturally "progressive" elements of society than the Church was (no historian of the Middle Ages whom I'm aware of denies this, including conservative Catholic ones), but when I hear not-otherwise-defined phrases like "advance knowledge and learning" in a discussion of medieval Europe I tend to think of the sort of text-based work that was going on mostly in the monastic orders (and among a few other specialized professions like scribes and chroniclers). To completely dismiss this work is effectively to dismiss the importance of texts and literacy in the history of ideas in general.

As far as I know, these Church based scholars kept their learning to themselves.  So, they didn't advance knowledge among the wider population in the same way that the traders did.

Most of the comments here seem to have regarded the question with aggregate analysis rather than marginal analysis.  In the aggregate, Ancient Rome was not all that 'progressive' so it was not really set back, however, in terms of marginal analysis: would the Medieval world have been further ahead if not for the Church, I don't see how anybody can seriously dispute that for much of the Middle Ages.  

On the one hand, there is little question that the Church prevented Europe from falling to barbarism.  
On the other hand, I think there is also little question that the Church:

1.Punished would-be scholars who deviated from Church orthodoxy.
2.Sided with conservative institutions like the Kings and the Lords to preserve feudalism.
3.Kept the 'ancient knowledge' mostly or entirely to themselves.
4.Focused people on learning about religion at the expense of learning about the natural sciences.

It is true that the Medieval Society advanced technologically with important developments such as the plow (early but much less efficient versions were used in Ancient times), milling machines and water power, and even eye glasses in the high Middle Ages, however, I think this prior lack of invention was more to do with the anti-technology ideology of Ancient Rome than any great advance by Medieval Society.

In answer to the question, I don't think there is any question that the Church did set the Western World back a few centuries from what it otherwise could have achieved.

I see. This is a significantly more cogent argument than one typically sees from people making this assertion. I have deep doubts about the usefulness of marginal analysis in this sort of historiographichal discussion because it inevitably involves extensive use of counterfactuals, but I'm very angry at my Church right now for reasons that should be obvious so I have no further interest in debating the legacy of medieval Catholicism in this thread.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Martin Lutherism started secularism. Freedom of expression and worship. Jesus was killed due to lack of freedom to worship and so were many of the Puritans who left Europe due yo Pope.

Remember, not only were people executed; however, they were killed for witchcraft for not following pope.

[Del Tachi]

Lmao no

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The tendancy to overly fetishise the classical era is an old one -  William Shakespeare assuming that ancient Rome, a time that obviously superior to his own, had mechanical clocks is a good examples - but it isn't hugely useful. After all the Roman Empire lasted a very long time and they never even begun to formulate the notion of "natural sciences", a discipline that emerged in a period roughly bookended by the Copernican Revolution and the publications of Isaac Newton, a period which basically saw the extinguishing (in the bulk of educated classes of Europe, especially in England) of alchemy, astrology, magicians and the notions that Aristotle and Galen were sacred texts.

If anything, Christianity - a universal religion that you can easily draw discrete lines between the physical and metaphysical worlds - made the transition easier; you can't really form universal laws that govern our observed reality if you presuppose every tree is a potential minor deity and that Jupiter controls lightning. In fact the Romans didn't even have a word for "discovery" - to them, and the medieval scholars who read them, all understanding could be deduced from Greek philosophy - there was no "new knowledge". That's why alchemy persisted for so long, even amongst some of the leading lights of the Scientific Revolution: the ancients had made a philosophers stone, so obviously it was possible!

Breaking away from this consensus was what truly triggered the scientific Revolution, as opposed to theological change: the notions of a scientific experiment, the true usurping of "natural philosophy" by mathematicians, the notions of "laws of nature" (the Greeks knew a handful of physical laws like levers but never identified them as thus), testing hypotheses and so on.

Why did the Catholic Church stick so loyally to Aristotle? After all, it's important to not be too overcorrecting and claim they were actually good guys in the debacle. They had built up a nice little synthesis of Aristotle's theories with the Bible: they put it that God was the one influencing the sublunary zone to avoid the world being just four concentric circles of earth, water, air and fire - the Biblical flood being the water circle, in the absence of god's divinity reverting to its natural form. But this was not a consequence of Christianity (plenty of Christians, like Descartes and Boyle, found the theories of Copernicus if anything more compatible with Christianity than that of Ptolemy); often it was just internal politics more than anything.