Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics. ii) wide applicability to one's actions, behavior across the course of a lifetime and in every area.

Overthrowing an older philosophical worldview or establishing a new one is thus a major challenge due to the scope of the changes in thinking and action that must be conveyed, accepted, implemented. With limited resources, finding the most fertile ground to "plant the seeds" and for them to grow is a major early consideration.

The largest religion in terms of number of adherents (as well as in terms of worldwide acceptance) is Christianity with 2 billion followers.

"The First Christian" by Davies -- A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins [1957], after a slow start, the book hits its stride [a hundred pages in] in this section: The Judaism of the Diaspora.

In only four pages, more than a dozen reasons why the founders of Christianity succeeded in selecting a fertile ground for their ideas are mentioned or hinted at (and many are applicable to spreading a secular philosophy):

[to be continued]

[caroljane]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics. ii) wide applicability to one's actions, behavior across the course of a lifetime and in every area.

Overthrowing an older philosophical worldview or establishing a new one is thus a major challenge due to the scope of the changes in thinking and action that must be conveyed, accepted, implemented. With limited resources, finding the most fertile ground to "plant the seeds" and for them to grow is a major early consideration.

The largest religion in terms of number of adherents (as well as in terms of worldwide acceptance) is Christianity with 2 billion followers.

"The First Christian" by Davies -- A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins [1957], after some slow early chapters hits its stride in chapter 4: The Judaism of the Diaspora.

In only four pages, more than a dozen reasons why the founders of Christianity succeeded in selecting a fertile ground for their ideas are mentioned or hinted at (and many are applicable to spreading a secular philosophy):

[to be continued]

Phil could you please quote or transfer my" Jesus movement..Objecivist failure...spark"comment from previous thread? I think it belongs here.

Thanks, C

[Philip Coates]

Hi Carol,

I don't know what or where that comment is.

Can you simply do a ctrl-A, ctrl-C, ctrl-V --- select, copy, and paste it into a new post here? [if not, just give me the link and tell me the thread name and post number...and I can promptly post it for you.]

I'm sure you have some good points to make...and I'd love to see them**. Especially since my less personal and more intellectual or scholarly posts and thread seem to draw almost zero engagement from most of the OL regulars. This is a -very important- thread**, but if it doesn't involve old grudges, blood in the streets, and gladiators incurring teethmarks from lions, it may put the high-testosterone regulars to sleep.

** assuming, of course, there is no reference to obscure Canadian personalities, peculiarities, peccadiloes, or poutine.

*** as was my last one on "Human Nature" which took some time to write but generated dazed incomprehension or yawns or resentment or something.

[caroljane]

Hi Carol,

I don't know what or where that comment is.

Can you simply do a ctrl-A, ctrl-C, ctrl-V --- select, copy, and paste it into a new post here? [if not, just give me the link and tell me the thread name and post number...and I can promptly post it for you.]

I'm sure you have some good points to make...and I'd love to see them**. Especially since my less personal and more intellectual or scholarly posts and thread seem to draw almost zero engagement from most of the OL regulars. This is a -very important- thread**, but if it doesn't involve old grudges, blood in the streets, and gladiators incurring teethmarks from lions, it may put the high-testosterone regulars to sleep.

** assuming, of course, there is no reference to obscure Canadian personalities, peculiarities, peccadiloes, or poutine.

*** as was my last one on "Human Nature" which took some time to write but generated dazed incomprehension or yawns or resentment or something.

No Phil, I am not going to do that , I am still asking you to do that.

Today is Sunday a day of rest and anyway I come here to play, not work, any day of the week.

I had the impression, obviously wrongly, that my Jesus movement comment prompted you to start this new and interesting thread.I will look it up when I have time which will not be soon.

[Philip Coates]

Carol, I just found it and responded to your excellent post [it wa over on the 100,000 atlas shrugged dvd's screwed up thread].

I'll delay porting it over here because it's primarily about the screwups of the Oist movement and I don't want to jump immediately into the Oism issue. I would want to focus first on the book by Davies I started reading a week or so ago - which is what prompted me to start this thread**. (And -then- later extrapolate to Oism. If there are non-snarky responses as opposed to the usual crap from the mouseketeers; else I may just drop it midstream.)

** It lays a foundation for comparing the operation of the Objectivists.

[Philip Coates]

[Continued from Post 1] "The Judaism of the Diaspora"

Time frame: Two thousand years ago. A small-time preacher in a minor province of the vast Roman Empire has just been executed in a particularly gruesome way for being a trouble-maker. He 'caused waves' among the establishment Jews by questioning their practices and some of their religious doctrines, by name-calling, and by having the chutzpah to claim he was the Messiah (savior, leader) they had been waiting for. Judaism is one of innumerable religions or ideologies, that of a tiny minority within the Roman Empire. It is inward-looking, suspicious, clannish, and imposes hurdles to joining. It is not attracting outside converts.

