I haven’t read “Dominion” yet but as an atheist with a interest in history I don’t understand why so many atheists are (kinda) allergic towards our Christian history and its legacy. We breathe it everyday
Because they are anti theists first. They have an irrational hatred of religion. And because of that, they are unable of understanding it and with it, the history of humanity.
Because as others have argued most "new atheists" arent atheists, and most of them can easily be classified as ignorant marcionists. What they say about the old testament God has been first noticed and formulated by Marcion.
Many atheists have an emotional foundation to their axiomatic position, and like to pretend it’s a rational and well thought out foundation. The reality of their beliefs having a foundation in Christianity sets off the emotional alarm bells.
@roberthak3695 OK, so most atheists also hold Marcion's opinion on the God of the New Testament? That's kinda a requirement for someone to be a "marcionist." Anyhow, get real. Criticism of the Old Testament does not depend on Marcion. Anyone can critique it, totally independent of any influence from Marcion, as is the case for basically all modern critics. Marcion's influence was completely snuffed out, and we only hear of him or his ideas through the words of his proto-orthodox critics. There is zero scope for his influence to accidentally worm its way into heads of unwitting modern people. Marcion has nothing to do with it when a modern person criticizes the Old Testament. It's straight up laughable to claim that condemning clear acts of g3n0cide, s3x trafficking, etc., etc., require the surreptitious help of Marcion's ghost.
Shouldn't need to be allergic. Unlike Christianity and similar views of the world, secular, liberal, humanistic ideology can survive a scrutiny that denies it its chosen grandiose origin story. Kinda like how, when that Muslim challenged Holland as to why he did to Islam what he would supposedly never do to his own beliefs ("do" referring to how he claimed a mundane origin story for Islam, absent any angel appearing to a prophet), this Muslim was not asking Holland to challenge his own beliefs so much as to leave Islam alone. Holland, however, took the opposite message from that interaction and went about demystifying the origins of secular liberalism. He did this because secular liberalism can take it. It doesn't require a story of divine revelation to validate it. Islam and Christianity, however, are desperately dependent on their fantastical origin stories, so they can not take it.
There's gonna be some militant atheists and mythicists that won't get through this interview without having a heart attack! Giving Christians credit for anything is anathema to them!
Excellent interview. Do you have any recommendations of books that are more balanced concerning the Enlightenment? Everything I've read suggests it was this universally great thing. I've been skeptical of this narrative for a while now.
Be very skeptical of that narrative. Be skeptical of the narrative regarding the “Protestant Reformation”, “The Crusades” and “The Inquisition” among others.
Hi Tim, currently reading Dominion and greatly enjoying it! Have you read 'In the shadow of the sword: The battle for global empire and the end of the ancient world' by Tom Holland? I recently watched his controversial documentary on the origins of Islam 'Islam: The untold story'. Hence, I've been meaning to read the book. But I came across some reviews that the book/documentary was based on revisionist islamic history (that started out in the 1970s) which apparently most respected scholars of Islamic studies consider too critical and therefore inaccurate. I know Tom Holland is a reliable historian but these reviews have made me concerned that maybe his work on the origin of Islam is not heavily reliable. Have you read the book or watched the documentary? If so, what are your thoughts? Also, if you can, can you suggest any reliable works on the origins of Islam, historicity of Muhammad and the golden age of Islam? Thanks :)
Seeing these two have a dialogue is an unexpected surprise. Tom, do you have a particular book on the Middle Ages that you would recommend? Like so many I barely know anything about it, and I'm afraid to get some book which is too biased in one direction. I have read some of your blogposts on it.
Haven't gotten around to Dominion yet, but I remember being enthralled by Rubicon when it came out in paperback so so many years ago...except, all I really recall of Rubicon is one scattered section that kind of makes me giggle a bit even now - where Holland actually views the development of a more elaborate art if cookery as some signal of cultural decadence bc " food is supposed to be for nourishment..." (I paraphrase). Kind of a hysterical sentiment coming from a supposed historian, but we are talking 20years ago! Great conversation, though. Big fan, Tim, and it's about time we get to see you more often on your own channel. Congrats, and Cheers!
Very nice - Tom Holland needs to be heard more (even though he is of course already well known)! Few things I might disagree with but overall, an excellent thesis!
Holland is a nonbeliever; however, I have seen interviews he has done with Christians in which he admits he wants very much to believe. In one, he says he's in the position of a man standing on a diving board, looking down and wanting to jump. Question: if Holland announces one of these days that he is no longer an atheist, will Tim still find him a credible source? Personally, I don't see why Tim wouldn't as long as Holland steers clear of apologetics in his books, but critics would certainly claim that his faith would color his reasoning. Tim remains comfortable in his atheism; it's clear from other interviews he has done that Holland, increasingly, is not.
My non-belief is not some tribal thing where I only use sources by other atheists and only endorse atheist scholars and writers. I'm interested in good scholarship and arguments that are well-supported. If Tom does come to believe again that will be his business not mine. I suspect his politics are to the right of mine, but that doesn't change the things we agree on about history. If that change in belief meant his writings began to take on a slant in his arguments which I didn't think was well-supported, I'd say so. I still refer to Rodney Stark's early work. Unfortunately, once Stark converted to Christianity his books have increasingly turned into apologism. And they are largely junk as a result. This is not a matter of who is in what camp, but who is doing good work. Dale C. Allison is a Christian, but he is doing some of the best writing on the origins of Christianity in the field today. Philip Jenkins is a Christian and a conservative, but several of his books on the history of Christianity are excellent and insightful work. I'm about quality, not tribalism.
@@historyforatheists9363 I am glad to read that. I would agree that once a historian becomes an apologist, he is no longer a historian. I've haven't read Allison so thanks for the tip.
And I would pay good coin and park myself in front of the computer with beer and popcorn to watch either you or Holland debate Sam Harris, who strikes me as the most insufferably smug New Atheist. But alas, I doubt Harris is dumb enough to agree to a debate.
Great point Dm. That is my issue with Tom Holland. He is quick to attack atheists but when Christians in interviews talk to him about Jesus he seems empathetic to it. That's why I found it hard to accept his findings and still doubt most of them frankly in his book Dominion. I did see him as someone who might be trying to win the Christian audience. For Tim I am more willing to accept his criticisms because he is just as critical of Evangelical Christians where I come from here in America and appreciate that. So when he is debunking some atheist views on history he seems a credible source
Given that I'm an atheist who concludes that Jesus was an ordinary human preacher, obviously I don't think there was any actual "Resurrection". For why I think his followers came to believe he had, in some sense, "risen", you can find a summary here: www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
I predict this channel will grow by leaps and bounds. 👍 Tim, would you ever have a debate with AronRa? You've engaged with his thought more than once but it's rare for someone to systemically challenge him point by point.
Firstly, as I've often said, I don't think debates are useful ways to settle questions of history. Secondly, there's nothing to "debate" with him regarding the historical topics I've criticised him on - he's simply wrong. End of "debate". Finally, he's still smarting over the spankings I've given him and there's no way he'd agree to any interaction with me.
I'm writing my thesis on a certain aspect of classical religion and I think I can corroborate/relate his basic premise. In my experience ancient thought was pervaded by sophisticated (pun intended) pagan theology we barely understand at all anymore. People just don't get taught in basic childhood history class how intense and intelligent pagan thought was. What makes it so alien to us is that it has been so thoroughly replaced by the Christian ethos. So when you have real pagan theology to compare it to, it's easier to see how even Enlightenment thought was essentially Christian flavored in it's worldview.
As a Christian I am thankful for this channel. It provides me with a repository of good historical information for review, and one I can cite in response to Atheists and skeptics who might not accept the arguments of Christians. In relation to Tom Holland, his thesis is a fascinating one.
Historians seems to often confuse association with causality. Why does Christian values have to come from Persian Zoroaster and not from Christ? Christ did not share many of the values of either the Jews of His time or that of Persian Zoroastrian believes. That there are some similarities doesn't make the earlier origin of the latter.
Tim, what are your thoughts of morality without God? I’m assuming, as an atheist, that you’d say one can have morals without a deity, but the point Tom makes of western secular morals essentially being Christian is interesting. I’d suppose the societies of pre Christian life, Greece and Rome as Tom mentioned, did have morals, but just not what we’d consider moral now. Great video, thanks Tim. And if I misinterpreted or missed something, please don’t go hard on me ;)
I would say that yes, we can have morals without any God or gods. There's no contradiction between that and the recognition that a lot of what we consider to be moral has been shaped by Christianity. Once I realised I no longer believed in God, I looked at what that meant for my understanding of right and wrong. I found that very little changed - I could find perfectly rational reasons to not murder people, to not cheat on my partner etc. I did abandon some elements of Christian morality though: I could see no reason to maintain many of the Christian ideas about homosexuality, masturbation or using certain names of God when swearing, for example. I could see no rational reason those things would be "immoral" once the "because God says so" thing went away.
@@christianf5131 In regard to the issue of morality and it's dependence (or otherwise) on God you might like to watch the 5 minutes animated video THE MORAL ARGUMENT on youtube by DrCraig videos. In response to History for Atheists I thought his interview with Tom was very good. There's another interview with Tom by Glen Scrivener.
