Why is Objectivism Not Spreading, While Ayn Rand is Wildly Popular?

[studiodekadent]

Without countering anything above--I mean let whoever think it out--let's posit this idea: Ayn Rand as the true alpha-male of Objectivism. Everybody else either got neutered or kicked out.

Certainly, Rand herself was the socially dominant figure during the NBI days, and the veneration of Rand has kept her 'spirit' (so to speak) in that position amongst orthodox Objectivists.

[Xray]

Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling; oxygen -- a culture used to religion and altruistic ethics and hungry for an 'improved' form of that and receptive to the promises Christianity makes and the services and sense of community it offers; heat or impetus -- eager, eloquent, passionate 'missionary' and 'crusader' type advocates with good people skills and good communication skills.

But Christianity would never have become a "sucessful" religion without the use of force and coercion.

[Brant Gaede]

Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling; oxygen -- a culture used to religion and altruistic ethics and hungry for an 'improved' form of that and receptive to the promises Christianity makes and the services and sense of community it offers; heat or impetus -- eager, eloquent, passionate 'missionary' and 'crusader' type advocates with good people skills and good communication skills.

But Christianity would never have become a "sucessful" religion without the use of force and coercion.

Defensively or offensively?

Please, please, stop ripping out contexts to make your didacticisms.

--Brant

[Xray]

My point is that Rand's depiction of masculinity is not the traditional idea of "alpha male" (an idea which, as you pointed out, does indeed treat people as wolves).

Rand said of heself that she was a hero worshiper, and clearly considered her male "prime mover" heroes a men that were superior to other men.

This would qualify them as 'alpha males' in her hierarchy of values, with the undisputed top dog among them being John Galt

Dagny one can consider as an alpha female.

Roark's ideal job is a desk job; his ambition isn't physical exertion but seeing his intellectual creations brought into reality.

... by those who are not prime mover alpha males: railroad men, welders, construction workers, etc.

Roark's ruthlessness in blowing up Cortland building also bothered me because there was zero concern on his part about hereby destroying the work of others; what about e. g. the construction workers' pride in their work? Countless people had worked hard to get the building accomplished, but all that counts for nothing in Roark's mind.

Brant: Francisco wasn't a "social dominator"? Every party he went to he dominated.

Francisco was the center of attention, sure. But "center of attention" and "dominator" aren't the same thing. Hell, ask Adam (Selene) for more on this; in the BDSM scene its the submissives that are the center of attention.

Francisco was a very dominant type, just think of the scene where he slaps Dagny. Interesting how often Rand went against the NIOF principle she advocated.

I'm simply arguing that Rand's ideal masculinity wasn't as gender-conservative as her reputation suggests. To substantiate this argument, I am taking a very traditional and old component of the common concept of proper maleness (specifically, "a real man is a killer") and comparing it to Rand's characters.

The notion of 'proper maleness' is indeed not correlated anymore with human 'alpha-maleness' in our modern society. Just think of e. g. Bill Gates.

But the alpha male still exists. He just doesn't have to behave like his stone-age ancestor anymore. ;)

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xray

[studiodekadent]

My point is that Rand's depiction of masculinity is not the traditional idea of "alpha male" (an idea which, as you pointed out, does indeed treat people as wolves).

Rand said of heself that she was a hero worshiper, and clearly considered her male "prime mover" heroes a men that were superior to other men.

This would qualify them as 'alpha males' in her hierarchy of values, with the undisputed top dog among them being John Galt

Dagny one can consider as an alpha female.

Emphasis added for a specific reason; I'm talking about the popular use of the term. The definition that most people use. To be an alpha one must have subordinates, which means to be an alpha one must embody the traits that they respect/fear (hence why actual alpha-maleness is indeed parasitic).

Roark's ideal job is a desk job; his ambition isn't physical exertion but seeing his intellectual creations brought into reality.

... by those who are not prime mover alpha males: railroad men, welders, construction workers, etc.

Roark's ruthlessness in blowing up Cortland building also bothered me because there was zero concern on his part about hereby destroying the work of others; what about e. g. the construction workers' pride in their work? Countless people had worked hard to get the building accomplished, but all that counts for nothing in Roark's mind.

I don't see how that was relevant. He wasn't exactly jacking off at the thought of them obeying his plans whilst he laughed evilly and screamed: "worship me, fools!"

Please remember, The Fountainhead is an allegory. You shouldn't confuse the concrete embodiment for the principles its promoting. Its not as if in order to be an Objectivist one must engage in dubiously consensual bodice-ripping rough sex with cynical blond chicks.

