The myth of secular progress

I’m always amused whenever I hear the popular sentiment, “We’re better off now without religion” boasted by atheists/humanists as they point to prosperous and largely secular European countries today.

The following conversation illustrates  beautifully why I think this boast is utter nonsense. 

This conversation is between philosopher and theologian, David Bentley Hart and Terry Sanderson, president of the UK’s National Secular Society (in 2011). While the video is a few years old, I assure you these same arguments are being made by atheists/humanists today. This is an audio recording (on YouTube) but it’s well worth the listen if you’re interested. Here’s a snippet from the part two:

Terry Sanderson:

“In developed countries, particularly in Europe where religion has waned…I think we’ve reached a point in civilization where it’s better than it’s ever been in history. And that’s not because religion has informed it, it’s because it’s been discarded.”

Sanderson further opines…

“In places like Scandinavia, in France, where religion plays very little part in people’s everyday lives, the compassion and self-support and mutual support in those countries means that everyone has a safe and securer life than they’ve ever had before.”

Case closed, right? Getting rid of religion brings world peace and harmony among human beings. Well, not so fast. Here’s Hart’s response:

“If [Sanderson] presumes something that we recognize rather than we inherit as part of a long history of moral cultural, religious, and extra-religious thinking and instruction is a bit dubious….

But I don’t believe in the myth of progress. If he literally means that we have emerged into a period moral superiority in every sphere, I mean, yes, Western industrial societies flourish and they look after their own, they’re also complicit in many more discrete violence’s, violence’s that are hid from everyday view, wars that are not fought on their own soil, exploitation of other peoples, their resources, their economies. The use of…cheap labor in China to mass produce products to give us a level of material comfort that allow us to look after one another. Yes, we have altered the way in which we go about enacting our violence’s, we have drawn in our borders a bit, and we do in modern societies have functioning welfare states that are somewhat more provident toward our own, but the notion that we’re better off now morally, that morally we’ve advanced in an unambiguous way, and in every sense, and because we’ve thrown off religion, as if religion existed in the abstract and we’re a single monolithic reality, or as if religion were to blame for the atrocities of the twentieth century, which is the age of the great march forward of the secular national state as a project, I think it’s just a wild over-simplification, and a dangerous one, because I think it allows one a degree of a moral complacency and optimism not warranted by history….”

Sanderson accuses Hart is just being cynical in his view, and Hart counters…

“It’s a realist view to recognize that just because we tell ourselves that we’re morally superior to our ancestors when you actually get down to the ways in which our society is constructed and how it sustains itself, we discover that, no, we, in our own way, are violent and rapacious and indifferent to the sufferings of others, we just have chosen a different set of others to be indifferent towards.”

I should point out that Hart is in no way defending the long list of atrocities done in the name of God throughout religious history in general, Christian history in particular. This, he says, as I have also said, point to a much more fundamental human problem.

If the twentieth century taught us anything it’s that secular human progress is a myth. And anyone with a reasonable understanding of history knows that morality and ethics cannot be extracted from a long history of religious postulations. Our ideas of morality and ethics are ultimately borrowed from these sources. Of course, atheists/humanists will disagree. But, then again, their ontology is also incoherent, so there there you are.

Besides, these optimistic secularists make these claims at odds with some of their smarter and more intellectually honest comrades:

“When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system.” – Fredrich Niezsche

“Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!” – John Steinrucken

Here’s part two of the conversation. I will provide links to the other four parts if you’re interested. Each part is short so you can break it up for your listening convenience. Again, it is worth the listen if you want to understand the debate.

  • The New Atheist’s Myth of Secular Progress – Part One
  • The New Atheist’s Myth of Secular Progress – Part Three
  • The New Atheist’s Myth of Secular Progress – Part Four
  • The New Atheist’s Myth of Secular Progress – Part Five

 

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 41 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to The myth of secular progress

  1. essiep says:

    I know that I personally am better off without religious faith. Nationally speaking, religious countries don’t fight fewer wars, look at the USA they fight wars continuously and contain an enormous murder rate. The US is a far more religious country than any north European one.
    As for that meme, therein is a complete misrepresentation of atheism. Atheism does not define the state of the universe before the big bang and it’s dishonest to suggest it does.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Good for you. I have two questions for you then:

      1) What exactly do you mean by “better off?” Be precise.
      2) What (non-religious) moral standard are you appealing to that is unique and unprecedented in human history?