I don't believe my ears. Paul absorbed Stoicism "even if he hadn't actually read Epictetus." ?? Paul was dead before anything about Epictetus was written. Epictetus never wrote anything himself. How could he even have had a chance?
Hmm interesting. I just flicked over to that conversation and I'm led to think we didn't watch the same thing. A C Grayling was perfectly calm and courteous. Frankly, I think we've made a massive leap to conclude that western values come exclusively from christianity when only comparing them to Greeks and Romans. Just like calculus was discovered by Newton and Liebniz, independently, and evolution was discovered by Darwin and Wallace, independently, values of humility, kindness and generosity have also arisen in multiple cultures at various times in history. It's unfortunate that Chinese culture didn't really get a look in on in this book, and I don't think Buddha got a single mention. If all good values originate with christianity, this requires explanation
"A C Grayling was perfectly calm and courteous." Grayling got increasingly annoyed, insisting that his erroneous and facile grasp of history was correct. It wasn't. See historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ "this requires explanation" The book's subtitle is "The Making of the Western Mind". Your requirted answer is found in the fifth word in that phrase. Mystery solved.
@@historyforatheists9363 Don't think so. Those values are not only western, they're universal. Obviously, because they crop up in different, unrelated places. Richard Dawkins has a better explanation Grayling did get some stuff wrong, but he didn't get any more heat up about it than did TH. Dominion is a good book, but it does not nail the subject down hard enough to jump to such a conclusion. There's way more work to be done before you can do that
@@maddi62 Again, the book is on how those value’s developed in the West. Your claim it should look at the development of somewhat similar ideas elsewhere makes no sense. That would be a different book. And you just went from claiming Grayling didn’t get irritated to admitting he did.
@@historyforatheists9363 The conclusion of the book, which I suspect is little more than a marketing angle, is that western values originate from christianity. Like I said, I like the book, but it doesn't support this conclusion. Credit to Jesus, He gave voice to them in the West, whether by designed or coincidence, but they didn't originate with him. He happened upon the same discovery as others, elsewhere. I found A C Grayling to be gracious and respectful. Also wrong on a single point that I don't consider especially significant, which both parties fixated a little too much on in defense of their own writings. Dawkins gives an explanation that transcends the pair, and takes the discussion to a whole deeper level. I'm sure we'll figure ir out at some point
@@maddi62 Your first paragraph makes no sense. Again, the book is about the origin of WESTERN values. You claim the book is wrong that these are found in Christianity, but then admit … actually, they are. The fact that similar values arose in other cultures is interesting, but not relevant to how they arose in WESTERN v thought. Grayling is dead wrong on multiple points. Laughably so. I’ve given you my detailed article on this. Please read it. And I have no idea where Dawkins comes into this, but his grasp of history makes that of Grayling look profound and accurate. You seem highly confused.
Possibly "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes would be of interest with respect to the difference in the classical mentality and the Christian. Carl Sagan created a video, set in a virtual re-creation of the Library of Alexandria, in which he theorized that slavery vitiated the strength of Greece because it made the philosophers reluctant to get their hands dirty in experimentation and led them to the idea that science research had to be with high-toned reference to pure introspection of truth in their ivory tower. Slaves did all the practical work which was beneath the free Greeks. [Edit: extreme examples of this disregard of utility are the binding of feet in China, and Vietnamese aristocratic ladies letting their fingernails grow to foot long length, curling around, to demonstrate that they never stooped to so much as chopping turmeric. ] The slaves were not free to do practical scientific experimentation so almost no one did. Perhaps Archimedes did. Maybe Sagan's video was part of his "Cosmos" TV series. [ Edit: Sagan does not argue about the immorality of slavery, he goes to the end and sees that it ruined Greece. Poetic justice. ] [Edit: A link to Sagan's presentation on the Great Library of Alexandria is vimeo.com/15107421?ref=fb-share&fbclid=IwY2xjawEYD5VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHT7TrOjf2EX9snwyXBOCD4dXsurMUxka0HQUU7odCLz0axf_cgT7R1_RvA_aem_xC0ehAgbGpt19pagXHBFKg In the third part are found his ideas about slavery and ancient philosophy, mathematics and science. It is not very close to my memory of it as outlined above, sorry, but one may see for oneself in the video. Perhaps my idea that slavery robbed Greece of "hands-on" science came from elsewhere or maybe I have only imagined it. He did say that slavery was not good for Greek culture, and he attributed the failure of the Library to not putting its discoveries to practical use in reducing hard labour, but only using it to conjure magic tricks in support of mysticism, or to impress kings, or for toys. It occurs to me that with slaves there is less need to reduce hard labour. He does say that slavery was terribly immoral and that none of the Library's intellectuals ever challenged it or other social political injustice ] Edit: The Library may not have been destroyed by a mob. Here is a link to a blog by Richard Carrier on the fate of the Library which seems comprehensive compared to what little I had heard before www.richardcarrier.info/archives/29806 . Seems possible it was a Muslim warlord who ordered its destruction. Sagan's presentation of what the library was like and his dramatization of the terrible loss still seems imressive to me, though some of his conclusions about its lack of outreach and the bad effect of slavery may need re consideration in view of the new info in the blog. There are a lot of versions of both the library's fall and, on YT, several contrasting versions of the martyrdom of Hypatia so that Sagan may have been presenting a belief that was then considered correct. Archaeology etc have made great advances in the decades since Cosmos was produced. Maybe humanism is partly a transformation of consciousness as well as an ethical code. Maybe some Greeks who visited the Mysteries at Eleusis became more humanist than the generality. [Edit: I don't know whether Aristotle gave that a go. ] Aristotle is said to have believed that slaves were by their own nature inferior, which seems wrong since some slaves were captives who had been high level. Aristotle could have been captured and enslaved. He seems to have had a convenient blind spot which allowed him to ignore the suffering of the slaves. [ Edit: but here is a link (thanks to Quora for this www.quora.com/How-different-was-Greek-slavery-from-Roman-slavery?q=greek%20roman%20slavery) to what Aristotle wrote himself: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/greek-slaves.asp I don't understand him. He says barbarians are naturally too benighted for anything else. But he does not say anything that I find clear about Hellenes who may have been forced into slavery. ] He also promoted the common sense theory of geocentricity. I wonder whether Aristarchus, who had the right cosmology due to his practical observations, and from whose work Copernicus got his start, had also a better take on slavery than Aristotle. [Edit: But Aristotle and Ptolemy's geocentric model became dominant. Few heard of Aristarchus'. Also, Aristotle may be an example of the Swiftian Laputan separation from reality that Sagan referred to. Aristotle's physics had heavier objects falling faster which is wrong because they have more inertia to resist the stronger force which gravity exerts on them. Galileo, thousands of years later, despite being embedded in a science justified by authority and deeply Aristotelian, finally did an experiment. There is no record of Aristotle ever having done something so barbarous. As well as the obvious common sense perception that the Sun goes around us, Aristotle's physics said that things fall towards the centre of the universe. If the Earth were not the centre - mayhem would ensue. ref: The Galileo Project at Rice University. ] Thanks to Tim O'Neill for pointing out things about Darwin and the Tasmanians I didn't know. With help from Wikipedia I found www.utas.edu.au/library/exhibitions/darwin/hobart.html.
The part around 20 mins where Holland says (about Christianity) "you'd expect it to bare the stamp of the world from which it emerges" is right, but can surely be used to rebut his main thesis and argue the same for the Enlightenment and whole modern world too? I.e. that it came out of Christianity, but is radical too? Seems fairly obvious to me. We've kept some good parts from Christian philosophy and got rid of god.
I can't see how that rebuts his thesis. He's not saying the western mental world *only* came from Christian ideas, just that it substantially did so. And if you read his book you'll see he makes a strong argument that "the Enlightenment", far from being some reaction against core Christian ideas, was very part an extension of them. And yes, "we've kept some good parts from Christian philosophy and got rid of god." That's pretty much what he's saying.
@@historyforatheists9363 "as very part an extension of them. And yes, "we've kept some good parts from Christian philosophy and got rid of god." That's pretty much what he's saying." So again, why can´t you say that about Christianity (as an extension of jewish and hellenistic ideas in which it was based too)? Seems to me there is a double standard there. And how is that you can the Enlightment be an extension of Christian ideas, and reject the very core aspect of it (the existence of God!)?
@@historyforatheists9363 How? Well, because in one case you are asserting the total independence of one movement in history from the roots it originated (Christianity in regard to Judaism and the Hellenistic world in which it was forged), and in the other you are calling for a total or almost total dependence of another movement (the Enlightenment ) from its roots (Christian dominated society in Europe). It seems that Holland pretends that the only truly original form of thought in the West is Christianity, but the fact is that Christianity itself did not appear out of nothing and disconnected from its social and cultural roots (the same way you cannot say the Enlightenment is some sort of radical rupture with Christianity).