Brant: Francisco wasn't a "social dominator"? Every party he went to he dominated.

Francisco was the center of attention, sure. But "center of attention" and "dominator" aren't the same thing. Hell, ask Adam (Selene) for more on this; in the BDSM scene its the submissives that are the center of attention.

Francisco was a very dominant type, just think of the scene where he slaps Dagny. Interesting how often Rand went against the NIOF principle she advocated.

Atlas Shrugged, like The Fountainhead, is an allegory. Rand isn't saying that its moral to slap women if they entertain the thought of 'playing dumb' to make others like them. What Rand is saying with this scene is that it is wrong to play down one's intellect for the sake of social acceptance. Look at the message rather than the concrete stuff.

Also, please remember that when Rand starts writing about relationships between men and women, her little fetish is going to get in the way of the fact she always portrays her ideal men as neither rulers nor ruled. She occasionally indulged in a bit of fantasy wish-fulfillment and sometimes this could render her open to misinterpretation.

The notion of 'proper maleness' is indeed not correlated anymore with human 'alpha-maleness' in our modern society. Just think of e. g. Bill Gates.

But the alpha male still exists. He just doesn't have to behave like his stone-age ancestor anymore. ;)

Then we must be using different definitions.

[Xray]

Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling; oxygen -- a culture used to religion and altruistic ethics and hungry for an 'improved' form of that and receptive to the promises Christianity makes and the services and sense of community it offers; heat or impetus -- eager, eloquent, passionate 'missionary' and 'crusader' type advocates with good people skills and good communication skills.

But Christianity would never have become a "sucessful" religion without the use of force and coercion.

Defensively or offensively?

If you would elaborate to what in my post you are referring to with these terms.

Please, please, stop ripping out contexts to make your didacticisms.

--Brant

I have ripped nothing out of context. I have merely pointed out that without the use of force and coercion, Christianity would not have spread at all.

It was only after Constantine the Great made it a state religion ("Konstantische Wende" 'Constantinic turn'), and his successor Theodosius forbade and persecuted all other religions that the "success story" of Christianity could begin.

Later it was spread further through Colonialism, which again was only possible through force and coercion.

So when in discussion about why Objectivism is not spreading, Christianity is mentioned as having "spread everywhere", pointing out the main reason why it has spread at all is certainly justified.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

In other words, you redefine the concept. Possibly to include traits which you personally share, so as to remake the concept into a more flattering one.

You might be right, other than to assume I had some kind of personal stake in it. I can't think of the last time, if ever, I went to flattery--about myself, or anyone.

~I~ did not re-define the concept. Actually, reading down the posts once I got to this, a lot of it was explained.

What actually happened was a matter of, well, watching how diluting works.

But let's cut to it.

First off, we, neglecting a-holes that we apparently are, have already managed to buy-in enough to talk about "Alphas" and "Betas," and so on

This is herd mechanics, a la B.F. Skinner, and trust me, there have been many words shed here on this site alone to start that one up.

I do not confuse animal behavior with highly-evolved humans. What I will do is say that, as creatures, we share certain things. I mean, this is really primal shit, here.

What I do not like is watching how researched things (behavioral stuff, in this case) gets washed down to people who bandy it around without knowing what they use. "Language is a virus, from outer space." --William Burroughs

So we probably would have been better off not using the "alpha male" thing as a springboard in the first place, given that it now has a more populist meaning, in addition to the more scientific meaning that people like Skinner, etc. ascribed to it.

I guess, you know, it is useful if you go into a bar and want to make a quick analysis. But, for our supposedly higher, loftier purposes, it won't work. I mean, would any of us truly benefit from, were we to meet face-to-face, that is, any of us coming in from analyzing the herd, the alphas? This and related terms are now thrown around like a cheap Taiwanese whore.

Plus, if you start talking those terms, you will sure influence the behavior around you (if you are good) and worse yet, maybe even start acting that way--and that makes you a real nub, doesn't it? The next thing you know, you'll be upgrading your bling, taking a few buttons down off your shirt, and doing The Strut. Do you want to be that kind of an asshole? I don't, and I won't.

rde

Edited August 30, 2011 by Rich Engle

[anthony]

But let's cut to it.

First off, we, neglecting a-holes that we apparently are, have already managed to buy-in enough to talk about "Alphas" and "Betas," and so on

This is herd mechanics, a la B.F. Skinner, and trust me, there have been many words shed here on this site alone to start that one up.

