A case for Christianity

[Mithrae]

Sometimes I like to imagine the interesting conversations I might have if I ever decided to 'become a Christian' again: “No, I'm actually not even sure that 'God' exists. In fact I think that any rational assessment would conclude on balance that Jesus probably did not literally rise from the dead.� Christians often profess a desire for others to become members of their religion, yet obviously I couldn't pretend to believe things that I don't believe, or to not know the things which I do. So if they somehow got their wish, how would I explain or justify those seeming contradictions, even to myself? According to most Christians throughout history, including in the bible itself, many of those intellectual hurdles but particularly these two above are pretty much non-negotiable, central elements of the religion.

Of course, there are some Christians who would disagree with that. I haven't read or seen much of them in books or the like – I gather that John Shelby Spong would be one well-known example – but there've been a few such folk on the forum on occasion. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I believe that they would emphasise more of a 'mythopoetic' perspective on 'God' and the resurrection; perhaps not necessarily viewing them as definitely literally false, but treating them primarily as powerful, fundamental or even transformative archetypes or metanarrative placeholders whose value (at least in day to day life) do not depend on a literal understanding at all.

How would I explain that to some of my more traditionalist family members? The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

It may well turn out that after we die we'll find ourselves in a new life, and with a greatly expanded capacity for understanding reality; a scenario in which the literal reality of God (or rather, something probably quite unlike our base conception) will have become much more relevant. But in day to day life, the relevance of this placeholder concept really only comes from its role in 'answering' or even simply outlining existential questions.

Similarly for the resurrection: Again, the supposedly magical transformation of the conversion experience aside (which arguably could more properly be considered the work of the Holy Spirit in any case), whether or not Jesus literally rose from the grave really doesn't affect anyone's day to day living. But the imagery or symbolisms of humility, of self-sacrificing love, of triumph over (or fearless towards) death, of transformation and of new life... these are profound and powerful themes which find many expressions in many different cultures, but perhaps most profoundly and certainly most widely and enduringly in the stories of the Jesus of Christianity. More than once as a young Christian, when faced with a difficult course of action or hostility from others, I thought of Jesus' courage in even going to his own death and his forgiveness of those who crucified him, and they sometimes gave me the inspiration and strength do what I considered right.

Of course the thematic and existential roles which these stories of Jesus and God occupy could potentially be filled by others instead. There are stories of courage and self-sacrifice in the face of wars or disaster which by any natural measure are unquestionably more compelling than Jesus' largely self-provoked execution. With so many thousands of examples in the centuries since, it could hardly be otherwise. Similarly some of the stories of people who've overcome crippling adversities or turned tragedies into triumphs are more inspirational than the contradictory gospel stories of the resurrection. But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then.

It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. But even more than just the lessons of history, there is a vast wealth of artistic, architectural, literary and musical legacy to relate to on the basis of even tentatively-shared religious reference points: Because I was a Christian, I can appreciate anything from Handel's Messiah to Ben Hur potentially more than I might have if I'd been raised in an entirely different culture.

Socially therefore, Christianity potentially offers a sense of context, culture and community which can often be sadly lacking in our atomised, consumeristic world.

Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas.

And spiritually, it offers the hope and possibility that maybe, just possibly, there really will turn out to be a loving God and a better life after death, along with the inner peace and fulfilment – for those who seek it – of exploring and imagining those possibilities as if they were fact.

In short, the role of religion in this perspective bears some similarities to the kind of cultural fandom we often see in devotees of particular sports teams, musicians, games and the like, but going much, much deeper: Fandom fulfils some of the social role above, and even that quite meagrely or transiently. A slightly closer comparison would be patriotic nationalism, which offers a broader and more enduring answer to the social role, and provides an historical context for possible questioning and answers of moral and existential questions also. It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country.

Finally of course there are many people who are “spiritual but not religious,� to greater or lesser degrees. I was interested to learn recently that even the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens once said “We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic,'� and that “Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff.� And perhaps for some the smorgasbord approach is found to be preferable, seeking spiritual fulfilment from one place and social integration in another while tackling moral and existential questions from yet a third angle.