@historyforatheists9363 "And yes, 'we've kept some good parts from Christianity and got rid of god.' That's pretty much what he's saying." This is pretty a much a problem with Holland. *_He_* might be saying this when one reads his material carefully, but he's willing to indulge Christians who use his work to claim much more outlandish things. Such as the notion these "good parts from Christianity" could not possibly exist were it not for Christianity, or the idea that they could not _continue_ to exist if Christianity fails to continue. They'll go so far as to claim copyright on altruism, demanding license fees in the form of credit anytime anything good happens anywhere. I haven't found evidence to support these claims in Holland's book, but that's kinda immaterial to how he gets used.
Christianity has canonisation and churches or maybe central institutions. Islam has no central institution. And Islam teaches you are born without sin and you can chose. Islam teaches you self resposebility. Judaism teaches you to make this world a better place. Which Christianity is waiting for the end of this world right? But Christianity teaches you to respect your fellow man.
@@krileayn When I used this background when doing an interview about the problems with Jesus Mythicism, a commenter sneered that the Mythicist Robert Price who had been interviewed before me "has a collection of real books on his shelves, but this guy (me) just has a fake background". I had to break it to him that the "fake background" was a photo of my "collection of real books".
authors like bookshelves in the background in the same way Doctors like to parade around the surgery with a stethoscope, some even put it on in the carpark so everyone knows hes a doctor..😂
My target audience is atheists. So I don't think collaborating with Christian apologists is really going help me with my aims. But I'm glad you find the channel useful.
Despite my lack of knowledge, Inspiring Philosophy seems to pick and choose certain historical “facts” to support his case. Either way though, his videos are still somewhat of a pleasure to watch.
@@elijahyoung11 I don't particularly like inspiringphilosophy since he seems to represent people by straw manning them sometimes. He even does it with his fellow Christian's when it suits him though rarely. Honestly sometimes anti-theists are more logical than him on certain subject matters. Particularly when some youtuber was refuting him when inspiringphilosophy claims atheists are suffering from circular reasoning when it comes to evolution and inspiringphilosophy claiming evolution supports God which it doesn't. Evolution supports neither Atheism or Religion. Though I agree mostly with Tim on the history of religion since it's more complicated than what anti-theists claim. Jesus did exist though wheather he rose from the dead is a religious matter. Religion tarnishing science is false and atheists are also prone to genocide as much as religious people. I used to be an anti-theist so you might give me a grain of salt when I say that, but still his arguments seem to be just a childish way to try and make atheists seem completely dumb even though the reasoning atheistas imploy is completely justifiable just like most other beliefs that support X/disbelief on X/beliefs that go against X. That's just me though.
How does the Hebrew belief outlined in Genesis that man has a spark of the divine because God's breath is in him not inform Paul's writing more than the writings in stoicism
Reference is approximately 32:25 onwards. Just trying to sort out when to infer the influence of (in this case stoicism) a belief on a historical figure. Fab discussion.
@@robyngray6667 I still don't understand your original question. Holland talks about the influence of Greek philosophy on Paul, but emphasises that his letters "are not philosophical tracts" and are more meditations on on the Hebrew Bible. So where are you getting the idea that Genesis was somehow *not* more influential on him than Stocisim? That is not anywhere in anything Holland (or I) say. Both influenced Paul, though the Hebrew Bible more than anything else.
This strikes me as a bit of a reductive perspective. Perhaps I just need to do more research on this, but it seems ridiculous to discount the other elements that have shaped the modern world. Without the Greek philosophers then I imagine that we wouldn't have arrived at the democratic structures that exist today, and without the enlightenment we wouldn't have shaped the present world through the trials of the 19th and 20th century. I would also argue that though many of the espoused values and virtues of the modern western world do reflect the messages in the bible, the actual practiced values of many westerners (at least in my experience) are more along the lines of consumerism and individualism with a sort of pragmatic indifference to the deeper values of the Christians.
@@historyforatheists9363 good idea. I was primarily expressing an argument against someone who had represented Holland's work in this way. Yelling into the void of youtube comments because people in real life are often not reasonable enough to engage in these conversations properly. To be honest I only watched 2 mins of the video itself.
Tim, Around 53:50 Tom gets a little bogged down trying to defend Darwin's non-racism simply because he was an abolitionist. You allude to Darwin's walrus-and-carpenter attitude towards the Tasmanian genocide but Tom insists that an abolitionist cannot have had such an attitude. Tom is wrong. fantastic historian that he is, he really should study our American abolitionists like Senator Benjamin Wade, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Julian Sturtevant, Louis Aggasiz. All these men had their abolitionist cards validated and yet they were virulent racists. Wade and Agassiz literally couldn't stomach the sight of black people and it seems to have been a matter of extreme indifference to Emerson and Sturtevant if the freed slaves went extinct in North America (at least our abolitionist president only wanted to deport them!) Not all 19th Cty abolitionists,of course, were racists but some prominent ones definitely were. I know it's hard to believe.
I absolutely love this channel! Regarding this particular video I am less enthusiastic. Based solely on this interview, I find Holland’s thesis simplistic, problematic, and possibly unfalsifiable. It whitewashes the socially regressive and patriarchal/misogynistic ideas of Christianity, its vile history of oppression and persecution of Jews as ‘Christ Killers’, fails to define what ‘Christianity’ even is (it depends on who you ask and what parts of scripture you read), and ignores the fact that kindness, compassion, and philanthropy were concepts that were well entrenched in early Greek thought and ethics- not to mention many other non-Western religious and philosophical traditions that existed before Jesus came on the scene. The idea that kindness, generosity, humility, and compassion were invented by Judeo-Christianity is, of course, utter nonsense! The thesis also neglects to consider that the scientific approach to understanding the world is quite antithetical to Judeo-Christian perspectives which rely rather uncritically on revelation, mysticism, hearsay, wishful/magical thinking, post-hoc reasoning, retrofitting, and shear make-believe. I’m not aware of any statement in the Hebrew or Christian bible which praised empirical observation, intelligence, skepticism, and reason, which were hallmarks of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Scientific Age. My sense is that Holland, like other Christian apologists, very much WANTS to be ‘Christian’ (whatever that means) and has structured his thesis to give his desire a veneer of intellectual respectability. To test and confirm his thesis, one would have to re-run history without Christianity and observe that we would not have ended up with our current set of modern Western ideas (whatever those are). Of course, because we cannot rewind history and change it his thesis must remain speculative at best. One could just as well argue that we would have arrived at our present situation hundreds of years earlier had it not been for Christianity dragging down human progress. Perhaps he addresses all these problematic issues in this book, but this interview, as eloquent and intelligent as the host and guest are, does not give me much confidence that he does.
@@i_am_nature919 “Based solely on this interview …” That would be your problem. He is well aware of all the things you refer to, but we couldn’t cover everything in an interview. If you read his book you’ll find you’ve assumed a lot about his arguments and most of what you’ve assumed is wrong.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for the reply! Fair enough. If all of these issues are considered in the book as you suggest, I'll give it a read. But if the thesis is merely that Western thought (however that is defined) was influenced by Christianity, I don't see it as particularly radical or surprising. Western ideas were shaped by numerous religious, philosophical, and social movements that historically led up to the present day. And Christianity was influenced by numerous traditions that preceded it, including those of Ancient Egypt and of course Judaism. Jesus was a Jew after all and his moral teachings relied heavily on Jewish scriptural texts with which he was very familiar.
@@i_am_nature919 Thevthesis is that many things people think of as just “natural” or “obvious” were unknown before Christianity. Other things that existed before Christianity were substantially shaped by it to a greater extent than most people realise. And some things that many assume were alien to Christianity (like scientific inquiry) were actually heavily based on its worldview.
@@historyforatheists9363 Hippocrates? Thales of Miletus? Archimedes? These doctors and scientists lived centuries before Christ. Sorry, but I just don't see any substantive precursors of scientific inquiry in Judaism or Christianity. But I'm open to be proven wrong on this.
I'll take Tom Holland any day over the usual suspects Robert Price, Richard Carrier. AronRa, et al spouting the same ol same ol. You might not get a chance to interview a big shot like Jordan Peterson, but you should consider Paul VanderKlay or Jonathan Pageau.
I think Peterson is a tedious lightweight and am baffled why anyone pays any attention to him. I've never heard of those other two, but - having Googled them and looked at their TH-cam channels - I have no idea why I'd bother interviewing either of them. I can't see they have any expertise or offer anything relevant to this channel's aims.
@@historyforatheists9363 Respectfully, what does Tom Holland do to further the channel's aims? I've read Dominion and loved it. I only brought these other people up, because they are in the same vein as Holland. What is your specific gripe with JPB? It just seems out of place that you would platform Holland and denigrate Peterson. BTW- since you're baffled, it's because JBP tells people how to find meaning in their lives. Most atheists restrict themselves to science and the material, but that can't objectively tell a person what to love, what to be and what to know or even what to do. And when atheists like Sam Harris or Matt Dillahunty go outside the box, it's not objective and hollow. Thank you for your time.