I do not confuse animal behavior with highly-evolved humans. What I will do is say that, as creatures, we share certain things. I mean, this is really primal shit, here.

Yes, exactly.

And apropos Objectivism, there is zero Alpha behavior inherent in it - with little, as SDK says, in Rand's protagonists in the novels.

There is only the perception. Which some Randists (and anti-Randists) cling to.

Alpha, Beta etc, are group dynamics, based upon a collective/comparative referent - i.e., to other people. Entirely no place there for individualist, self-made souls.

What is sadly unappealing to me is observing some young, and not so young, Objectivists acting out Alphaism, (and occasionally Betaism) while forming into the "mechanics" of the "herd".

Tribalism within Objectivism?! A self-contradiction.

It isn't hard to figure why. True mind-independence could be one of the toughest and last Objectivist virtues to implement (not that it is only an Objectivist value) - it takes a while, a long while, constant nurturing, and some maturity to attain, imo. In the interim, one (dishonest) option is to fake it to yourself, and anybody else.

Encouragingly for me, this is probably only temporary. They (those younger Objectivists) should gradually all learn to replace the semi-counterfeit variety for the real thing, I estimate. Eventually.

Tony

[Edit] oh yes, there is also the misrepresentation of Capitalism as the preserve of amoral, dog-eat-dog, Alpha Male - like Gordon whatshisname in "Wall Street".

The prime Hollywood perception of Capitalist as macho-destroyer rather than creator.

Edited August 30, 2011 by whYNOT

[Jonathan]

Our experiences differ, then. Where I grew up, whilst pack-animalism can exist within any cultural/ideological group, pack-animalism was much more prevalent (in general) amongst the sports teams.

I would say that the pack mentality is common in human nature, including in sports teams, nerds, Trekkies, etc, and that it probably only appears to be more common in popular groups/activities. But, anyway, my earlier comment was more precisely aimed at your comment about sports team captains. I don't remember any team captains from high school teams who were academically challenged, or who were bullies. I think that several of them from my school had perfect GPAs, were amazingly good at almost everything they did, and were very friendly and generous people.

And yes, I freely admit my wording was clearly a revenge fantasy; I'm a bitter and twisted nerd/geek and proud of it (I'm a goth, but if "geek" or "nerd" means "socially challenged with unorthodox interests" then goths are types of geeks/nerds).

I think it depends on how you define "socially challenged." I would say that jocks who go around beating up those who aren't athletic, and/or who have no interest in sports, are by far more socially challenged than someone who has "unorthodox" tastes, styles and interests.

Just a clarification; not all people that play RPGs or a big fans of Star Trek are necessarily running from reality. As for RPGs, some simply enjoy the fictional worlds/intellectual properties and thus want to participate in them. Some find the questions and moral dillemmas posed in certain RPGs interesting to ponder. Also, RPGs can be interesting design challenges (from the 'designer' point of view). As for Star Trek (I'm not a fan of it per se, but The Borg are a frightening-as-hell villain), many people simply like it for having an idealistic and positive view of the future. Contrast that with the pessimistic dystopian futures that figure in heaps of speculative fiction. If I were to use Randian terms, Star Trek has a positive, romantic vision of human potential. Yes, it can be emotionalist and sometimes its post-scarcity economy is depicted in strangely socialist terms, but its appeal doesn't necessarily indicate "reality denial."

Now, I think you'll agree with me here. I'm just saying your statement could be interpreted by some as alleging that any form of enthusiasm for escapist entertainment is symptomatic of self-loathing. I think this is a far stronger implication than the one you intended to make. There are plenty of reasons besides self-loathing someone might enjoy escapist, somewhat fantastical kinds of entertainment; disgust with others (as opposed to the self) being merely one possible reason.

Right, I like Star Trek, just as I like football, and I would imagine that role playing games, like any type of games, can be fun. I guess my point was that there are people who turn such things into there entire lives, and I think that that can be sad. I mean, good for them that they have something that brings them joy, but I think that the Trekkie who is living in his mom's basement at the age of 47 and doing Star Trek events every weekend is very much like the guy whose high school football career was the high point of his life. To me, they're essentially the same thing.

If you're talking about the orthodox Objectivists, I'm inclined to agree partially. I think it goes beyond a desire to see oneself as heroic, though; I think a lot of their behavior is motivated by a desire to see others as inferior.

Absolutely. The need to see others as inferior is at the heart of it.