[first part of each numbered point is from the book... after the arrow is my comment.]

1. "The mobility of the peoples of the ancient world is seldom sufficiently recognized...there were far more Jews in the rest of the world during this period than there were in Judea...diaspora: Greek word for dispersion" ===> Ideas planted in a subculture or group often are discussed, transmitted within it because the people have certain commonalities, kindred attitudes or backgrounds or experiences or even family relations. If the members are widely dispersed, that can make the group more open to new ideas at various geographic points because they are not monolithic, they have a variety of experiences and contexts which tends to be more broadening as opposed to the stay-at-homes.

2. "The idea..that the Diaspora was an Exile is completely false. Most of the Jews who went abroad did so because they hoped for a more prosperous - or at least more peaceful - life in countries with better prospects than their own." ===> Openness to new ideas, new viewpoints is more likely among people who have voluntarily chosen a very new life rather than been forced into one.

2.5. "From about the sixth century B.C. on, first in Babylon and Egypt, then in Syria, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Libya, Ethiopia, North Africa, and finally in Europe too, there were large numbers of Jews." ===> If a group or subculture exists in large numbers, clearly the impact of ideas that they accept or discuss is likely to be greater, to have greater chances of being heard of and of transmission in the wider culture than if the people were minuscule in number.

3. "All countries that had 'any advantages whatsoever of soil and climate [had] Jews settled in them'...'they were to be found in all cities'...Hence, Paul could be sure, no matter to what city he went, that he would find a Jewish colony there." --- It is easier to spread ideas in urban environments (more contact points) than in rural. If a subculture or group is to be found everywhere geographically, any interesting ideas they have are likely to be transmitted or at least heard of everywhere.

4. "In most cases [each Diaspora colony had] its own magistrates...ruler...the religious center was...the synagogue [a place for meeting, calling people together] to be instructed in...their religion." ===> If the subculture has a degree of felt separateness, plus solidity of organization or institutional structure, plus communication or meeting place methods, it is less likely to be 'swamped' by the surrounding culture, and for any of its distinctive ideas to remain distinctive enough to be worth noticing, spreading, discussing. A venue for the discussion or transmission of ideas (church, synagogue, school) is very useful.

5. "As the use of Hebrew and Aramaic lapsed in the colonies in Greek-speaking centers, exposition [such as Greek translation of the Scriptures]...was..in Greek." ===> If your ideas are in the language of ideas of your culture, you have a better chance to be noticed.

6. "Anyone who had sufficient learning and the necessary self-confidence was encouraged to speak at the synagogue services....here for the first time democracy was practiced in an institution of religion." ===> If you can find influential institutional structures for discussing ideas which are truly open, the prospects for new or controversial ideas are enormously magnified. If all of the 'gateways' - existing or potential - are closed or frozen, chances are slim.

[that's enough for now]

[Xray]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics.

Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

[Selene]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics.

Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

Umm Angela - you may want to modify the "every religion" in your post. For example:

What Pantheism believes

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.

We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.

[caroljane]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics.

Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

I think you've said the magic word, "views", and I do mean magic. (1st cent Jerusalem was chockful of magicians, among whom Jesus is believed by some to have been a master) Views, ways of looking at the world, new ways, magical ways that yet connect with the concrete of daily life and with the explanations of tradition.

[BaalChatzaf]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics.

Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

Umm Angela - you may want to modify the "every religion" in your post. For example:

What Pantheism believes

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.

We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.

When she gets through saying Oh Wow! she still has to take out the rubbish.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

Xray, 'fundamental' just means at the root or the basis or foundation of. Important enough that a great deal depends on it. Fundamental views don't have to be valid: that's what we mean when we say something is a fundamental error.

Religions deal in fundamentals in three central areas:

a) what kinds of reality are there or what kind of universe and causality do we live in (metaphysics: there are two domains or worlds - this natural one and another sphere in which supernatural forces or beings exist or supernatural places - heaven, hell)

b) how we know things and the standards of certainty (epistemology: we know things not just by reason but by faith, revelation)

c) how we should live (ethics: we are a servant of something or someone outside of ourselves - god, charity).

Doesn't get much more fundamental than that.

[Philip Coates]

My plan was to continue with the dozen or so points about the places and institutions selected where Christianity was spread or 'planted' by Paul (perhaps ultimately history's most successful creator-salesman-promoter of a billion-strong ideology). Then to discuss how to apply the lessons to spreading Objectivism or any new set of ideas.

Is completing this of interest to anyone, or would I simply be writing notes to myself?

[9thdoctor]

Is completing this of interest to anyone, or would I simply be writing notes to myself?

Why not? But focusing on St. Paul is going to take you down the wrong road. To understand the success of Christianity you ought to focus on the 4^th century, not the 1^st.

[john42t]

Is completing this of interest to anyone, or would I simply be writing notes to myself?

Keep it going.

I would be interested in Paul's primary target groups (I suspect is was primarily non-Jews and losers).