@@ArmchairPhilosopher360 Tom has a deep understanding of history and presents a perspective on it that draws on views that are directly counter to the cartoonish history utilised by New Atheists. This is why A.C. Grayling objects to his conclusions so vehemently (and so incompetently). So his book is of direct relevance to the themes of History for Atheists. I see no evidence that Peterson has any particular grasp of history at all and all I've heard from him, when distilled from his convoluted faux profundity, is weak pop philosophy of the most puerile kind. And, as I said, I can make out what possible relevance those other two people you mentioned would have to anything I discuss.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thank you for your response. I have enjoyed many of your articles and appearances on YT. I appreciate your point of view. Is it just Peterson you object to, or it the entire Jungian orbit, including Jung, Joseph Cambell, JBP, Erich Neumann, etc? Do you believe Peterson's hit Biblical lectures series is merely pop philosophy? It certainly is popular, but millions of people sincerely believe they have been helped. I only mentioned these other people because they're in the same orbit and counter cartoonish Bible thumping versions of what militant atheists imagine what Christian-ish types must believe. I'm not even a believer, but I understand how such narratives impact a person's life for the better. Best regards and wishing you well.
@@ArmchairPhilosopher360 Yes, I consider Jung's stuff to be semi-mystical nonsense and have never been able to understand what anyone sees in Campbell's ponderous stuff. He was in vogue for a while back in the late 1980s and I watched the series of interviews with him on (I think) PBS. He made a series of claims about medieval literature that were total nonsense and he was pretty clearly, like Peterson, someone who can create an illusion of vast learning and deep understanding despite his stuff being mainly confected waffle.
Why was there a Renaissance? It had its roots in the Crusades. The excursions east to lands, then dominated by Islamists were far advanced in some respects. The library in Istanbul had in excess of 100,000 volumes, while the greatest university in Europe had less than 20,000. When the Crusaders returned home they knew that things could be different and better. The Reformation was born out of Renaissance which was born out of the Crusades. I don’t believe that’s what the institutional church planned.
This is way too simplistic. To begin with, there was not one "Renaissance" - there were several. The first - the rebirth of classical Latin scholarship under Charlemagne - happened centuries before the Crusades. And it was very much under the sponsorship of what you call "the institutional church". The second happened in the twelfth century and had nothing to do with the Crusades. Well before the Crusades the Latin West has already been in close contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily and it was in those places we see an exchange of scholarship, with Greek works that had been lost in the west being brought back via translations from their Arabic versions by western scholars. This was the real influx of Greek learning, not the very few and less siginificant works that came after the fall of Constantinople around the time of the so-called "THE Renaissance". And, again, it was very much with the enthusiastic participation of "the institutional church". And the claims that the Reformation and "Renaissance" were "born out of the Crusades" is so oversimplified that it would take a book to explain to you why. You seem stuck in a children's picture book grasp of history where "the institutional church" was "bad" and the "Reformation and "Renaissance" made everything "good" again. This is plain silly and not remotely close to anything that happened. History is not like that.
@@historyforatheists9363 Another very cool "renaissance" for fans of the remarkable woman Hroswitha of Gandersheim, the writer of the earliest European post-classical drama that survives, is the 10th century Ottonian, with its industrious scriptoria full of busy men and women, and very much monastically based.
I'm happy with a world with more skeptical inquirers and atheist, non believers of fairies, ghosts, spirits, soul and unfound undetected non confirmed ideas. Just saying. It does not bother me that religions have influence me and humanity since it's conception. It bothers me that they still and will continue to exists, when sufficient is there to beget something different, the stagnation bothers me, the slow progress of change bothers me. Reasons to discuss and look forward to make believers think what they may not dare to think as I used to simple hush my doubts and my conflicted emotions about my imagined god. And same vain, I would like all atheist, that is, those coming from religion, to be skeptical inquirers, like for real. To not speak as if they know about things they don't and then use that false knowledge for the sake of discussing the lies and falsehoods of religions.
"the slow progress of change bothers me". If you can explain how to get the notion of "progress" from a atheistic world view you will have the Berggruen Prize (=nobel of philosophy).
I applaud your zealousness but take exception with your ignorance of Christian beliefs and the history of the Christians do not believe in faeries. We do believe in metaphysical realities and a higher spiritual order of being.
@@JonasSalk The evidence is available for any sincere 🧐 intellectual. Of course if one stubbornly waits for absolute scientifically based evidence of God to show up in their inbox it is going to be a long wait.
I still can't believe people haven't picked up on the most obvious biblical seed against slavery. Hebrews were never allowed to keep each other as slaves. The most compelling narrative from the old testament was the rescue of the Hebrews from slavery, God never wanted his chosen people in bondage Christ brought that message and sonship to all people. Once you have gentile membership in the church, it's inevitable that that promise of exodus be fulfilled in them as well
No, that wasn't at all inevitable. Not unless one goes way out of their way to read into the text. If it was inevitable, the logic of it would've manifested immediately after Christianity took power. Instead it took well over a millenia. This is kinda why it was Quakers who first championed abolition. Quakerism threw away rigorous exegesis in favor of direct inspiration. They were liberated to find ways around the logic of what the text actually said. In order to get any of the virtues out of Christianity, one needs to sneak in when the theologians aren't paying attention. Otherwise orthodoxy will step in and snuff out everything positive, whilst it desperately demands credit for all the positive things it failed to snuff out.
I will have to read the book to see if the arguments are fleshed out any better, but after listening to the first half of this interview I already am concerned about a number of dubious claims about the supposed continuity and persistence of Christian practices/ideology and the supposed radical "otherness" of Greek/Roman culture. I think a lot of this has to do with a lack of class analysis. "The primal Christian revolution" as he calls it, is as simplistic an idea as "the" Enlightenment. And trying to trace a continuous line from that quasi-event through to his own "suspicion of superstition" is just bizarre. Where is this "primal Christian revolution" located historically? The Jesus movement was not itself "Christian", rather it was one variety of Messianic Judaism. In what way is "Christianity" (understood as some single essential ideological kernel or impetus or something) the precursor to "suspicion of superstition"? Was it Paul disparaging pagan idolatry? Or was it ancient priests advocating for monolatry (the follow up would be which priests)? Something else? Are you actually claiming that in some significant way someone somewhere in the long proto-Judeo-proto-Christian-post-Pauline-Christian lineage (which was anything but a single continuous line) can actually be credited with the invention of "suspicion of superstition"? This sounds actually preposterous. Then you claim it is common to presume that the Greeks and Romans were "just like us". But no one is saying that and who is this "us" anyway? It is just a straw man claim to make the counter that they were "totally different" from "us" (again, who is "us"?) sound more plausible. It should be obvious that they were both very different but also not unintelligibly so. To take the example of torturing slaves to extract testimony. The logic for this makes perfect sense in the context in which they lived and the practice was also contested and considered inhumane by contemporaries as well. Again we live in a world where "we" are putting circular saw blades attached to buoys in the Rio Grande to severely injure and kill migrant families (both the migrants and the Gov of Texas ostensibly identifying as "Christian"). And if you go to dinner in Paris you set the baguette on the table instead of your plate and if the bread is facing "down" it is bad luck.
I have to say I finally got around to reading Dominion and I can't recommend it highly enough.
Are you a Spinozist? (or Pantheist)
@@Ok-bk5xx mmmm that's a good question geez I wonder ;)
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
I haven’t read “Dominion” yet but as an atheist with a interest in history I don’t understand why so many atheists are (kinda) allergic towards our Christian history and its legacy. We breathe it everyday
Because they are anti theists first. They have an irrational hatred of religion. And because of that, they are unable of understanding it and with it, the history of humanity.
Because as others have argued most "new atheists" arent atheists, and most of them can easily be classified as ignorant marcionists. What they say about the old testament God has been first noticed and formulated by Marcion.
Many atheists have an emotional foundation to their axiomatic position, and like to pretend it’s a rational and well thought out foundation. The reality of their beliefs having a foundation in Christianity sets off the emotional alarm bells.
@roberthak3695 OK, so most atheists also hold Marcion's opinion on the God of the New Testament? That's kinda a requirement for someone to be a "marcionist."
Anyhow, get real. Criticism of the Old Testament does not depend on Marcion. Anyone can critique it, totally independent of any influence from Marcion, as is the case for basically all modern critics. Marcion's influence was completely snuffed out, and we only hear of him or his ideas through the words of his proto-orthodox critics. There is zero scope for his influence to accidentally worm its way into heads of unwitting modern people. Marcion has nothing to do with it when a modern person criticizes the Old Testament. It's straight up laughable to claim that condemning clear acts of g3n0cide, s3x trafficking, etc., etc., require the surreptitious help of Marcion's ghost.
Shouldn't need to be allergic. Unlike Christianity and similar views of the world, secular, liberal, humanistic ideology can survive a scrutiny that denies it its chosen grandiose origin story.
Kinda like how, when that Muslim challenged Holland as to why he did to Islam what he would supposedly never do to his own beliefs ("do" referring to how he claimed a mundane origin story for Islam, absent any angel appearing to a prophet), this Muslim was not asking Holland to challenge his own beliefs so much as to leave Islam alone. Holland, however, took the opposite message from that interaction and went about demystifying the origins of secular liberalism. He did this because secular liberalism can take it. It doesn't require a story of divine revelation to validate it. Islam and Christianity, however, are desperately dependent on their fantastical origin stories, so they can not take it.