J

[sjw]

If you're talking about the orthodox Objectivists, I'm inclined to agree partially. I think it goes beyond a desire to see oneself as heroic, though; I think a lot of their behavior is motivated by a desire to see others as inferior.

Absolutely. The need to see others as inferior is at the heart of it.

J

From what I've seen in this thread from a few people, I'd say they have a need to have others not think that their ideas are superior in any way, and a need to explain away a condemnation of their own ideas in terms of character attacks.

As I said, Objectivists are not special in regard to their authoritarian, irrational approach to ideas. The only special problem with Objectivists is that there was the promise of reason, and that promise was betrayed. Other than that, it's just the same old story over and over.

Shayne

[sjw]

What all movements and social systems lack, up to this point in history, is a reliable method for securing their intellectual integrity. What happens, time and again, is that promising organizations are founded, leaders rise to power over that organization, and through very human faults, begin to corrupt the purpose of the organization. Similarly, followers want to belong, they want to take part, both in the social and financial rewards of belonging, and this corrupts their integrity: they don't speak up when they should, they don't call for change when they should, they don't contradict the established leaders.

Objectivism contains the kernel of rationality and individualism that might allow growing past this difficulty, but alas, never actually applied it properly to this problem.

Shayne

[Xray]

Possibly the time of of philosophical "-isms" that have a fixed set of values and virtues is definitely over.

[sjw]

Possibly the time of of philosophical "-isms" that have a fixed set of values and virtues is definitely over.

Rationality is a universal virtue.

Shayne

Edited August 30, 2011 by sjw

[Xray]

Possibly the time of of philosophical "-isms" that have a fixed set of values and virtues is definitely over.

Rationality is a universal virtue.

Shayne

But there is no need to adhere to a specific philosophy in order to practise it.

So we probably would have been better off not using the "alpha male" thing as a springboard in the first place, given that it now has a more populist meaning, in addition to the more scientific meaning that people like Skinner, etc. ascribed to it.

You are right; the "alpha male" controversy has caused more confusion than clarity.

I don't think the non-spreading of Objectivism has anything to do with gender issues, but far more to do with what Nathaniel Branden listed as the 'hazards' in his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand".

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

Possibly the time of of philosophical "-isms" that have a fixed set of values and virtues is definitely over.

Rationality is a universal virtue.

Shayne

But there is no need to adhere to a specific philosophy in order to practise it.

A (valid) philosophy is nothing more nor less than the attempt to identify what it means to practice it. Since we are human, we must be open to the idea that the philosophy has an error, but until we can show that there is an error, we are morally obligated to adhere to our best rational understanding.

Shayne

[Jonathan]

It seems like most of the answers to the slowness of Objectivism in spreading in the last forty-plus posts fall broadly into three categories:

1) It's the IDEAS (the philosophy has mistakes or is unappealing or too radical or it's too soon for such ideas / they must take centuries to percolate.)

2) It's the CULTURE (religious culture, hostility to reason, poor education, people can't think or don't want to).

3) It's the PEOPLE (the advocates--Objectivists themselves are unappealing, poor salesmen, a turn-off, not sufficiently skilled or knowledgeable.)...

...Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling; oxygen -- a culture used to religion and altruistic ethics and hungry for an 'improved' form of that and receptive to the promises Christianity makes and the services and sense of community it offers; heat or impetus -- eager, eloquent, passionate 'missionary' and 'crusader' type advocates with good people skills and good communication skills.

I think there's a fourth option, which is that it is human nature to respond much more strongly to what Rand called a "concretized projection" of values than to a formal philosophical treatise or other systematic presentation of ideas. That's why Rand's art is "wildly popular," as you say, while Objectivism as a proper philosophy "is not spreading." I think that Rand's ideas will continue to have influence primarily through her art, just as I think that one of the primary reasons that Christianity has been so successful in spreading has been because of the bible's "concretized projections" of Christian values. I think Rand's ideas actually stand a better chance than others' simply because she understood the power of concretizing her ideals through fiction -- she created a mythology, a model, a simulation to compete with the existing stories that influence people's lives.

I guess what I'm saying is quit yer bitchin'. I don't accept the premise that Objectivism isn't spreading quickly enough. Rand knew what she was doing, and she did it very fucking well. She understood that complex ideas need to be brought down to the perceptual level. I think that her followers, on the other hand, who seem to be certain that they'll be able to "spread Objectivism" more successfully than Rand did, at a faster pace, and by some means other than what Rand used, are doomed to failure (and, they'll probably achieve the opposite of their goals). It's odd that they don't grasp the importance that Rand placed on the fifth branch of philosophy, despite the fact that they themselves were influenced much more by the power of her art than by the strength of her philosophy.

