[jfengel]

Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians. Even atheists are strongly influenced by the patterns they set down. The Catholic Church, for all its many faults, retains a serious intellectual tradition.

(In fact I think atheists should make more effort to learn about the vast diversity of other faiths. It's very narrow to be atheist only about the Abrahamic deity. You end up incorporating a lot of Christian thought without realizing because it's so deeply ingrained that it seems like the only option.)

[doginasuit]

Church theology does not happen in a bubble, elements can also be traced back to contemporary and secular thinking. To its great credit, the Catholic Church has not taken the path of other parts of Christianity but have listened and learned from the public conversation.

The ideas in this work are not entirely unique or original, they fit with what many people have been saying since language models came on the scene. But it is the most articulate, earnest, and balanced that I have seen from prominent figures and institutions. It has helped me discover and question my biases. Humanity desperately needed a better champion in the conversation, and it is moving to see the Church step into that role so effectively.

[renox]

> In fact I think atheists should make more effort to learn about the vast diversity of other faiths. It's very narrow to be atheist only about the Abrahamic deity.

Your sentence doesn't really make sense, and there is a lot of deities..

> You end up incorporating a lot of Christian thought without realizing because it's so deeply ingrained that it seems like the only option.

Depends on the country, some Northen european countries have a very high proportion of atheists, so it happens probably less there.

[jfengel]

There are a lot of deities, and they are far more diverse than you would expect if you're not exposed to them. Even the more atheist countries still seem Christian to Hindus, Confucians, animists, and thousands of other more obscure religions.

[basisword]

>> Depends on the country, some Northen european countries have a very high proportion of atheists, so it happens probably less there.

Christianity is so ingrained even in atheist societies that quite a lot of western and Northern European countries just recently celebrated "Ascension day" which was a public holiday in those countries. And while Christianity has decreased a significant amount in the last couple of decades a majority in most of those countries still identify as Christian even if not regularly practicing.

[qsort]

> Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians.

The problem I have with this is that it's structurally a motte-and-bailey claim. If I have to take it literally, then it's obviously true and it's simply unserious to deny it: the Church does have a pervasive influence on Western civilization. The way it's often rhetorically used, however, is in opposition and to the exclusion of other strands of thought that are equally foundational: the renaissance, the enlightenment, the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries, the scientific enterprise, in a smaller but still real way classical antiquity. To the extent it can be said to exist, Western civilization is a patchwork. It is beautiful and I very much like it, but I don't think any one patch gets to have all the credit.

> In fact I think atheists should make more effort to learn about the vast diversity of other faiths

A better version of myself for sure would make that effort. The problem, of course, is that other faiths are just as deep and complicated as "our own", and it would take a lot of time and effort to do so with any level of seriousness.

[ivm]

The events you mention still took place within the Abrahamic framework of thought. Ideas like a linear timeline progressing from A to B (rather than a cyclical one) or utopian political projects bringing final justice to society are Abrahamic in nature.

So I agree with the grandparent comment: unless one takes the time to study and truly understand other belief systems, it's hard to see how Western "secular" schools of thought remain Christian because we're submerged in them since childhood.

[andrepd]

> The events you mention still took place within the Abrahamic framework of thought. Ideas like a linear timeline progressing from A to B (rather than a cyclical one) or utopian political projects bringing final justice to society are Abrahamic in nature.

This is laughable... Someone needs to read more about classical antiquity! :) Certainly not something banal as "utopian political projects", which is extremely well attested in e.g. Greek philosophy, and indeed relatively absent from Christianity (its message being essentially escathological in nature, especially in its first few centuries)!

[mistrial9]

these ideas need some refinement.. literacy and a written Law come to mind. Basic Catholic teaching purposefully excludes quite a lot of material that is recognized today.

[agnosticmantis]

> Ideas like a linear timeline progressing from A to B (rather than a cyclical one)

Seriously? So we’re either linear Christians or circular Hindus, and nothing else ever existed?

And nobody else believed in linear time?

[ivm]

HN Guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

[Planktonne]

> The way it's often rhetorically used, however, is in opposition and to the exclusion of other strands of thought

I don't think this is actually true; I think your own bias is colouring the conversation here.

[qsort]

I have almost never seen someone start a sentence with "Christian roots" or "Judeo-Christian values" and not end it with a tirade that uses religion as the fig leaf to justify and authorize their reactionary politics.