      Thank you for your comments.

    • Mel Wild says:

      As for that meme, therein is a complete misrepresentation of atheism. Atheism does not define the state of the universe before the big bang and it’s dishonest to suggest it does.

      Fair enough. Maybe it’s just the view of atheist scientists like Lawrence Krauss (“The Universe From Nothing”). But atheism, by definition, does not believe in any creator, or anything existing outside of the natural world. Would this be a more accurate ontology?

  2. Nan says:

    You know, Mel, when you get on these kind of topics, I can’t help but ask … what possible difference does it make? You have your “ontology” and others have theirs. We don’t have to agree or share the same outlook. After all, isn’t that what makes us who we are?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Nan, first of all, this topic is a response to the idea that secular nations are better off because they’ve thrown off religion. Regardless of what you think of religion, or Christianity in particular, you cannot say these things with any intellectual honesty for the reasons given here.

      But I DO agree with you that we don’t have to share the same outlook. I actually think a truly pluralistic society is healthier. But when these secularists try to dismiss religion by saying these things, not only are they factually and historically wrong, I seriously doubt that they want any realistic pluralistic society. Some want religion to disappear altogether. So, yes, it does make a difference.

      • Nan says:

        So, Mel, let’s take this a step further. if you feel a “truly pluralistic society is healthier,” how would you suggest this could be brought about?

        And do you feel that your personal ontological outlook would be able to accept this type of society?

        • Mel Wild says:

          On my way out the door so this will need to be brief. Simply stated, we allow all religious and non-religious points of view have equal voice in the marketplace of ideas. But this doesn’t mean we all have to agree on everything or even anything; we’re just not trying to dismiss or eliminate worldviews that we don’t believe in or agree with. So, yes, my ontological outlook totally embraces this idea. Got to go….

  3. I enjoyed this, Mel. Secular progress really is a myth. It’s kind of a philosophical question too, are we better off morally today, then we were in the past? There’s this kind of false idea that we’ve progressed, that human morality is this thing that has evolved as we’ve become more educated and “woke”. It can seem that way on the surface until you start pondering things like world wars, nuclear weapons, abortion, genocide. Can you really say our Bronze Age goat herders, as Dawkins calls them, were less moral then people are today? I think not. I think the nature of people has not changed all that much. This tends to put me at odds with both religious people and anti religious people. Many conservatives are heavily invested in the idea that humankind is getting worse, going downhill morally, and many progressives seem to believe we are progressing morally. I tend to believe we are people, just as flawed and confused as ever. I do believe however, that we are moving towards something, His kingdom on earth perhaps, a better way, a return to walking hand and hand with Him in the cool of the evening.

  4. John Branyan says:

    Having a civil conversation with an atheist on another blog. He is dismayed by my claim that people don’t trust atheists. I’m trying to explain this is because atheism, being a ‘non-belief’, offers no statements of truth. Morality is a matter of opinion. It is difficult to trust someone who could change their mind about murder being wrong.

    Atheism is the dumbest worldview on Earth. Close second is the “I-still-believe-in-a-god-but-not-the-God-of-the-Bible” worldview. The second worldview is nothing but criticism of fundamentalism. There is never any explanation of the deconvert’s new enlightenment.

    • Mel Wild says:

      It’s not only the dumbest worldview, it’s totally incoherent. No wonder so many “deconverts” don’t like being called atheists. Of course, that leads to the second prize. We just won’t form a conviction about anything. To each his or her own…whatever works for you….

    • essiep says:

      Morality comes from the same place for all of us: society. Non-believers don’t go commiting murder any more than christians.

  5. john zande says:

    Timely, considering the publishing of this paper which, if we look at economics alone, seems to show you’re talking fundamentalist nonsense. Again.