J

[Xray]

A (valid) philosophy is nothing more nor less than the attempt to identify what it means to practice it. Since we are human, we must be open to the idea that the philosophy has an error, but until we can show that there is an error, we are morally obligated to adhere to our best rational understanding.

Being open to the idea that the philosophy has an error also implies the rejection of dogmatism.

The history of mankind is also a history toward more and more rationality. Irrational thought systems will crumble because people no longer accept them. Even among Christians, fewer and fewer believe in things like the "resurrection of the flesh".

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

Being open to the idea that the philosophy has an error also implies the rejection of dogmatism.

Philosophy is the antithesis of dogmatism, in spite of the fact that many dogmas dress themselves up in the word "philosophy."

Shayne

[Xray]

4. Many people would rather live privately in an exciting fictional world than publicly in a contentious, rancorous philosophical environment. You don't have interpersonal conflicts when you read a novel (unless it's for not doing your share of the housework!).

Another important point. By reading a novel, one does not have to leave one's comfort zone.

Whereas trying to apply the message of the novel in one's life is a different issue. But can this work at all?

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> without the use of force and coercion, Christianity would not have spread at all. It was only after Constantine the Great made it a state religion ("Konstantische Wende" 'Constantinic turn'), and his successor Theodosius forbade and persecuted all other religions that the "success story" of Christianity could begin. Later it was spread further through Colonialism, which again was only possible through force and coercion. [Xray]

That's not historically representative - in any of C's three main eras.

1) ANCIENT: Christianity had already spread very widely and successfully across the Roman Empire steadily gaining converts and new ground in the three centuries prior to Constantine (and sometimes against attempts to discourage or suppress it by force and coercion).

2) MEDIEVAL: And after the fall of Rome, when there was no longer state, and not yet papal, power to spread it, it continued to spread for more than a thousand years throughout barbarian Europe, constantly finding new converts and new peoples to convert.

3) MODERN & GLOBAL: In this century and in recent centuries, many missionaries have carried it and planted in successfully all across the world in places where the rulers and authorities were hardly Christian or sympathetic. In fact, as in China today and in Japan several centuries ago just to take two East Asian examples, Christianity has grown and gained traction -against- the wishes or even suppression of the authorities.

Yes, there are periods when Christianity benefited from being 'enforced' by fire and the sword, but that has not been basically responsible for its 2000 years of expansion and success.

I recommend Paul Johnson's encyclopedic "History of Christianity". It's also one of the best history books you will ever read.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Philip Coates

[studiodekadent]

Our experiences differ, then. Where I grew up, whilst pack-animalism can exist within any cultural/ideological group, pack-animalism was much more prevalent (in general) amongst the sports teams.

I would say that the pack mentality is common in human nature, including in sports teams, nerds, Trekkies, etc, and that it probably only appears to be more common in popular groups/activities. But, anyway, my earlier comment was more precisely aimed at your comment about sports team captains. I don't remember any team captains from high school teams who were academically challenged, or who were bullies. I think that several of them from my school had perfect GPAs, were amazingly good at almost everything they did, and were very friendly and generous people.

My comments about the relative distribution of pack animalism were simply speaking from my own experience. I completely agree with you that all human beings can sink to such a level.

I think it depends on how you define "socially challenged." I would say that jocks who go around beating up those who aren't athletic, and/or who have no interest in sports, are by far more socially challenged than someone who has "unorthodox" tastes, styles and interests.

That's because you're sane. But unfortunately, your definition isn't widespread. I wish it were.

Right, I like Star Trek, just as I like football, and I would imagine that role playing games, like any type of games, can be fun. I guess my point was that there are people who turn such things into there entire lives, and I think that that can be sad. I mean, good for them that they have something that brings them joy, but I think that the Trekkie who is living in his mom's basement at the age of 47 and doing Star Trek events every weekend is very much like the guy whose high school football career was the high point of his life. To me, they're essentially the same thing.

That's a reasonable statement. I should add though, that I have never encountered any Star Trek fan who is 47 and living in his mother's basement. But even if there were such creatures, I'd have to look closer at context before I'd call them 'failures.' After all, perhaps their mother is ill and they're her caretaker, perhaps they run a successful online business and have plenty of money but just don't want to move out, perhaps they can't afford to get another house, etc etc.