But the only format in which all these needs are met (or at least addressed) in a united format as far as I'm aware is in religious contexts, in which community and history share equal importance with abstract theology and philosophy. As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).


Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

[Danmark]

I would agree that the bible should not be taken literally (I doubt there was an actual man named Jesus who raised people from the dead). But it should be taken seriously.

To that end, what is absolutely impossible about any of this stuff you mention becoming possible? e.g., our being able to heal the blind or even raise the dead?

One has to be be careful when using words like "absolutely," but when a reported event defies the laws of physics and our experience I'd say it is impossible. An example would be the 'faith healings,' that have been reported. Most have been revealed as frauds or illusions (magicians' tricks). However, there is a class of 'healings' that have never even been reported:
the growing of an amputated limb for example. I am aware of no case where a head has been completely severed from a human body, then restored so the human functions as if there had never been an injury.

'Faith healings' are always of the sort that can be faked by a magician. I've never heard of a report of a mountain being moved from one place to another, tho' there may have been man made approximations or natural occurrences involving volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that could arguably be considered approximations.

Re: not taking the Bible literally, I agree. But this poses a problem for the believer sophisticated enough to take this position; that the Bible loses some of its authority while it gains ambiguity.

[Mithrae]

I would agree that the bible should not be taken literally (I doubt there was an actual man named Jesus who raised people from the dead). But it should be taken seriously.

To that end, what is absolutely impossible about any of this stuff you mention becoming possible? e.g., our being able to heal the blind or even raise the dead?

One has to be be careful when using words like "absolutely," but when a reported event defies the laws of physics and our experience I'd say it is impossible. An example would be the 'faith healings,' that have been reported. Most have been revealed as frauds or illusions (magicians' tricks). However, there is a class of 'healings' that have never even been reported:
the growing of an amputated limb for example.

Of course they have been reported. In at least one case, even backed up by substantial contemporary documentary evidence... albeit still far shy of utterly indisputable proof.

What you perhaps mean to say is that you have some undefined and possibly quite arbitrary threshold of evidence at which you will accept 'miracle' reports, and have not yet see any which cross that threshold. Perhaps even when such reports are thoroughly documented and certified by 2/3 and 3/4 majorities of two separate medical panels as being rapid, medically unexplained cures of serious physical ailments it still may not be enough, for you.

Whatever percentage of alleged miraculous cures may be genuine - and even just human nature suggests that many are surely not - I suppose simple hope is another thing which is of incalculable benefit to most people at some time or other in their lives, providing some extra strength to struggle on through adversity. Another essential role in society which religions fill as perhaps nothing else could so well.

[Danmark]

Of course they have been reported. In at least one case, even backed up by substantial contemporary documentary evidence... albeit still far shy of utterly indisputable proof.

"Far shy" indeed! The story is about religious gullibility.
"Author Brian Dunning has done extensive research and claims that "there is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone." He presents a non-miraculous explanation that Pellicer's leg did not develop gangrene during the five days at the hospital at Valencia. He spent the next 50 days convalescing, during which he was unable to work. He turned to begging, and discovered that having a broken leg was a boon. After his leg had mended, he decided that if a broken leg helped, a missing leg would be better. Traveling to Zaragoza, he bound his right foreleg up behind his thigh and for two years played the part of an amputee beggar. Later, back at his parents home in Calanda, forced to sleep in a different bed, his ruse was discovered. The story of the miracle was a way to save face. Dunning asserts "that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

What you perhaps mean to say is ...

What you perhaps don't get to do is speak for me. I wrote: "'Faith healings' are always of the sort that can be faked...."

[Mithrae]

Of course they have been reported. In at least one case, even backed up by substantial contemporary documentary evidence... albeit still far shy of utterly indisputable proof.

"Far shy" indeed! The story is about religious gullibility.
"Author Brian Dunning...

That is certainly one line of speculation, yes. I would even go so far as to say a plausible if not probable one.