Great channel! Tom Holland’s books are some of my favorites. Keep up the great work.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
There's gonna be some militant atheists and mythicists that won't get through this interview without having a heart attack! Giving Christians credit for anything is anathema to them!
Militant atheism is a religion
although i think AC Grayling had some important points made during his heated discussion with tom holland on his book while they were on Unbelievable.
@@Samsgarden No it isn't.
Especially science and secularism.
@@Samsgarden I don’t think it is but it sure does work like one
Excellent interview. Do you have any recommendations of books that are more balanced concerning the Enlightenment? Everything I've read suggests it was this universally great thing. I've been skeptical of this narrative for a while now.
Be very skeptical of that narrative. Be skeptical of the narrative regarding the “Protestant Reformation”, “The Crusades” and “The Inquisition” among others.
Hi Tim, currently reading Dominion and greatly enjoying it!
Have you read 'In the shadow of the sword: The battle for global empire and the end of the ancient world' by Tom Holland? I recently watched his controversial documentary on the origins of Islam 'Islam: The untold story'. Hence, I've been meaning to read the book. But I came across some reviews that the book/documentary was based on revisionist islamic history (that started out in the 1970s) which apparently most respected scholars of Islamic studies consider too critical and therefore inaccurate. I know Tom Holland is a reliable historian but these reviews have made me concerned that maybe his work on the origin of Islam is not heavily reliable. Have you read the book or watched the documentary? If so, what are your thoughts?
Also, if you can, can you suggest any reliable works on the origins of Islam, historicity of Muhammad and the golden age of Islam?
Thanks :)
"Whatsa-matta you, hey! gotta no respect..." -- when I was DJing I used to play that silly song!!
Seeing these two have a dialogue is an unexpected surprise.
Tom, do you have a particular book on the Middle Ages that you would recommend? Like so many I barely know anything about it, and I'm afraid to get some book which is too biased in one direction.
I have read some of your blogposts on it.
Are you asking Tom or Tim? I'd recommend anything by Oxford's Chris Wickham, especially his "Medieval Europe" (2016).
@@historyforatheists9363 I got confused. I meant you. But thank you! That seems like a good start.
This is awesome. Thanks for this, Tim.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Haven't gotten around to Dominion yet, but I remember being enthralled by Rubicon when it came out in paperback so so many years ago...except, all I really recall of Rubicon is one scattered section that kind of makes me giggle a bit even now - where Holland actually views the development of a more elaborate art if cookery as some signal of cultural decadence bc " food is supposed to be for nourishment..." (I paraphrase). Kind of a hysterical sentiment coming from a supposed historian, but we are talking 20years ago!
Great conversation, though. Big fan, Tim, and it's about time we get to see you more often on your own channel. Congrats, and Cheers!
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Very nice - Tom Holland needs to be heard more (even though he is of course already well known)! Few things I might disagree with but overall, an excellent thesis!
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Holland is a nonbeliever; however, I have seen interviews he has done with Christians in which he admits he wants very much to believe. In one, he says he's in the position of a man standing on a diving board, looking down and wanting to jump. Question: if Holland announces one of these days that he is no longer an atheist, will Tim still find him a credible source? Personally, I don't see why Tim wouldn't as long as Holland steers clear of apologetics in his books, but critics would certainly claim that his faith would color his reasoning. Tim remains comfortable in his atheism; it's clear from other interviews he has done that Holland, increasingly, is not.
My non-belief is not some tribal thing where I only use sources by other atheists and only endorse atheist scholars and writers. I'm interested in good scholarship and arguments that are well-supported. If Tom does come to believe again that will be his business not mine. I suspect his politics are to the right of mine, but that doesn't change the things we agree on about history. If that change in belief meant his writings began to take on a slant in his arguments which I didn't think was well-supported, I'd say so. I still refer to Rodney Stark's early work. Unfortunately, once Stark converted to Christianity his books have increasingly turned into apologism. And they are largely junk as a result. This is not a matter of who is in what camp, but who is doing good work. Dale C. Allison is a Christian, but he is doing some of the best writing on the origins of Christianity in the field today. Philip Jenkins is a Christian and a conservative, but several of his books on the history of Christianity are excellent and insightful work. I'm about quality, not tribalism.
@@historyforatheists9363 I am glad to read that. I would agree that once a historian becomes an apologist, he is no longer a historian. I've haven't read Allison so thanks for the tip.
And I would pay good coin and park myself in front of the computer with beer and popcorn to watch either you or Holland debate Sam Harris, who strikes me as the most insufferably smug New Atheist. But alas, I doubt Harris is dumb enough to agree to a debate.
@@dm-gq5uj AHAHAH, above Dawkins and Dennett? Sam is on the more civil side I would say :)
Great point Dm. That is my issue with Tom Holland. He is quick to attack atheists but when Christians in interviews talk to him about Jesus he seems empathetic to it. That's why I found it hard to accept his findings and still doubt most of them frankly in his book Dominion. I did see him as someone who might be trying to win the Christian audience.
For Tim I am more willing to accept his criticisms because he is just as critical of Evangelical Christians where I come from here in America and appreciate that. So when he is debunking some atheist views on history he seems a credible source
I have a question what is Your thoughts on the ressuraction?
Given that I'm an atheist who concludes that Jesus was an ordinary human preacher, obviously I don't think there was any actual "Resurrection". For why I think his followers came to believe he had, in some sense, "risen", you can find a summary here: www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
Okay thanks
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
I predict this channel will grow by leaps and bounds. 👍
Tim, would you ever have a debate with AronRa? You've engaged with his thought more than once but it's rare for someone to systemically challenge him point by point.
Firstly, as I've often said, I don't think debates are useful ways to settle questions of history. Secondly, there's nothing to "debate" with him regarding the historical topics I've criticised him on - he's simply wrong. End of "debate". Finally, he's still smarting over the spankings I've given him and there's no way he'd agree to any interaction with me.
I doubt Tim would even concede to calling him by his fake name AronRa.
I'm writing my thesis on a certain aspect of classical religion and I think I can corroborate/relate his basic premise. In my experience ancient thought was pervaded by sophisticated (pun intended) pagan theology we barely understand at all anymore. People just don't get taught in basic childhood history class how intense and intelligent pagan thought was. What makes it so alien to us is that it has been so thoroughly replaced by the Christian ethos. So when you have real pagan theology to compare it to, it's easier to see how even Enlightenment thought was essentially Christian flavored in it's worldview.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
As a Christian I am thankful for this channel. It provides me with a repository of good historical information for review, and one I can cite in response to Atheists and skeptics who might not accept the arguments of Christians. In relation to Tom Holland, his thesis is a fascinating one.
You will find a wealth of this line of historical investigation in the Catholic church and Catholic authors of history.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
At about 18:17 Tom says “ Nothing comes from nothing.” I agree. Does that truth include cosmology?
Historians seems to often confuse association with causality. Why does Christian values have to come from Persian Zoroaster and not from Christ?
Christ did not share many of the values of either the Jews of His time or that of Persian Zoroastrian believes. That there are some similarities doesn't make the earlier origin of the latter.
Please can we have more podcasts Tim
Yes, sorry for the hiatus. A new one on Halloween will be up in time for ... Halloween.
@@historyforatheists9363 good man 👍
I think Peppa Pigs young brother George could be based on Tom Holland.
14:44 - what is that adjective that Tom Holland uses? Grogrinal? I mustve tried a dozen possible spellings and I'm none the wiser!
It’s “Grand Guignol”. That’s a reference to a type of nineteenth century French theatre that was melodramatic and also centred on gory horror.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thank you so much! That's another youtube hole for me to fall down
Tim, what are your thoughts of morality without God? I’m assuming, as an atheist, that you’d say one can have morals without a deity, but the point Tom makes of western secular morals essentially being Christian is interesting. I’d suppose the societies of pre Christian life, Greece and Rome as Tom mentioned, did have morals, but just not what we’d consider moral now. Great video, thanks Tim.
And if I misinterpreted or missed something, please don’t go hard on me ;)
I would say that yes, we can have morals without any God or gods. There's no contradiction between that and the recognition that a lot of what we consider to be moral has been shaped by Christianity. Once I realised I no longer believed in God, I looked at what that meant for my understanding of right and wrong. I found that very little changed - I could find perfectly rational reasons to not murder people, to not cheat on my partner etc. I did abandon some elements of Christian morality though: I could see no reason to maintain many of the Christian ideas about homosexuality, masturbation or using certain names of God when swearing, for example. I could see no rational reason those things would be "immoral" once the "because God says so" thing went away.
The Moral Argument DrCraig videos (5:02 mins) on youtube
This was a good interview with Holland by the way 👏 bravo
@@stephenglasse9756 pardon?
@@christianf5131 In regard to the issue of morality and it's dependence (or otherwise) on God you might like to watch the 5 minutes animated video THE MORAL ARGUMENT on youtube by DrCraig videos.
In response to History for Atheists I thought his interview with Tom was very good. There's another interview with Tom by Glen Scrivener.
@@stephenglasse9756 I’m more in line with Tim on this one.