The minimalist claim that the West is massively influenced by the Church is true to the point of banality, the maximalist claims those ideas are usually deployed to champion simply do not follow.

If only there were a name for this rhetorical fallacy...

[Terr_]

> The way it's often rhetorically used

Survivorship bias is another issue. Rich past fields of disagreement and mistakes can be hidden behind the currently accepted outcome.

For example, imagine someone said: "Science™ has explained fire, you rely on that, therefore you should also respect this paper asserting X." But how can we be confident that X isn't more phlogiston of the current era? Is the arguer trying to improperly leech off of a past success?

Similarly, our status quo civilization is also defined by religious ideas that are rejected. For example, the idea that a god could/should order you to genocide all the Canaanites is not very popular right now.

[dgellow]

I don’t think you understand atheism? As an atheist I do not believe in any form of deity or divine authority. I do not reject a specific religion, I do not actually believe there is any form of divine order to our world. I can look at faiths as the social constructs they are, and find interest in concepts humans have been developing and created cults around but there won’t ever be a religion/deity I will look at and somehow start to believe. And religious doctrines do not come for free, they are fundamentally built on top of a belief in a divine truth. My moral values may overlap with some religious people at a given time but we are using incompatible models to analyze our world

[__s]

Also atheist here. Reading old+new testament was informative like reading history: whatever is true or not in those passages, have had profound impact throughout history

Their point is that despite your subscription to reason, without exposure to other cultural norms, you may be blind to what Christian values you live by. Becoming aware of them can help self evaluation of your ethical framework

[jfengel]

Thank you. Yes, exactly.

For that matter, reading the Christian scriptures through a historical lens reveals a very different kind of thought than the modern version of Christianity and Judaism. It takes a huge amount of effort to read these documents in context; just reading them in the original languages is hard enough. But the past is a very foreign country and they see things very differently there.

[dgellow]

To clarify, I didn’t claim I subscribe to reason. I believe that I behave as if I would however I don’t think humans are too rational. There is just nothing divine into the world. The Old and new Testaments have very little I personally find insightful. Write their content in contemporary language and they are a collections of (extremely dry) folk stories. Which is fine, but I wouldn’t rely on it for anything other than a curiosity, the same way I wouldn’t rely on Grimm’s collection of fairy tales. IMHO the Quran is more interesting historically speaking given that we have a better understanding of the cultural context it was written in and its authorship. The church institutions are also themselves interesting for their cultural impact and political structures, but the religion and faith has no monopoly over moral values

[Planktonne]

Grimm's Fairy Tales also have had an important impact on your culture.

No one is asking you to believe in anything, but it's self-limiting to refuse to engage with works of historical/cultural importance.

[dgellow]

You’re projecting or misinterpreting my comments. I didn’t say anything regarding the content I engage with.

However I reject the idea that engaging with religious texts is insightful and something to promote

[andrepd]

Indeed! Reading the Bible attentively has only made me even more of an atheist :)

[cryptoegorophy]

As an atheist, how do you read a bible without critical thinking? I’ve tried and I just have a really hard time with all the double meanings and things not making any sense. What am I missing?

[hackinthebochs]

The parent said it, it's a historical document about events and beliefs of people that shaped most of the modern world. I was never one for history, but as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate history as a study of the present in terms of events, ideas, and other influences that made the present what it is. You can't understand the present without understanding the past.

It shouldn't cause you so much friction to hold an idea in your head you don't believe to be true. Read it as anthropology rather than metaphysics.

[deaton]

Generally speaking, a lot of western values are built on top of Christian ethics. Particularly, most of what we value regarding freedom and individual choice and whatnot comes from the englightenment, which is a direct result of the protestant reformation.

[vouwfietsman]

This is like saying most western thought traces back to people 165cm in height or lower. If everyone is forced to be catholic, all human output, including positive output, is done by catholics.

Guess what, all Chinese EVs are made by communists, maybe there's something to it after all!

[andrepd]

> Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians

Ehh. The vast majority of "Western" thought of the past >2000 years, including that of the Church itself, come from Greek philosophy and thought.

[hackingonempty]

> Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians

Western thought traces back to the Greeks. Aquinas refers to Aristotle as "The Philosopher." Aristotle died over 300 years before Jesus was born.

> The Catholic Church, for all its many faults, retains a serious intellectual tradition.

On Aquinas, the Church Doctor, Bertrand Russell had the following to say:

"Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times."