What you perhaps mean to say is that you have some undefined and possibly quite arbitrary threshold of evidence at which you will accept 'miracle' reports, and have not yet see any which cross that threshold. Perhaps even when such reports are thoroughly documented and certified by 2/3 and 3/4 majorities of two separate medical panels as being rapid, medically unexplained cures of serious physical ailments it still may not be enough, for you.

What you perhaps don't get to do is speak for me.

Then I suppose we can simply accept that you are being dishonest, if you are standing without retraction or amendment by your initial claim that healed amputations "have never even been reported." My not particularly sincere apologies if the attempt to glean a more precise/accurate/honest meaning from your words caused some kind of offence

[Danmark]

Then I suppose we can simply accept that you are being dishonest, if you are standing without retraction or amendment by your initial claim that healed amputations "have never even been reported." My not particularly sincere apologies if the attempt to glean a more precise/accurate/honest meaning from your words caused some kind of offence

Here is what I wrote:
Most have been revealed as frauds or illusions (magicians' tricks). However, there is a class of 'healings' that have never even been reported:
the growing of an amputated limb for example. I am aware of no case where a head has been completely severed from a human body, then restored so the human functions as if there had never been an injury.

'Faith healings' are always of the sort that can be faked by a magician.

From this you have seized on a single phrase which you took out of context, ignoring the specifics I used. The specific is more important than the general. Yes, you are correct in that one can 'report' anything. One can 'report' the moon is made of green cheese. That hardly qualifies it as a legitimate 'report.'

Your quibbling attempts to swallow the truth, that the single example you've offered from the 17th Century, the Calanda hoax, proves the point by representing yet another fraud. Yes, I agree. You've "got me." Frauds and hoaxes are indeed 'reported.' However, I thought a reasonable person would assume the modifier "reliably" would be attached to "reported."

The central point stands as I originally wrote:

"'Faith healings' are always of the sort that can be faked."

[Mithrae]

Then I suppose we can simply accept that you are being dishonest, if you are standing without retraction or amendment by your initial claim that healed amputations "have never even been reported." My not particularly sincere apologies if the attempt to glean a more precise/accurate/honest meaning from your words caused some kind of offence

Here is what I wrote:
Most have been revealed as frauds or illusions (magicians' tricks). However, there is a class of 'healings' that have never even been reported:
the growing of an amputated limb for example. I am aware of no case where a head has been completely severed from a human body, then restored so the human functions as if there had never been an injury.

'Faith healings' are always of the sort that can be faked by a magician.

From this you have seized on a single phrase which you took out of context, ignoring the specifics I used. The specific is more important than the general. Yes, you are correct in that one can 'report' anything. One can 'report' the moon is made of green cheese. That hardly qualifies it as a legitimate 'report.'

Your quibbling attempts to swallow the truth, that the single example you've offered from the 17th Century, the Calanda hoax, proves the point by representing yet another fraud. Yes, I agree. You've "got me." Frauds and hoaxes are indeed 'reported.' However, I thought a reasonable person would assume the modifier "reliably" would be attached to "reported."

It rather seems that you are substantiating the speculation I advanced. This isn't an example of some random nobody slurring out a drunken yarn in a bar, it's a case which was extensively investigated and documented at the time, by the people who were there. But because it doesn't meet your undefined threshold of 'acceptable evidence' you are choosing to not only remain sceptical, as I am, but asserting without evidence that it was a fraud and (some would say dishonestly) pretending that it somehow just doesn't qualify as the right kind of report in order to falsify your claim that such things "have never even been reported."

Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that your claim was incorrect?

Dozens of witnesses confirmed that the fellow had only one leg for those 2+ years, and reports of the initial condition of the 'reattached' limb - "cold and hard with contracted toes and blue in colour" and "initially a few centimetres shorter due to the loss of bone tissue" - were said by Dr. Cugola to be consistent with that scenario (and would not be with the alternative). The points raised by Brian Dunning are (along with how unusual the case is) certainly intriguing enough to raise the serious possibility of fraud, but they are hardly conclusive. It's not even as if people choosing to be homeless beggars rather than farmers is something we'd generally expect to begin with; the alleged financial motive Dunning tries to create seems rather strained, at best! And in fact in his article on Sceptoid he himself specifically writes that "We can't say that the Miracle of Calanda is not genuine, and we can't prove that Miguel Juan Pellicer's leg was not miraculously restored." Yet you have chosen to assume that fraud is an incontrovertible fact.