I don't believe my ears. Paul absorbed Stoicism "even if he hadn't actually read Epictetus." ?? Paul was dead before anything about Epictetus was written. Epictetus never wrote anything himself. How could he even have had a chance?
Try thinking about what was said more carefully.
Hmm interesting. I just flicked over to that conversation and I'm led to think we didn't watch the same thing. A C Grayling was perfectly calm and courteous.
Frankly, I think we've made a massive leap to conclude that western values come exclusively from christianity when only comparing them to Greeks and Romans. Just like calculus was discovered by Newton and Liebniz, independently, and evolution was discovered by Darwin and Wallace, independently, values of humility, kindness and generosity have also arisen in multiple cultures at various times in history. It's unfortunate that Chinese culture didn't really get a look in on in this book, and I don't think Buddha got a single mention. If all good values originate with christianity, this requires explanation
"A C Grayling was perfectly calm and courteous."
Grayling got increasingly annoyed, insisting that his erroneous and facile grasp of history was correct. It wasn't. See historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/
"this requires explanation"
The book's subtitle is "The Making of the Western Mind". Your requirted answer is found in the fifth word in that phrase. Mystery solved.
@@historyforatheists9363 Don't think so. Those values are not only western, they're universal. Obviously, because they crop up in different, unrelated places. Richard Dawkins has a better explanation
Grayling did get some stuff wrong, but he didn't get any more heat up about it than did TH. Dominion is a good book, but it does not nail the subject down hard enough to jump to such a conclusion. There's way more work to be done before you can do that
@@maddi62 Again, the book is on how those value’s developed in the West. Your claim it should look at the development of somewhat similar ideas elsewhere makes no sense. That would be a different book.
And you just went from claiming Grayling didn’t get irritated to admitting he did.
@@historyforatheists9363 The conclusion of the book, which I suspect is little more than a marketing angle, is that western values originate from christianity. Like I said, I like the book, but it doesn't support this conclusion. Credit to Jesus, He gave voice to them in the West, whether by designed or coincidence, but they didn't originate with him. He happened upon the same discovery as others, elsewhere.
I found A C Grayling to be gracious and respectful. Also wrong on a single point that I don't consider especially significant, which both parties fixated a little too much on in defense of their own writings. Dawkins gives an explanation that transcends the pair, and takes the discussion to a whole deeper level. I'm sure we'll figure ir out at some point
@@maddi62 Your first paragraph makes no sense. Again, the book is about the origin of WESTERN values. You claim the book is wrong that these are found in Christianity, but then admit … actually, they are. The fact that similar values arose in other cultures is interesting, but not relevant to how they arose in WESTERN v thought.
Grayling is dead wrong on multiple points. Laughably so. I’ve given you my detailed article on this. Please read it.
And I have no idea where Dawkins comes into this, but his grasp of history makes that of Grayling look profound and accurate. You seem highly confused.
This is a positively brilliant discussion.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Possibly "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes would be of interest with respect to the difference in the classical mentality and the Christian. Carl Sagan created a video, set in a virtual re-creation of the Library of Alexandria, in which he theorized that slavery vitiated the strength of Greece because it made the philosophers reluctant to get their hands dirty in experimentation and led them to the idea that science research had to be with high-toned reference to pure introspection of truth in their ivory tower. Slaves did all the practical work which was beneath the free Greeks. [Edit: extreme examples of this disregard of utility are the binding of feet in China, and Vietnamese aristocratic ladies letting their fingernails grow to foot long length, curling around, to demonstrate that they never stooped to so much as chopping turmeric. ] The slaves were not free to do practical scientific experimentation so almost no one did. Perhaps Archimedes did. Maybe Sagan's video was part of his "Cosmos" TV series. [ Edit: Sagan does not argue about the immorality of slavery, he goes to the end and sees that it ruined Greece. Poetic justice. ] [Edit: A link to Sagan's presentation on the Great Library of Alexandria is vimeo.com/15107421?ref=fb-share&fbclid=IwY2xjawEYD5VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHT7TrOjf2EX9snwyXBOCD4dXsurMUxka0HQUU7odCLz0axf_cgT7R1_RvA_aem_xC0ehAgbGpt19pagXHBFKg In the third part are found his ideas about slavery and ancient philosophy, mathematics and science. It is not very close to my memory of it as outlined above, sorry, but one may see for oneself in the video. Perhaps my idea that slavery robbed Greece of "hands-on" science came from elsewhere or maybe I have only imagined it. He did say that slavery was not good for Greek culture, and he attributed the failure of the Library to not putting its discoveries to practical use in reducing hard labour, but only using it to conjure magic tricks in support of mysticism, or to impress kings, or for toys. It occurs to me that with slaves there is less need to reduce hard labour. He does say that slavery was terribly immoral and that none of the Library's intellectuals ever challenged it or other social political injustice ] Edit: The Library may not have been destroyed by a mob. Here is a link to a blog by Richard Carrier on the fate of the Library which seems comprehensive compared to what little I had heard before www.richardcarrier.info/archives/29806 . Seems possible it was a Muslim warlord who ordered its destruction. Sagan's presentation of what the library was like and his dramatization of the terrible loss still seems imressive to me, though some of his conclusions about its lack of outreach and the bad effect of slavery may need re consideration in view of the new info in the blog. There are a lot of versions of both the library's fall and, on YT, several contrasting versions of the martyrdom of Hypatia so that Sagan may have been presenting a belief that was then considered correct. Archaeology etc have made great advances in the decades since Cosmos was produced.
Maybe humanism is partly a transformation of consciousness as well as an ethical code. Maybe some Greeks who visited the Mysteries at Eleusis became more humanist than the generality. [Edit: I don't know whether Aristotle gave that a go. ] Aristotle is said to have believed that slaves were by their own nature inferior, which seems wrong since some slaves were captives who had been high level. Aristotle could have been captured and enslaved. He seems to have had a convenient blind spot which allowed him to ignore the suffering of the slaves. [ Edit: but here is a link (thanks to Quora for this www.quora.com/How-different-was-Greek-slavery-from-Roman-slavery?q=greek%20roman%20slavery) to what Aristotle wrote himself: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/greek-slaves.asp I don't understand him. He says barbarians are naturally too benighted for anything else. But he does not say anything that I find clear about Hellenes who may have been forced into slavery. ] He also promoted the common sense theory of geocentricity. I wonder whether Aristarchus, who had the right cosmology due to his practical observations, and from whose work Copernicus got his start, had also a better take on slavery than Aristotle. [Edit: But Aristotle and Ptolemy's geocentric model became dominant. Few heard of Aristarchus'. Also, Aristotle may be an example of the Swiftian Laputan separation from reality that Sagan referred to. Aristotle's physics had heavier objects falling faster which is wrong because they have more inertia to resist the stronger force which gravity exerts on them. Galileo, thousands of years later, despite being embedded in a science justified by authority and deeply Aristotelian, finally did an experiment. There is no record of Aristotle ever having done something so barbarous. As well as the obvious common sense perception that the Sun goes around us, Aristotle's physics said that things fall towards the centre of the universe. If the Earth were not the centre - mayhem would ensue. ref: The Galileo Project at Rice University. ]
Thanks to Tim O'Neill for pointing out things about Darwin and the Tasmanians I didn't know. With help from Wikipedia I found www.utas.edu.au/library/exhibitions/darwin/hobart.html.
The part around 20 mins where Holland says (about Christianity) "you'd expect it to bare the stamp of the world from which it emerges" is right, but can surely be used to rebut his main thesis and argue the same for the Enlightenment and whole modern world too? I.e. that it came out of Christianity, but is radical too? Seems fairly obvious to me. We've kept some good parts from Christian philosophy and got rid of god.
I can't see how that rebuts his thesis. He's not saying the western mental world *only* came from Christian ideas, just that it substantially did so. And if you read his book you'll see he makes a strong argument that "the Enlightenment", far from being some reaction against core Christian ideas, was very part an extension of them. And yes, "we've kept some good parts from Christian philosophy and got rid of god." That's pretty much what he's saying.
@@historyforatheists9363 "as very part an extension of them. And yes, "we've kept some good parts from Christian philosophy and got rid of god." That's pretty much what he's saying."
So again, why can´t you say that about Christianity (as an extension of jewish and hellenistic ideas in which it was based too)? Seems to me there is a double standard there. And how is that you can the Enlightment be an extension of Christian ideas, and reject the very core aspect of it (the existence of God!)?
@@mendez704 "Seems to me there is a double standard there."
There is? Where? How?
@@historyforatheists9363 How?
Well, because in one case you are asserting the total independence of one movement in history from the roots it originated (Christianity in regard to Judaism and the Hellenistic world in which it was forged), and in the other you are calling for a total or almost total dependence of another movement (the Enlightenment ) from its roots (Christian dominated society in Europe). It seems that Holland pretends that the only truly original form of thought in the West is Christianity, but the fact is that Christianity itself did not appear out of nothing and disconnected from its social and cultural roots (the same way you cannot say the Enlightenment is some sort of radical rupture with Christianity).
@historyforatheists9363 "And yes, 'we've kept some good parts from Christianity and got rid of god.' That's pretty much what he's saying."
