The Misattribution of Modern Advancements to Christianity
Written on
Tom Holland's book Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (2019) delves into the contentious topic of who should be credited with modernity.
Are Christians justified in claiming credit for contemporary advancements, such as the emphasis on human rights and scientific progress? Or did modernity arise in spite of Christian influence, potentially even in direct opposition to its traditions?
Holland's perspectives seem to resonate due to his background as a former Christian and current atheist, allowing him to present a case that aligns with Christian apologetics. Proponents might argue, "Look, even an atheist acknowledges the debt modernity owes to Christianity, as evidenced by America's foundations on Christian principles rather than pagan ones."
However, Dominion stands out not just for Holland's apparent neutrality or the absence of overt apologetic intentions. The arguments presented are riddled with flaws, casting doubt on the validity of the apologetic stance.
To clarify Holland's interpretation of Western history, I will outline his main arguments and highlight the inconsistencies that arise throughout the text.
Holland posits that the pre-Christian Western world was harsh and brutal, suggesting that the "modern progress" we recognize—rooted in liberal philosophy, art, capitalism, democracy, and improved living conditions—was made possible through Christian transformations.
His critique lacks theological rigor. Holland interprets early Christianity and Protestantism as pivotal forerunners to secular humanism, implying that even when we think we've moved beyond Christian values, we are merely reiterating them. He claims that prior to Christianity, the concept of human rights was non-existent; Christianity's elevation of the marginalized, as exemplified by Jesus, underpins modern humanist ideals.
Flaws in Holland's Argument
Firstly, Holland's argument is unfalsifiable due to the evolving nature of Christianity. Any historical event can be labeled as “Christian,” even if it conflicts with traditional Christian values. His selective interpretation skews the essence of Christianity, asserting that modern advancements are inherently Christian.
What does "Christian" mean in this context? Are we referring to early Christianity, later developments, orthodox beliefs, or heretical views? The malleability of this label allows for a biased interpretation that may obscure other philosophical influences.
Secondly, there's a distinction between actions taken by Christians and actions that inherently follow Christian logic. For example, early modern thinkers may have identified as Christian, yet their motivations and reasoning might not align with Christian doctrines, especially if those doctrines were undergoing significant changes.
Thirdly, Holland commits the genetic fallacy by equating the origins of modernity with its current value. While modernity may have roots in Christendom, that does not mean it adheres to Christian justifications.
Fourthly, the justifications for modernity can, in fact, be anti-Christian. Early Christians often utilized Greco-Roman standards in their critiques and reforms, suggesting that Christianity's origins were not purely transformative but also reactive.
Modern thinkers could similarly have drawn upon Christian tenets as a foil, arriving at liberal or secular ideas by critiquing the shortcomings of Christian traditions.
Fifthly, a significant omission in Dominion is Holland's treatment of the Christian doctrine of hell, which has profoundly influenced Christian thought for centuries. The secular humanist perspective affirms the equality of all individuals based on inherent traits; however, Christianity does not necessarily endorse this view, as it presupposes a hierarchy based on salvation.
Sixthly, Holland overlooks the broader spiritual revolutions of the Axial Age, which influenced both Christianity and modern thought. For instance, the synthesis of Indian mysticism with Greek philosophy laid the groundwork for modern secular humanism.
Christendom and Greco-Roman Antecedents
Holland's selective interpretation is evident in his early chapters, where he attempts to distinguish pre-Christian civilization from Christianity while glossing over their similarities.
His evaluation falters when he asserts the plausibility of the empty tomb narrative in the gospels, despite numerous inconsistencies. He appears to impose a Christian lens on historical events, potentially reflecting his own upbringing.
Holland's contrasting of Greek deities with the Abrahamic God highlights a perceived dichotomy that may not accurately reflect the continuity between these belief systems.
Conclusion
While Holland's thesis posits that Christianity fundamentally shaped modernity, the evidence presented is often weak and speculative. Christianity's influence on modernity is nuanced, and its contributions are interwoven with various philosophical and cultural currents.
The assertion that liberalism, humanism, and modern institutions are primarily founded on Christian ideals is a mischaracterization. Instead, modern thinkers have often constructed their frameworks in opposition to Christian dogma, leading to a more secular, humanistic understanding of rights and ethics.
Thus, attributing modern advancements exclusively to Christianity is an oversimplification, as it ignores the complexities of historical development and the multiplicity of influences that have shaped contemporary thought.