    Secular countries can expect future economic growth, confirms new study
    Date: July 18, 2018
    Source: University of Bristol
    Summary: New research measuring the importance of religion in 109 countries spanning the entire 20th century has reignited an age-old debate around the link between secularization and economic growth. The study has shown that a decline in religion influences a country’s future economic prosperity.

    • Mel Wild says:

      LOL! I can always count on you to either make a totally irrelevant comment or make my point, Zande. In this case, the latter. You obviously didn’t listen to the conversation between Hart and Sanderson. You’re just propagating the same dumb myth.

      And what are you proving? Some moral superiority here? Economic growth and morality or ethics, historically, are rarely correlated. They’re actually adversely correlated, if anything. Yes, of course, you can get economic prosperity for your own people in the affluent West…as long as you have military protection and cheap labor to exploit elsewhere. It’s just better hidden now. As Hart said…“because we tell ourselves that we’re morally superior to our ancestors when you actually get down to the ways in which our society is constructed and how it sustains itself, we discover that, no, we, in our own way, are violent and rapacious and indifferent to the sufferings of others, we just have chosen a different set of others to be indifferent towards.”

      You are believing a fantasy. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

      • john zande says:

        What myth? That Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies?

        Oh looky, there’s an article in Psychology Today titled just that, Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies… and it’s absolutely devastating to your astonishingly flawed post.

        Here’s a bit for you:

        Religion – or so the age-old hypothesis goes – is therefor a necessary glue for keeping society together. And conversely, secularism is a danger to societal well-being. For if people turn away from God and stop being religious, then crime will go up, corruption will increase, perversion will percolate, decency will diminish, and all manifestations of misery and malfeasance will predominate.

        It is an interesting hypothesis. Perpetually-touted. And wrong.

        Consider, for instance, the latest special report just put out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (and recently summarized on the website 24/7wallstreet.com), which lists the ten states with the worst/best quality of life. According to this multivariate analysis which takes into account a plethora of indicators of societal well-being, those states in America with the worst quality of life tend to be among the most God-loving/most religious (such as Mississippi and Alabama), while those states with the best quality of life tend to among the least God-loving/least religious (such as Vermont and New Hampshire).

        … And guess what? The correlation holds internationally, as well.

      • john zande says:

        The Save the Children Foundation publishes an annual “Mother’s Index,” wherein they rank the best and worst places on earth in which to be a mother. And the best are almost always among the most secular nations on earth, while the worst are among the most devout. The non-profit organization called Vision of Humanity publishes an annual “Global Peace Index.” And according to their rankings, the most peaceful nations on earth are almost all among the most secular, while the least peaceful are almost all among the most religious. According to the United Nations 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the top-10 nations with the highest intentional homicide rates, all are very religious/theistic nations, but of those at bottom of the list – the nations on earth with the lowest homicide rates — nearly all are very secular nations.

        Ouch.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Another distortion. So, tell me. These wonderful nation for mothers. How prosperous are they? What is their level of education? How ethnically and economically diverse are they? What is their immigration policy?

          In other words, don’t try comparing the US to Iceland. That’s apples and oranges.

        • john zande says:

          Carry on, Mel… Play with your pantomime. I don’t have the time for this level of deliberate nitwittedness.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Ha ha. Scurry off then if you can’t tell me what YOU mean by “better off” or tell me where your superior standard of morality comes from. Any “nitwit” can quote studies that fit their ignorant prejudices. Bye…

        • john zande says:

          Any particular reason why you haven’t permitted the map I posted show?

          Does it (what it demonstrates) embarrass you?

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! Hardly. I don’t like people wasting space on my blog with their stone soup fallacies. Anyone can go to the link if they’re interested (I doubt if anyone would be). It’s hardly relevant to whether secularism is better than religion.

          What I don’t understand is why you won’t answer the questions that are actually pertinent to this post:
          1) What exactly do you mean by “better off?” Be precise.
          2) What (non-religious) moral standard or code are you appealing to that is unique to secularists and/or unprecedented in human history?

          These are the only way we can determine that secularism is bringing us some superior form of ethics and morality unknown to the world before.

        • john zande says:

          The map is a detailed display of demographics, entirely pertinent.

          Please post it.

