Outstanding article due to its resonance with me. Only gripe is in the last paragraph when the assertion is made that "it seems unlikely" that pre-existing morality would not have spread so quickly or efficiently without the influence of Christianity. I am not doubting the influence of Christianity. But I also don't doubt the influence of other religions (or non-religious spirituality, if religion is a dirty word), and other cultural constructs (in addition to the Roman Stoics). Christianity itself was constructed on prior ideas and evolved in interacting with other ideas. Many factors contribute to whether "pre-existing morality" spread quicker or slower, efficiently or inefficiently. The social animal nature in humans (if I may may break down my understanding of your term "pre-existing morality") is so inbuilt into our DNA that it HAS to manifest in any family, tribe, community, or country in terms of each of their own idiosyncractic teachings, family rules, spirituality, myths, cultural mores, philosophies, core beliefs, and morality or ethics. The present cognitive construct of Christianity MIGHT have been the agent/tool that enables the quicker and more efficient spread of pre-existing morality. But until we explore how other constructs have also enabled the spread, we cannot say that it is unlikely that the spread would be less quick or less efficient without Christianity.
Thank you for reading, and for your thoughtful comment!
In this article, I was primarily focused on Christianity as it was responsive to another article that made much bolder, and weaker, claims. It does seem unlikely, to me, that these ideas would’ve spread as quickly as efficiently as they did without Christianity as a vehicle— but it is impossible to know for sure.
I see the points that you are making, and am inclined to agree with them. The morality of collaboration, which I have been exploring in more recent essays, is more foundational than these other constructs (religion, philosophy, etc), so there is a high likelihood that a different manifestation would have taken Christianity’s place.
Another concession is that many of the cultures of the world that were untouched by Christianity, or Christianity didn’t arrive until much later, still came to many overlapping ideas of morality. Why is that? Are these suddenly rendered ineffective or inefficient? I don’t necessarily think so, but maybe that’s for another essay!
Outstanding article due to its resonance with me. Only gripe is in the last paragraph when the assertion is made that "it seems unlikely" that pre-existing morality would not have spread so quickly or efficiently without the influence of Christianity. I am not doubting the influence of Christianity. But I also don't doubt the influence of other religions (or non-religious spirituality, if religion is a dirty word), and other cultural constructs (in addition to the Roman Stoics). Christianity itself was constructed on prior ideas and evolved in interacting with other ideas. Many factors contribute to whether "pre-existing morality" spread quicker or slower, efficiently or inefficiently. The social animal nature in humans (if I may may break down my understanding of your term "pre-existing morality") is so inbuilt into our DNA that it HAS to manifest in any family, tribe, community, or country in terms of each of their own idiosyncractic teachings, family rules, spirituality, myths, cultural mores, philosophies, core beliefs, and morality or ethics. The present cognitive construct of Christianity MIGHT have been the agent/tool that enables the quicker and more efficient spread of pre-existing morality. But until we explore how other constructs have also enabled the spread, we cannot say that it is unlikely that the spread would be less quick or less efficient without Christianity.
Thank you for reading, and for your thoughtful comment!
In this article, I was primarily focused on Christianity as it was responsive to another article that made much bolder, and weaker, claims. It does seem unlikely, to me, that these ideas would’ve spread as quickly as efficiently as they did without Christianity as a vehicle— but it is impossible to know for sure.
I see the points that you are making, and am inclined to agree with them. The morality of collaboration, which I have been exploring in more recent essays, is more foundational than these other constructs (religion, philosophy, etc), so there is a high likelihood that a different manifestation would have taken Christianity’s place.
Another concession is that many of the cultures of the world that were untouched by Christianity, or Christianity didn’t arrive until much later, still came to many overlapping ideas of morality. Why is that? Are these suddenly rendered ineffective or inefficient? I don’t necessarily think so, but maybe that’s for another essay!
Very interesting.
Thank you for reading!