The central point stands as I originally wrote:

"'Faith healings' are always of the sort that can be faked."

Your opinion is noted, but seems clear that this is nothing more than an article of faith for you, as evidenced by the fact that you carefully snipped and have now twice avoided responding to
"reports [that] are thoroughly documented and certified by 2/3 and 3/4 majorities of two separate medical panels as being rapid, medically unexplained cures of serious physical ailments"

That's okay, of course: You have stated your opinion that such things simply don't occur and I have provided the evidence that they do, but neither perspective is actually relevant to whether or not religions fill an essential role in society. What is relevant to that question is the point on which I concluded my earlier post - and which you again avoided - that simple hope is another thing which is of incalculable benefit to most people at some time or other in their lives, providing some extra strength to struggle on through adversity. Another essential role in society which religions fill as perhaps nothing else could so well.

[Danmark]

Part of the Case against Christianity:

'Churches were often guilty of complicity in massacres and atrocities resulting from colonial policy. For example King Leopold was granted control of the Congo in 1885 explicitly to bring Christianity to the benighted heathen. The atrocities perpetrated by his government in the Belgian Congo — the extensive use of slave labour and assorted murderous practices — were first concealed then minimised by the Roman Church. Children had their hands cut off if they failed to work hard enough for their Catholic masters.



The truth about the Congo was published and international opinion mobilised by nineteenth century freethinkers. Indeed, almost the only criticism of colonisation and its evils came from freethinkers. The most notable critics were Thomas Paine in the eighteenth century and George Holyoake in the nineteenth, but their views were generally regarded as wicked, sinful and contrary to God's will. Colonisation was regarded by almost all Christians as wholly good, divinely sanctioned and necessary, well into the twentieth century.'
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 95 by Danmark]

BadNewAboutChristianity.com? Good to see that you depend on sources likely to provide an objective, balanced account. Are you trying to suggest that in the absence of religion, the kings, nobles and merchants of those European powers would have refrained from taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by access to new and weaker territories? Or that the prevailing social and cultural institutions would not, for the most part, have adapted to and reflected those priorities rather than trying hold back the tide?

That would seem to be a naive and totally unsubstantiated perspective if so. Arguably one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of the 21st century to date was precipitated by the brazenly illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq - a sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world - which had not only bipartisan support in the secular United States but was even actively promoted by some critics of religion and Islam specifically such as Christopher Hitchens. Projection of power and personal greed are among the most powerful motivators of human behaviour and - due to the kind of people who often claw their way to the top - especially of national behaviour, and when a national agenda is set by the ruling classes it's almost inevitable for most of the populace to fall in line, not necessarily under the same justifications, even if they might otherwise be expected to have different values entirely.

Even so, there certainly was plenty of overt Christian opposition to the brutalities of colonial dominion:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_de_Montesinos
  Antonio de Montesinos or Antonio Montesino (Spain, c. 1475 - Venezuela, 1545)[1] was a Spanish Dominican friar who was a missionary on the island of Hispaniola (now the Dominican Republic and Haiti). With the backing of his prior, Friar Pedro de Córdoba, and his Dominican community at Santo Dominigo, Montesinos preached against the enslavement and harsh treatment of the Indigenous peoples of the Island.
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Vitoria
  Francisco de Vitoria OP (c. 1483 – 12 August 1546; also known as Francisco de Victoria) was a Roman Catholic philosopher, theologian, and jurist of Renaissance Spain. He is the founder of the tradition in philosophy known as the School of Salamanca, noted especially for his contributions to the theory of just war and international law. . . .
  