[Xray]

> without the use of force and coercion, Christianity would not have spread at all. It was only after Constantine the Great made it a state religion ("Konstantische Wende" 'Constantinic turn'), and his successor Theodosius forbade and persecuted all other religions that the "success story" of Christianity could begin. Later it was spread further through Colonialism, which again was only possible through force and coercion. [Xray]

That's not historically representative - in any of C's three main eras.

1) ANCIENT: Christianity had already spread very widely and successfully across the Roman Empire steadily gaining converts and new ground in the three centuries prior to Constantine (and sometimes against attempts to discourage or suppress it by force and coercion).

Maybe I should have made it clearer in my post by adding "worldwide": "Without the use of force and coercion, Christianity would not have spread worldwide at all".

You had written:

PC: Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling;

The kind of Christianity you decribe above is already that of the highly organized religion as it was after its successful establishment as a world religion and this establishment would not have occurred without force and coercion 'clearing the path'.

As for Christianity having spread widely and successfully across the Roman Empire, it was one among many others, e. g. the Mithras Cult, Manichaeism, the Kybele Cult, Gnosticism, Judaism, and the belief in the Roman Gods had not yet been abandoned either.

Christianity itself was also split in different groups, e. g. the Pelagians, Nestorians, Arians.

But without the final prohibition of these cults (including the Christian variants mentioned above) via 'imperatorial power', Christianity would never have established itself as the powerful religion it became.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Xray,

I've done a considerable amount of reading on how ideas spread and the history of Christianity and other religions and I stand by what I said.

[Brant Gaede]

> without the use of force and coercion, Christianity would not have spread at all. It was only after Constantine the Great made it a state religion ("Konstantische Wende" 'Constantinic turn'), and his successor Theodosius forbade and persecuted all other religions that the "success story" of Christianity could begin. Later it was spread further through Colonialism, which again was only possible through force and coercion. [Xray]

That's not historically representative - in any of C's three main eras.

1) ANCIENT: Christianity had already spread very widely and successfully across the Roman Empire steadily gaining converts and new ground in the three centuries prior to Constantine (and sometimes against attempts to discourage or suppress it by force and coercion).

Maybe I should have made it clearer in my post by adding "worldwide": "Without the use of force and coercion, Christianity would not have spread worldwide at all".

You had written:

PC: Consider one of history's most successful religions, Christianity. Continuing to spread everywhere for two thousand years. It had all three: Fuel - it had a set of texts available everywhere in every language that people found powerfully written, a network of services and rituals and institutions and training and schooling;

The kind of Christianity you describe above is already that of the highly organized religion as it was after its successful establishment as a world religion and this establishment would not have occurred without force and coercion 'clearing the path'.

As for Christianity having spread widely and succsefully across the Roman Empire, it was one among many others e. g. the Mithras Cult, Manichaeism, the Kybele Cult, Gnosticism, Judaism, and the belief in the Roman Gods had not yet been abandoned either.

Christianity itself was also split in different groups, e. g the Pelagians, Nestorians, Arians.

But without the final prohibition of these cults (including the Christian variants mentioned above) via 'imperatorial power', Christianity would never establised itself as the powerful religion it became.

Your thesis would be much stronger applied to Islam. It's not that you are making factually wrong statements so much as ignoring the internal dynamics of Christianity apropos to its rise to dominance. Chicken and egg arguing while essentially ignoring one of the two essentially spikes the discussion. The religion and people's felt need for religion is a vastly complicated subject that permeates almost all aspects of human individual and social dynamics. Those other ancient religions may have failed for other reasons than not being embraced by the state, which I doubt would have happened if Christianity at that time was just another relatively weak cult. To continue, rather than spike, this discussion on this level--not the point of Phil's thread--we all go read Paul Johnson as Phil has already done.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

But without the final prohibition of these cults (including the Christian variants mentioned above) via 'imperatorial power', Christianity would never establised itself as the powerful religion it became.

Gibbon estimated that 1/20th of the population of the Roman Empire was Christian by the time of Constantine’s conversion. This implies an outstanding rate of growth before it had the opportunity to resort to force. However one could argue, and I would agree, that to get to the next level force was needed. The alternative religions had to be suppressed, this because Christianity has no inherently better claim to truth. So, I'm on Xray's side here, but to answer Phil would require getting him to spell out how a factor is judged "basically responsible" for the rise of a religion.

Yes, there are periods when Christianity benefited from being 'enforced' by fire and the sword, but that has not been basically responsible for its 2000 years of expansion and success.