This is pretty a much a problem with Holland. *_He_* might be saying this when one reads his material carefully, but he's willing to indulge Christians who use his work to claim much more outlandish things. Such as the notion these "good parts from Christianity" could not possibly exist were it not for Christianity, or the idea that they could not _continue_ to exist if Christianity fails to continue. They'll go so far as to claim copyright on altruism, demanding license fees in the form of credit anytime anything good happens anywhere. I haven't found evidence to support these claims in Holland's book, but that's kinda immaterial to how he gets used.
Protestantism
Faith and Scripture
Catholicism
Faith, reason, scripture
and tradition.
Anglicanism believes in holy tradition. Well at least until about the 1970s when it seemed to stop believing in any of it.
@@HueyPPLong Yep and catholics seem to be tossing a lot of it too.
@@HueyPPLong
Anglican here ( at least the ACNA-type). Scripture, tradition, faith, and reason. Yes!
Where's the place for mystical experience in either list? I guess faith?
Christianity has canonisation and churches or maybe central institutions. Islam has no central institution. And Islam teaches you are born without sin and you can chose. Islam teaches you self resposebility. Judaism teaches you to make this world a better place. Which Christianity is waiting for the end of this world right? But Christianity teaches you to respect your fellow man.
Tom's doing well - 3 Ipads
Is Tim's book shelf fake?
No, that’s a photo of my actual bookshelves. I use it as a background because I shoot interviews in my study, while my books are in my living room.
@@historyforatheists9363 Ahh I see. Just wanted to make sure before the atheists piled in. Great interview
@@krileayn When I used this background when doing an interview about the problems with Jesus Mythicism, a commenter sneered that the Mythicist Robert Price who had been interviewed before me "has a collection of real books on his shelves, but this guy (me) just has a fake background". I had to break it to him that the "fake background" was a photo of my "collection of real books".
authors like bookshelves in the background in the same way Doctors like to parade around the surgery with a stethoscope, some even put it on in the carpark so everyone knows hes a doctor..😂
Good one!
💥I find his word insidious as pertains to the spread of Christianity amusing in its passive aggressive undertone.
Wow I am so happy I found this channel! You should collaborate with other TH-camrs like InspiringPhilosophy and Capturing Christianity!
My target audience is atheists. So I don't think collaborating with Christian apologists is really going help me with my aims. But I'm glad you find the channel useful.
Despite my lack of knowledge, Inspiring Philosophy seems to pick and choose certain historical “facts” to support his case. Either way though, his videos are still somewhat of a pleasure to watch.
@@elijahyoung11 I don't particularly like inspiringphilosophy since he seems to represent people by straw manning them sometimes. He even does it with his fellow Christian's when it suits him though rarely. Honestly sometimes anti-theists are more logical than him on certain subject matters. Particularly when some youtuber was refuting him when inspiringphilosophy claims atheists are suffering from circular reasoning when it comes to evolution and inspiringphilosophy claiming evolution supports God which it doesn't. Evolution supports neither Atheism or Religion. Though I agree mostly with Tim on the history of religion since it's more complicated than what anti-theists claim. Jesus did exist though wheather he rose from the dead is a religious matter. Religion tarnishing science is false and atheists are also prone to genocide as much as religious people. I used to be an anti-theist so you might give me a grain of salt when I say that, but still his arguments seem to be just a childish way to try and make atheists seem completely dumb even though the reasoning atheistas imploy is completely justifiable just like most other beliefs that support X/disbelief on X/beliefs that go against X. That's just me though.
I was your 1000th subscriber 😂
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Christianity is a home for civilization
How does the Hebrew belief outlined in Genesis that man has a spark of the divine because God's breath is in him not inform Paul's writing more than the writings in stoicism
Did someone say it didn’t?
Reference is approximately 32:25 onwards. Just trying to sort out when to infer the influence of (in this case stoicism) a belief on a historical figure. Fab discussion.
@@robyngray6667 I still don't understand your original question. Holland talks about the influence of Greek philosophy on Paul, but emphasises that his letters "are not philosophical tracts" and are more meditations on on the Hebrew Bible. So where are you getting the idea that Genesis was somehow *not* more influential on him than Stocisim? That is not anywhere in anything Holland (or I) say. Both influenced Paul, though the Hebrew Bible more than anything else.
This strikes me as a bit of a reductive perspective. Perhaps I just need to do more research on this, but it seems ridiculous to discount the other elements that have shaped the modern world. Without the Greek philosophers then I imagine that we wouldn't have arrived at the democratic structures that exist today, and without the enlightenment we wouldn't have shaped the present world through the trials of the 19th and 20th century.
I would also argue that though many of the espoused values and virtues of the modern western world do reflect the messages in the bible, the actual practiced values of many westerners (at least in my experience) are more along the lines of consumerism and individualism with a sort of pragmatic indifference to the deeper values of the Christians.
Try reading Holland's book rather than arguing against things he doesn't say and saying he should acknowledge things that he fully acknowledges.
@@historyforatheists9363 good idea. I was primarily expressing an argument against someone who had represented Holland's work in this way. Yelling into the void of youtube comments because people in real life are often not reasonable enough to engage in these conversations properly. To be honest I only watched 2 mins of the video itself.
Thanks for that mate he`s great
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
One of Spenglers great observations before he went off the deep end was how alien great cultures are from one another.
Tim,
Around 53:50 Tom gets a little bogged down trying to defend Darwin's non-racism simply because he was an abolitionist. You allude to Darwin's walrus-and-carpenter attitude towards the Tasmanian genocide but Tom insists that an abolitionist cannot have had such an attitude. Tom is wrong.
fantastic historian that he is, he really should study our American abolitionists like Senator Benjamin Wade, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Julian Sturtevant, Louis Aggasiz. All these men had their abolitionist cards validated and yet they were virulent racists. Wade and Agassiz literally couldn't stomach the sight of black people and it seems to have been a matter of extreme indifference to Emerson and Sturtevant if the freed slaves went extinct in North America (at least our abolitionist president only wanted to deport them!)
Not all 19th Cty abolitionists,of course, were racists but some prominent ones definitely were. I know it's hard to believe.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Thanks, Father!!!
👏🙂
I absolutely love this channel! Regarding this particular video I am less enthusiastic.
Based solely on this interview, I find Holland’s thesis simplistic, problematic, and possibly unfalsifiable.
It whitewashes the socially regressive and patriarchal/misogynistic ideas of Christianity, its vile history of oppression and persecution of Jews as ‘Christ Killers’, fails to define what ‘Christianity’ even is (it depends on who you ask and what parts of scripture you read), and ignores the fact that kindness, compassion, and philanthropy were concepts that were well entrenched in early Greek thought and ethics- not to mention many other non-Western religious and philosophical traditions that existed before Jesus came on the scene. The idea that kindness, generosity, humility, and compassion were invented by Judeo-Christianity is, of course, utter nonsense!
The thesis also neglects to consider that the scientific approach to understanding the world is quite antithetical to Judeo-Christian perspectives which rely rather uncritically on revelation, mysticism, hearsay, wishful/magical thinking, post-hoc reasoning, retrofitting, and shear make-believe. I’m not aware of any statement in the Hebrew or Christian bible which praised empirical observation, intelligence, skepticism, and reason, which were hallmarks of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Scientific Age.
My sense is that Holland, like other Christian apologists, very much WANTS to be ‘Christian’ (whatever that means) and has structured his thesis to give his desire a veneer of intellectual respectability. To test and confirm his thesis, one would have to re-run history without Christianity and observe that we would not have ended up with our current set of modern Western ideas (whatever those are). Of course, because we cannot rewind history and change it his thesis must remain speculative at best. One could just as well argue that we would have arrived at our present situation hundreds of years earlier had it not been for Christianity dragging down human progress. Perhaps he addresses all these problematic issues in this book, but this interview, as eloquent and intelligent as the host and guest are, does not give me much confidence that he does.
@@i_am_nature919 “Based solely on this interview …”
That would be your problem. He is well aware of all the things you refer to, but we couldn’t cover everything in an interview. If you read his book you’ll find you’ve assumed a lot about his arguments and most of what you’ve assumed is wrong.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for the reply! Fair enough. If all of these issues are considered in the book as you suggest, I'll give it a read. But if the thesis is merely that Western thought (however that is defined) was influenced by Christianity, I don't see it as particularly radical or surprising. Western ideas were shaped by numerous religious, philosophical, and social movements that historically led up to the present day. And Christianity was influenced by numerous traditions that preceded it, including those of Ancient Egypt and of course Judaism. Jesus was a Jew after all and his moral teachings relied heavily on Jewish scriptural texts with which he was very familiar.
@@i_am_nature919 Thevthesis is that many things people think of as just “natural” or “obvious” were unknown before Christianity. Other things that existed before Christianity were substantially shaped by it to a greater extent than most people realise. And some things that many assume were alien to Christianity (like scientific inquiry) were actually heavily based on its worldview.
@@historyforatheists9363 Hippocrates? Thales of Miletus? Archimedes? These doctors and scientists lived centuries before Christ. Sorry, but I just don't see any substantive precursors of scientific inquiry in Judaism or Christianity. But I'm open to be proven wrong on this.