  A noted scholar, he was publicly consulted by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain. He worked to limit the type of power the Spanish Empire imposed on the Native Peoples. He said, "The upshot of all the preceding is this, then, that the aborigines undoubtedly had true dominion in both public and private matters, just like Christians, and that neither their princes nor private persons could be despoiled of their property on the ground of their not being true owners."[6] Vitoria denied that the native peoples could be understood as slaves by nature in Aristotelian terms.[7] He adopted from Aquinas the Roman law concept of ius gentium ("the law of nations"). His defense of American Indians was based on a Scholastic understanding of the intrinsic dignity of man, a dignity he found being violated by Spain's policies in the New World.
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom% ... _las_Casas
  Bartolomé de las Casas (Spanish: [bartoloˈme ðe las ˈkasas] (About this sound listen); c. 1484[1] – 18 July 1566) was a 16th-century Spanish historian, social reformer and Dominican friar. He became the first resident Bishop of Chiapas, and the first officially appointed "Protector of the Indians". His extensive writings, the most famous being A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies and Historia de Las Indias, chronicle the first decades of colonization of the West Indies and focus particularly on the atrocities committed by the colonizers against the indigenous peoples.[2]
  
  Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he initially participated in, but eventually felt compelled to oppose the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives. In his early writings, he advocated the use of African slaves instead of Natives in the West-Indian colonies; consequently, criticisms have been leveled at him as being partly responsible for the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade. Later in life, he retracted those early views as he came to see all forms of slavery as equally wrong.
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
  King Charles I of Spain, usually known as Emperor Charles V, was following the example of Louis X of France who abolished slavery within the Kingdom of France in 1315. He passed a law which would have abolished colonial slavery in 1542, although this law was not passed in the largest colonial states, and was not enforced. In the late 17th century, the Roman Catholic Church, taking up a plea by Lourenço da Silva de Mendouça, officially condemned the slave trade, which was affirmed vehemently by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839. The abolitionist movement only started in the late 18th century, however, when English and American Quakers began to question the morality of slavery. James Oglethorpe was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery, banning it in the Province of Georgia on humanitarian grounds, and arguing against it in Parliament, and eventually encouraging his friends Granville Sharp and Hannah More to vigorously pursue the cause. Soon after his death in 1785, Sharp and More united with William Wilberforce and others in forming the Clapham Sect.[1]

A good case might be made that even when not overtly opposing national policies, many of the Christian missionaries actually 'on the ground' in colonized regions sought to mitigate the effects of inevitable European domination, rather than trying to hold back the tide. Of course other Christian missionaries were brutal advocates of European domination. But while much evil certainly has been done in the name of Christianity, your source seems to willfully ignore the good side. It's quite possible that the specifically Christian (as distinct from political/national) influences in colonial regions has ultimately proved to effect as much or more good than harm:

• Robert D. Woodberry, The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy (American Political Science Review, 2012)
  This article demonstrates historically and statistically that conversionary Protestants (CPs) heavily influenced the rise and spread of stable democracy around the world. It argues that CPs were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, and colonial reforms, thereby creating the conditions that made stable democracy more likely. Statistically, the historic prevalence of Protestant missionaries explains about half the variation in democracy in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania and removes the impact of most variables that dominate current statistical research about democracy. The association between Protestant missions and democracy is consistent in different continents and subsamples, and it is robust to more than 50 controls and to instrumental variable analyses.

Note that this isn't just some fringe lunatic theory. It was the culmination of over a decade of research, and (among other awards) the article has received:
American Sociological Association - Best Article in Global and Transnational Sociology, 2014
American Sociological Association - Distinguished Article Award, 2013; Sociology of Religion section
American Political Science Association - Luebbert Award for Best Article in Comparative Politics, 2013
American Political Science Association - Best Article in Comparative Democratization, 2013

• Committee Remarks on the Award Winner: “The committee unanimously decided to award the best article prize to Robert Woodberry for his article “The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracyâ€�. In this article, which came out in the May 2012 issue of the American Political Science Review, Woodberry argues that conversionary Protestants were a crucial catalyst that initiated the spread of the civic liberties and associations that ultimately resulted in the emergence of liberal democracy.
  