          The information demonstrates exactly what i’m saying.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Stop whining. I posted the link. All your graphic shows is that poor uneducated folks in the Bible Belt are religious. But to say the religion is the case of this and it’s not for economic and political reasons, or that we ONLY see high crime and poor health there is just STUPID.

          Again, explain the high crime and poor health in poor parts of the inner cities where religion is not a factor, Zande. Making these conclusions to these kind of maps is exactly why Mark Twain said there are three levels of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

        • john zande says:

          Please let the map/s show.

          Why are you censoring?

        • john zande says:

          OK, so you’ve chosen censorship.

          Fair enough.

          By censoring that information all you’re doing is admitting your argument is flawed.

        • Mel Wild says:

          The master of deflection continues whining. Here, you can click on it now. As I said before, the graphic doesn’t matter to me. I just don’t like posting fallacious arguments.
          https://s33.postimg.cc/b4eiq53of/poorest_states_most_religious.gif

          Okay, Zande, stop deflecting and put on your big boy britches. Answer the questions…

          1) What exactly do you mean by “better off?” Be precise.
          2) What (non-religious) moral standard or code are you appealing to that is unique to secularists and/or unprecedented in human history?

        • john zande says:

          Let the maps show on the thread.

          Why are you so terrified of letting people see them?

  6. john zande says:

    And here, your own country is a working example of just how wrong you are. The poorest states in the US are the most religious, most unhealthy, most poorly educated, have the highest porn and drug consumption…

    [https://s33.postimg.cc/b4eiq53of/poorest_states_most_religious.gif]

    • Mel Wild says:

      (Sigh)…why do you people keep propagating this ignorant stuff? Seriously, this is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. So, you don’t think poverty and lack of education are THE DIRECT CORRELATION to poor health and high crime in those areas? I bet a lot of those people eat grits, too. You can go to any poor inner city neighborhood in the US in the North and get basically the same results, and they’re not particularly religious.

      This is a perfect example of why you can’t be taken seriously.

      • john zande says:

        I see your angry with the demonstrable facts.

        Perhaps in the future you should actually do some research before posting such nonsense, Mel…

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! Yeah, right. You can tell yourself that. You’re certainly not above posting total nonsense yourself, in the guise of a “paper” or chart someone put together.

        • john zande says:

          Sorry, I forgot… you don’t like actual “studies” done by professionals.

          Carry on…

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, I didn’t forget that you think your “studies” are proving something. So, to get to the actual point of the post, I will ask you what I asked ‘essiep.’

          1) What exactly do you mean by “better off?” Be precise.
          2) What (non-religious) moral standard or code are you appealing to that is unique to secularists and unprecedented in human history?

        • john zande says:

          From the study published this month:

          The findings revealed that secularisation precedes economic development and not the other way around. Although this does not demonstrate a causal pathway, it does rule out the reverse.

          You don’t know what “better off” means?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Well, if you cannot tell me exactly what “better off” means, then I have no way of knowing if you are telling me something factual or not.

        • john zande says:

          Carry on, Mel… Play with your pantomime. I don’t have the time for this level of deliberate nitwittedness.

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! You had to say it twice. You are a piece of work! Good-bye.

        • John Branyan says:

          Clearly, he’s got plenty of time for nitwittedness, Mel.

        • john zande says:

          OK Mel, let’s ignore the libraries of hard evidence demonstrating that secular societies fare better than religious societies, let’s ignore the studies, the statistics, the cold hard facts which are freely available, and let me ask you one simple question:

          Would you choose to live in a secular nation or a theocracy?

        • Mel Wild says:

          If your studies represent such “hard evidence” then you can surely answer my questions (in the other comments) and then show me some totally secular state that rose up in a vacuum somewhere, totally separated from history or world influence (or dependence), who developed a superior moral code that’s unique to secularism and that they did not inherit from a LONG history of religious influence. Otherwise, your dogmatic assertions are dubious.

        • john zande says:

          I asked you a question Mel.