I'll take Tom Holland any day over the usual suspects Robert Price, Richard Carrier. AronRa, et al spouting the same ol same ol. You might not get a chance to interview a big shot like Jordan Peterson, but you should consider Paul VanderKlay or Jonathan Pageau.
I think Peterson is a tedious lightweight and am baffled why anyone pays any attention to him. I've never heard of those other two, but - having Googled them and looked at their TH-cam channels - I have no idea why I'd bother interviewing either of them. I can't see they have any expertise or offer anything relevant to this channel's aims.
@@historyforatheists9363 Respectfully, what does Tom Holland do to further the channel's aims? I've read Dominion and loved it. I only brought these other people up, because they are in the same vein as Holland. What is your specific gripe with JPB? It just seems out of place that you would platform Holland and denigrate Peterson. BTW- since you're baffled, it's because JBP tells people how to find meaning in their lives. Most atheists restrict themselves to science and the material, but that can't objectively tell a person what to love, what to be and what to know or even what to do. And when atheists like Sam Harris or Matt Dillahunty go outside the box, it's not objective and hollow. Thank you for your time.
@@ArmchairPhilosopher360 Tom has a deep understanding of history and presents a perspective on it that draws on views that are directly counter to the cartoonish history utilised by New Atheists. This is why A.C. Grayling objects to his conclusions so vehemently (and so incompetently). So his book is of direct relevance to the themes of History for Atheists. I see no evidence that Peterson has any particular grasp of history at all and all I've heard from him, when distilled from his convoluted faux profundity, is weak pop philosophy of the most puerile kind. And, as I said, I can make out what possible relevance those other two people you mentioned would have to anything I discuss.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thank you for your response. I have enjoyed many of your articles and appearances on YT. I appreciate your point of view. Is it just Peterson you object to, or it the entire Jungian orbit, including Jung, Joseph Cambell, JBP, Erich Neumann, etc? Do you believe Peterson's hit Biblical lectures series is merely pop philosophy? It certainly is popular, but millions of people sincerely believe they have been helped. I only mentioned these other people because they're in the same orbit and counter cartoonish Bible thumping versions of what militant atheists imagine what Christian-ish types must believe. I'm not even a believer, but I understand how such narratives impact a person's life for the better. Best regards and wishing you well.
@@ArmchairPhilosopher360 Yes, I consider Jung's stuff to be semi-mystical nonsense and have never been able to understand what anyone sees in Campbell's ponderous stuff. He was in vogue for a while back in the late 1980s and I watched the series of interviews with him on (I think) PBS. He made a series of claims about medieval literature that were total nonsense and he was pretty clearly, like Peterson, someone who can create an illusion of vast learning and deep understanding despite his stuff being mainly confected waffle.
Why was there a Renaissance? It had its roots in the Crusades. The excursions east to lands, then dominated by Islamists were far advanced in some respects. The library in Istanbul had in excess of 100,000 volumes, while the greatest university in Europe had less than 20,000. When the Crusaders returned home they knew that things could be different and better. The Reformation was born out of Renaissance which was born out of the Crusades. I don’t believe that’s what the institutional church planned.
This is way too simplistic. To begin with, there was not one "Renaissance" - there were several. The first - the rebirth of classical Latin scholarship under Charlemagne - happened centuries before the Crusades. And it was very much under the sponsorship of what you call "the institutional church". The second happened in the twelfth century and had nothing to do with the Crusades. Well before the Crusades the Latin West has already been in close contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily and it was in those places we see an exchange of scholarship, with Greek works that had been lost in the west being brought back via translations from their Arabic versions by western scholars. This was the real influx of Greek learning, not the very few and less siginificant works that came after the fall of Constantinople around the time of the so-called "THE Renaissance". And, again, it was very much with the enthusiastic participation of "the institutional church".
And the claims that the Reformation and "Renaissance" were "born out of the Crusades" is so oversimplified that it would take a book to explain to you why. You seem stuck in a children's picture book grasp of history where "the institutional church" was "bad" and the "Reformation and "Renaissance" made everything "good" again. This is plain silly and not remotely close to anything that happened. History is not like that.
@@historyforatheists9363 Another very cool "renaissance" for fans of the remarkable woman Hroswitha of Gandersheim, the writer of the earliest European post-classical drama that survives, is the 10th century Ottonian, with its industrious scriptoria full of busy men and women, and very much monastically based.
I'm happy with a world with more skeptical inquirers and atheist, non believers of fairies, ghosts, spirits, soul and unfound undetected non confirmed ideas. Just saying. It does not bother me that religions have influence me and humanity since it's conception. It bothers me that they still and will continue to exists, when sufficient is there to beget something different, the stagnation bothers me, the slow progress of change bothers me. Reasons to discuss and look forward to make believers think what they may not dare to think as I used to simple hush my doubts and my conflicted emotions about my imagined god.
And same vain, I would like all atheist, that is, those coming from religion, to be skeptical inquirers, like for real. To not speak as if they know about things they don't and then use that false knowledge for the sake of discussing the lies and falsehoods of religions.
"the slow progress of change bothers me". If you can explain how to get the notion of "progress" from a atheistic world view you will have the Berggruen Prize (=nobel of philosophy).
I applaud your zealousness but take exception with your ignorance of Christian beliefs and the history of the Christians do not believe in faeries. We do believe in metaphysical realities and a higher spiritual order of being.
Totally agree.
All enquiry should begin in a Socratic spirit, with an interrogation whether we actually know what we think we know.
Tom is on his way to becoming a Catholic.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Atheist converts often become amazing Catholic apologists.
It seems like Tom heavily relies on an evidence-based outlook, so he won't be converting to Catholicism any time soon.
@@JonasSalk The evidence is available for any sincere 🧐 intellectual. Of course if one stubbornly waits for absolute scientifically based evidence of God to show up in their inbox it is going to be a long wait.
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
Tom becoming a Catholic he's not stupid, the belief in the resurrection, the Trinity , the infallibility of popery etc 🙄 seriously.
I still can't believe people haven't picked up on the most obvious biblical seed against slavery. Hebrews were never allowed to keep each other as slaves. The most compelling narrative from the old testament was the rescue of the Hebrews from slavery, God never wanted his chosen people in bondage
Christ brought that message and sonship to all people. Once you have gentile membership in the church, it's inevitable that that promise of exodus be fulfilled in them as well
You may be interested in this video: th-cam.com/video/-AbYIj5TCuw/w-d-xo.html
The Old Testament and the New both condone slavery. They were written 2000 to 3300 years ago, but, Abolitionism? Not yet .....
No, that wasn't at all inevitable. Not unless one goes way out of their way to read into the text. If it was inevitable, the logic of it would've manifested immediately after Christianity took power. Instead it took well over a millenia. This is kinda why it was Quakers who first championed abolition. Quakerism threw away rigorous exegesis in favor of direct inspiration. They were liberated to find ways around the logic of what the text actually said.
In order to get any of the virtues out of Christianity, one needs to sneak in when the theologians aren't paying attention. Otherwise orthodoxy will step in and snuff out everything positive, whilst it desperately demands credit for all the positive things it failed to snuff out.
@@somexp12 Quackers 🦆
@@imperfekt7905 Excuse me. Quakers.
First thumbs down.
I will have to read the book to see if the arguments are fleshed out any better, but after listening to the first half of this interview I already am concerned about a number of dubious claims about the supposed continuity and persistence of Christian practices/ideology and the supposed radical "otherness" of Greek/Roman culture. I think a lot of this has to do with a lack of class analysis.
"The primal Christian revolution" as he calls it, is as simplistic an idea as "the" Enlightenment. And trying to trace a continuous line from that quasi-event through to his own "suspicion of superstition" is just bizarre.
Where is this "primal Christian revolution" located historically? The Jesus movement was not itself "Christian", rather it was one variety of Messianic Judaism.
In what way is "Christianity" (understood as some single essential ideological kernel or impetus or something) the precursor to "suspicion of superstition"? Was it Paul disparaging pagan idolatry? Or was it ancient priests advocating for monolatry (the follow up would be which priests)? Something else? Are you actually claiming that in some significant way someone somewhere in the long proto-Judeo-proto-Christian-post-Pauline-Christian lineage (which was anything but a single continuous line) can actually be credited with the invention of "suspicion of superstition"? This sounds actually preposterous.
Then you claim it is common to presume that the Greeks and Romans were "just like us". But no one is saying that and who is this "us" anyway? It is just a straw man claim to make the counter that they were "totally different" from "us" (again, who is "us"?) sound more plausible. It should be obvious that they were both very different but also not unintelligibly so.
To take the example of torturing slaves to extract testimony. The logic for this makes perfect sense in the context in which they lived and the practice was also contested and considered inhumane by contemporaries as well. Again we live in a world where "we" are putting circular saw blades attached to buoys in the Rio Grande to severely injure and kill migrant families (both the migrants and the Gov of Texas ostensibly identifying as "Christian"). And if you go to dinner in Paris you set the baguette on the table instead of your plate and if the bread is facing "down" it is bad luck.
@@freezemyheaddootcoom “I will have to read the book”
Yes.