  A brief version of Woodberry’s theoretical argument goes as follows: conversionary Protestants wanted ordinary people to be i) able to read the Bible and ii) actively involved in their church. Yet in their attempts to spread their faith, conversionary Protestants were in effect facilitating the spread of mass education, mass printing, and civil society. These byproducts of religious activism in turn led to the emergence of actors and conditions favorable to democracy: civic associations, political parties, religious liberties, and mass political participation.
  
  Hence, according to Woodberry, democracy was not the autonomous triumph of modern forms of political organization and activity – like political parties, labor movements, and mass education. Rather, these modern political actors were the byproduct of a very traditional activity, namely, religious conversion and competition.
  
  These arguments alone amount to an important and novel challenge to the standard versions of the modernization theory. Yet, Woodberry’s article is also exceptional in the way it combines historical and statistical research in order to evaluate this theoretical proposition.
  
  First, Woodberry shows that there is a strong association between Protestantism and democracy across a number of historical and geographical contexts: in Western Europe, in settle colonies, in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, and in the rest of the contemporary world. Then he presents historical evidence of conversionary Protestants’ involvement in the spread of mass printing, mass education, civil society, and the rule of law – and thus highlights the specific mechanisms by which conversionary protestants fostered conditions favorable to the emergence of democracy. And finally, using original data on Protestant missionary involvement around the world, Professor Woodberry demonstrates that the historic prevalence of Protestant missionaries explains about half the variation in democracy outside of Europe – even after controlling for most standard covariates and after accounting for endogeneity by an instrumental variable analysis.
  
  To summarize, it is the combination of a new approach to a classic, important question and the nuanced use of different kinds of methods and evidence when evaluating his theoretical claims that led us to award this year’s best article prize to Robert Woodberry.�

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 95 by Danmark]

BadNewAboutChristianity.com? Good to see that you depend on sources likely to provide an objective, balanced account. . . .

You start by attacking the source. Do you deny the Christian inspired atrocities documented there? Do you deny that the same racist practices were integral to the history of Australia? Do you deny that racism and slavery are accepted in the Bible as long as slavery is not practiced against Jews?

Your thesis has been a 'Case for Christianity,' yet you ignore the long history of atrocities including slavery, genocide, murder, and mutilations practiced in the name of Christianity. Either deny these facts or accept them, but your continued personal attacks on me and my arguments are irrelevant to the fact that those practicing Christianity have a horrific record.

BTW, I am sure I am not alone in recognizing your continuing 'Well, I am not a Christian, but...' as pure baloney. You claim you are not a Christian, but your arguments suggest you are being less than candid.

[Mithrae]

but your continued personal attacks on me and my arguments are irrelevant

BTW, I am sure I am not alone in recognizing your continuing 'Well, I am not a Christian, but...' as pure baloney. You claim you are not a Christian, but your arguments suggest you are being less than candid.

Sigh.

[Replying to post 95 by Danmark]

BadNewAboutChristianity.com? Good to see that you depend on sources likely to provide an objective, balanced account. . . .

You start by attacking the source.

No, I started by pointing out that the source provides a highly selective presentation of facts, and went on to demonstrate at length why that's the case.

Do you deny the Christian inspired atrocities documented there? Do you deny that the same racist practices were integral to the history of Australia? Do you deny that racism and slavery are accepted in the Bible as long as slavery is not practiced against Jews?

Your thesis has been a 'Case for Christianity,' yet you ignore the long history of atrocities including slavery, genocide, murder, and mutilations practiced in the name of Christianity.

I'm afraid that this is nothing more than dishonesty, plain and simple. I specifically highlighted those facts at length in the OP:

• But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then. It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. . . .
  
  Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas. . . .
  
  It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country. . . .
  
  As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).

Do you actually have any kind of coherent response to the fact that there were Christians prominently (and not entirely unsuccessfully) advocating for the abolition of slavery and dignified treatment of other cultures and races at least as early as the 16th century?

Or to the likelihood that the objectives and actions of the European powers would have been identical even in the absence of religion?

Or to the thesis in "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy" that in fact the specifically Christian (particularly Protestant) aspects of colonial regions such as emphasis on literacy "heavily influenced the rise and spread of stable democracy around the world"?