He was probably not only the first Christian, but also the first self-hating Jew that is recorded in history.

[john42t]

Why not? But focusing on St. Paul is going to take you down the wrong road. To understand the success of Christianity you ought to focus on the 4^th century, not the 1^st.

Why's that?

[9thdoctor]

Why not? But focusing on St. Paul is going to take you down the wrong road. To understand the success of Christianity you ought to focus on the 4^th century, not the 1^st.

Why's that?

I'd rather wait until Phil has made his full case, otherwise I'm going to prematurely derail his thread.

[Jonathan]

Hey, I just noticed something.

Ninth Doctor, are we dogs?!?!

J

[Selene]

I was guessing Veterinarians...

[9thdoctor]

Hey, I just noticed something.

Ninth Doctor, are we dogs?!?!

J

Well, next time I want to regenerate as a schnauzer. I’ve already picked out my owner.

http://www.watch4bea...odel-sasha.html

Plenty of places to rest my head after a long day on guard duty.

[caroljane]

Why not? But focusing on St. Paul is going to take you down the wrong road. To understand the success of Christianity you ought to focus on the 4^th century, not the 1^st.

Why's that?

I'd rather wait until Phil has made his full case, otherwise I'm going to prematurely derail his thread.

Oh Jeez, I havent even started that sermon...9th and J, I see you eyeing those snarkstones, just don't be the first to throw them, cast out your own motes and go think about Saul and Barnabas for a while...yes to the 4th century but it is the 1st, Paul and co., that interests me and obviously the writer of this book...yes of course you are dogs if you depict yourselves as such...Respectable...just do it would you? I got essays to mark and the Battle of the Blades final is coming up, go Tessa and David.

[caroljane]

Religion is a form of philosophy in terms of its depth and breadth: i) fundamental views on reality, knowledge, and ethics.

Since the fundamental premise every religion is based on does not belong to reality and knowledge, how then can religion provide fundamental views on reality and knowledge?

Umm Angela - you may want to modify the "every religion" in your post. For example:

What Pantheism believes

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as the ultimate focus of reverence, and for the natural earth as sacred.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and will one day be reabsorbed into the universe.

We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the chance to see paradise face to face. If we believe our real home is not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the numinous is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head, or outside this reality - then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in many of the ways that believers relate to their God, minus the grovelling worship or the expectation that there is some being out there who can answer our prayers.

When she gets through saying Oh Wow! she still has to take out the rubbish.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Maybe , though I doubt it. But the rubbish has never taken her out. Never has, never will.

[Philip Coates]

> But focusing on St. Paul is going to take you down the wrong road. To understand the success of Christianity you ought to focus on the 4^th century, not the 1^st. [ND]

What's remarkable about Christianity is that it was successful in its initial planting by Paul, then successful in spreading to become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, then successful again in the medieval world spreading throughout Europe (Germanic nations, Scandinavia, the Irish missionaries, the variouos monastic 'orders' and their influence, the reach of the Eastern churches, etc., etc. ), then successful in modern times through the colonizers and missionaries in further spreading throughout the planet, the non-European countries and continents. It's now the most global, the most universal of the major religions (much more so than Islam and Hinduism, the two next largest each of which is centered in a region). The only continent in which it's not strong is Asia [well, Antarctica if you want to be humorous]. And Asia is the continent where it is currently spreading the fastest.

Each historic era is a long story of its own. But in this thread, it's task enough to explore the earliest or 'founding' story**. And that actually is most relevant to Objectivism, because it is struggling to achieve at a comparable early period on the world stage.

**I've read books on the later stages, including the story of the most recent centuries, missionaries, etc. -- but it would be another whole undertaking to go back and try to re-mine those for what worked/what didn't/why. It's also tricky sometimes to see how much of what makes a -religion- successful is transferrable to a secular (and rational) undertaking.

[9thdoctor]

What's remarkable about Christianity is that it was successful in its initial planting by Paul, then successful in spreading to become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire

Very well, but why Christianity and not Manichaeism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

[Philip Coates]

I haven't thought about that yet, would need to consult my textbooks. At any rate, Manichaeism's spread is several centuries later than the founding period of this thread. But why certain competitors in each historical era didn't spread {M. did spread widely) or lost to Christianity is certainly important (the Davies book has insights into this, as did Paul Johnson's History of Christianity, History of the Jews...and more recently Rodney Stark and other books I've read.)

[9thdoctor]

Manichaeism's spread is several centuries later than the founding period of this thread.

Absolutely not! Mani lived in Iran in the 3rd century, and by the late 4th century you have St. Augustine in Africa and Italy as a practicing Manichean. The rate of growth was probably equal to that of early Christianity (obviously there's no polling data to consult).

So what happened in the 4th century? Gibbon covers it, you don't have to go further than that. I even quoted from it in my voluntary taxation piece, a "singular event in the history of the human mind".