          Would you choose to live in a secular nation or a theocracy?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I asked you my question first. Stop deflecting.
          Besides, your question is bogus. I would want neither one. I would prefer to live in a pluralistic society where BOTH religion and secular views have equal voice. I prefer this because it’s not a theology problem, it’s a human problem. But to say that secularism has some unique and superior moral and ethic code that somehow arose apart from and does not inherit a long history of religious and philosophical morality and ethics is just plain imbecilic. and a total dismissal of history.
          Okay, so answer my questions or go away.

        • john zande says:

          No Mel, I asked you a specific question first, and you have evaded it.

          Please answer it without further evasion.

          Would you choose to live in a secular nation or a theocracy?

          There are only two choices.

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! You’re mistaken…again. Of course, you’ll just keep accusing me anyway. So, here’s the proof. You asked your question about 45 minutes ago (4:32 PM CDT) which I alreadyexplained why I could only answer it the way I did. I asked you my questions almost three hours ago (@2:44 CDT), which you have totally ignored Still waiting….
          https://melwild.wordpress.com/2018/07/23/the-myth-of-secular-progress/comment-page-1/#comment-19989

        • john zande says:

          OK Mel, seems this question really got under your skin.

          Don’t worry, though. Your evasion speaks volumes. Anyone with two neurons can see exactly what your answer is, and why you don’t want to say it… and here’s a clue as to what your answer is: it’s NOT the theocracy option.

          And that says it all, doesn’t it.

          Good night.

        • Mel Wild says:

          It shows that you’re still deflecting. It shows that you’ll do anything, say anything to avoid answering pertinent questions that expose your dogmatic assertions for what they are…fallacious myths. It show why it’s a waste of time to talk to you.

          I’m getting off the Zande merry-go-round now. Thanks for making our case, though.

        • john zande says:

          Not theocracy, right?

          I rest my case.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, you’re still a coward. Answer the questions or stop wasting my time.

        • john zande says:

          Not theocracy.

          And I don’t blame you.

  7. There’s actually some good research coming forth about the decline in world poverty, the decline in maternal mortality rates, the actual improved quality of life over all, globally. We’ve seen like a 47% decline in people trying to live off a dollar a day and we’ve nearly eradicated smallpox and leprosy. Much of the research connects and relates this progress to the capitalism of the West, capitalism that has actually been heavily influenced by Christian values. As greedy and self absorbed as we often are, missions to cure disease and eliminate starvation globally have been fueled by those dollars and by the West’s humanitarian values. The least effective way to get progress into the hands of people is actually through secularism and gov entities. Often we mean well, but as we also know gifting a country with foreign aid can sometimes just do more harm than good.

    So if Zande was actually interested in some real research and facts on the ground about people’s well being globally, he’d go check it out.

    • John Branyan says:

      Zande believes religion is bad while simultaneously spouting the virtues of humanism. Pointing out the inconsistency will get a response like, “Play with your pantomime.”

      I appreciate JZ’s input as it serves to demonstrate what happens to people who worship their own intelligence. It’s convenient that he keeps putting the foolishness of atheism on display here. Saves me having to go to his place and get screenshots.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Zande believes religion is bad while simultaneously spouting the virtues of humanism. Pointing out the inconsistency will get a response like, “Play with your pantomime.”

        Exactly. That’s why it’s so funny when they pull out the “pantomime” or “disingenuous” card. And I’m still waiting for any of these smart people to honestly answer these two questions. At least then their claims of moral superiority could be taken seriously.

        1) What exactly do you mean by “better off?” Be precise.
        2) What (non-religious) moral standard or code are you appealing to that is unique to secularists and/or unprecedented in human history?

        But you’re right about appreciating Zande for coming along and beautifully making our point. Now, people know we’re not just making this stuff up. Foolishness on display for all to see!

    • Mel Wild says:

      Exactly, IB. The the only honest and clear correlation between health and prosperity better education and economic quality of life. Period. If Zande wants to be taken seriously then he needs to show us how some mythical secular state rose up in a vacuum somewhere, totally separated from world influence (or dependence), who developed a superior moral code that’s unique to secularism and that they did not inherit from a LONG history of religious influence. This is why trying to pin this to religion is just utter nonsense and laughable.

      As John Banyan correctly pointed out, all their arguments are against bad examples of religious fundamentalism.

    • john zande says:

      capitalism that has actually been heavily influenced by Christian values.

      LOL

      Matthew 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

      Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

      Luke 14:33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

      Matthew 6:26 “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”

      Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

      You were saying?

      • “You were saying?”

        I was saying that generosity and global mission work has been heavily influenced by Christian values and funded by Western capitalism, Zande. Those verses you have quoted are Christian ones from the bible.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Zande doesn’t want actual historical realities to get in the way of his secularist utopian pipe dream. He wants us to believe that morals and ethics and things like compassion and benevolence were just discovered by rich secular Europeans in the 21st century.

        • john zande says:

          Where did you get the idea that slavery, for example, is wrong, Mel?

        • John Branyan says:

          It’s great when Zande tells us scripture is fiction then quotes scripture to prove his point.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yeah, such iron-clad logic. Who can argue with that!

        • john zande says:

          No, you said capitalism that has actually been heavily influenced by Christian values

          Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners FOR PROFIT, rather than by the state.

          But by all means, please do point me to where Jesus tauts free market, for profit business models.

          And while you’re at it, can you tell me when Christinity switched from communist ideals to capitalism based on private ownership?

          As stated by the Apostles:

          All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

        • No Zande, I said that Science, registered trademark, has researched global quality of life, collected the data and noted a major improvement overall,such as a dramatic decline in the number of people trying to get by on a dollar a day. Science, RT, has just taken note of the way capitalism and Western values have now solved some issues that have plagued humankind for centuries.

        • john zande says:

          No, you actually did say: “capitalism that has actually been heavily influenced by Christian values”

          But OK, I see you don’t want to own that statement, so I guess we’ll just let it slide and hope you don’t try and present such a ludicrous slice of absurd revisionism again.

        • I’ll cheerfully own that statement, Zande! “Capitalism has actually been heavily influenced by Christian values.” Yep, totally true. Everything in the Western world has been heavily influenced by Christian values. There is no real place in the modern West called Secularville.

          It’s just that the particular part of my statement you are focusing on, really has nothing to do with the essence of the post we are reading or the point I was trying to make.

          My point was that not only are you blinded by your own alleged brilliance, you’re anti-science too. “Science,” has also recently released some studies that seem to indicate that “secular progress” is a genuine myth.

        • john zande says:

          Everything in the Western world has been heavily influenced by Christian values.

          Really? What “values” are you talking about?

          And I’m curious Inanity. Christianity is about 2,000 years old, it gained near absolute influence across Europe around 1,100 years ago (yet held incredible sway over southern Europe for some 600 years prior) and held that unchallenged influence for the next 700 years. If what you say is true, can you explain why liberal democracies, the very hallmark of the “western world,” didn’t arise in the 500’s, the 600’s, the 700’s, the 800’s, the 900’s, the 1000’s, the 1100’s, the 1200’s, the 1300’s, the 1400’s, the 1500’s, the 1600’s, or the 1700’s when Christianity enjoyed its golden age of stability, influence and socio-political-economic power?

          Seems to be a disconnect between your claim and actual history… But I’m sure you can clear that up 😉

        • John Branyan says:

          She can’t ‘clear it up’.
          You have absolute power to believe anything you want.
          You win!

        • Zande, did you just try to challenge my statement, “Everything in the Western world has been heavily influenced by Christian values” by lecturing me about how history clearly shows, “everything in the Western world has been heavily influenced by Christian values?!”

          I’m pretty sure one can’t even be an atheist without having something to rail AGAINST. What are you against, Zande? The influence of Christian values on the Western world!

        • john zande says:

          That’s a lot of words just to say “You know what, I can’t actually explain that colossal disconnect between my claim and actual history.”

        • John Branyan says:

          Stubborn cynicism wins over rationality every time.
          Point to John Zande.

  8. Wally Fry says:

    So, eating grits leads to the decline of society? Is that what you are saying here, Mel?

    LOL, I would actually agree with that; grits aren’t so good really

  9. Pingback: How Christianity shaped Western values | In My Father's House

  10. Pingback: Do morals evolve? | In My Father's House

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.