The predominant ways in which Christianity has spread are conversion by the sword, parent to child transmission, and social ostracism for people who refuse to believe it.
If this were true—and if it were an exhaustive list of the predominant ways—then I would expect to see the following:
Parent-to-child transmission only works if the parents are Christian. Social ostracisation only works if a majority of a given person’s possible social acquaintances are.
Thus, the only means on the list of introducing is into a new area is by the sword
Thus, I would expect missionaries to either have been abandoned, or to be given a sword as standard equipment on setting out. I do not see this.
Furthermore, I would expect to see, in countries where it is not a majority religion, it would slowly fade and die (as social ostracism is used against it by the majority)
Now, I am not saying that it is never spread by such means. (Fortunately, ‘by the sword’ appears to have been largely abandoned in recent history). But assuming it to be an exhaustive list does not appear to match reality—there seems to be a rather large gap where a single missionary, armed with nothing more than information and presumably a fairly persuasive tongue, can go into a large enough group of humans who have little or no previous knowledge of religion and end up persuading a number of them to join.
I would expect missionaries to either have been abandoned, or to be given a sword as standard equipment on setting out.
You would expect (peaceful) missionaries to be abandoned (at least as a tool for spreading Christianity to places where there is no Christianity) if there were a careful effort to track their effectiveness. I do not believe there usually is. Is your impression different?
If you look at the places where there are a lot of Christians, they do seem to match up pretty well with (1) where the Roman Empire was plus (2) places colonized by countries that used to be part of the Roman Empire.
One obvious counterexample is Korea, which (I think) is evidence that missionaries can sometimes introduce Christianity to a new place with long-term success. But what others are there?
(Incidentally, I think your analysis is incomplete. Another way to introduce Christianity to a new area would be immigration. I don’t know to what extent this has actually happened.)
I don’t think you need a careful effort to track their exact effectiveness. It would be fairly obvious in a couple of generations that peaceful missionaries would fall in one of two categories—either they have some success (as evidenced by some number of converts that they win over) or they have no success (as evidenced by every missionary outreach pretty much collapsing as soon as the missionary either leaves or dies).
A careful effort to track effectiveness could tell the difference between slight success and strong success, but I think that even with a merely cursory checkup people could tell the difference between some success and no success at all.
If you look at the places where there are a lot of Christians, they do seem to match up pretty well with (1) where the Roman Empire was plus (2) places colonized by countries that used to be part of the Roman Empire.
I’m not surprised. There are many possible explanations for this; a sufficient explanation might be that these are places that early (Latin-speaking) missionaries could be reasonably sure of finding Latin-speaking people, and thus were not required to face the additional hurdle of learning a new language first.
One obvious counterexample is Korea, which (I think) is evidence that missionaries can sometimes introduce Christianity to a new place with long-term success. But what others are there?
(Incidentally, I think your analysis is incomplete. Another way to introduce Christianity to a new area would be immigration. I don’t know to what extent this has actually happened.)
That is true. I don’t know to what extent that has happened either, but I imagine it would be accompanied (if successful) by a very strong spread of the immigrant’s culture in other ways, as well. (Such as language).
[...] or they have no success (as evidenced by every missionary outreach pretty much collapsing as soon as the missionary either leaves or dies).
I think missionaries are usually sent to particular places by organizations, and when one leaves another goes. So there isn’t opportunity to identify where they aren’t making progress. And the actual question isn’t really “no success” versus “any success”; no one claimed or implied that converting people is literally impossible, only that generally when Christianity spreads successfully it does so along with military conquest.
I’m not surprised.
You’re welcome to be (having had the facts pointed out to you) as surprised or unsurprised as you please; I remark that much the simplest explanation would seem to be that Christianity mostly spreads by military conquest.
would Japan count?
It’s hard to tell how big a Christian community the missionaries there were able to produce. (Right now, as I understand it, Japan is one of the world’s least religious countries, so I guess you are thinking of the 17th century.) So, I dunno: maybe?
… Oh, I thought of another way for Christianity to get into a new area that’s consistent with the “converting people is really ineffective” narrative. Again, no one claims that converting people is 100% ineffective. So, what you do is to find a place whose rulers are very much in control of the population, and send your missionaries to the royal court or whatever. They probably won’t convince the ruler, but if they do then bingo, you’ve got thousands or millions of new converts fairly immediately. I think this has happened once or twice. I bet it’s been attempted a lot more.
I think missionaries are usually sent to particular places by organizations, and when one leaves another goes.
It’s not going to be perfect. Sometimes there will be more missionaries than established places to send them, and new missions can be opened—but sometimes a missionary will, through mischance or malice, die before he’s expected to do so and there will be no replacement ready to send.
I don’t actually know about specific incidences, but there should be enough data on what happens when a mission is abandoned to be able to tell how successful it can be.
You’re welcome to be (having had the facts pointed out to you) as surprised or unsurprised as you please; I remark that much the simplest explanation would seem to be that Christianity mostly spreads by military conquest.
That is a simple explanation, yes. Another simple explanation is that Christianity mostly spreads where language barriers don’t get in the way.
I don’t see either of these two explanations as being significantly simpler than the other.
… Oh, I thought of another way for Christianity to get into a new area that’s consistent with the “converting people is really ineffective” narrative. Again, no one claims that converting people is 100% ineffective. So, what you do is to find a place whose rulers are very much in control of the population, and send your missionaries to the royal court or whatever. They probably won’t convince the ruler, but if they do then bingo, you’ve got thousands or millions of new converts fairly immediately. I think this has happened once or twice. I bet it’s been attempted a lot more.
Hmmmm. That would be a sensible scenario. There have also been cases where non-Christian rulers, perhaps fearing the political power of the church, made practice of the religion illegal, with severe punishments for doing so. Taking the two together, it seems fairly clear that converting the ruler would be a very important step for many successful missionaries.
there should be enough data on what happens when a mission is abandoned to be able to tell how successful it can be.
I remain doubtful, but perhaps you’re right.
where language barriers don’t get in the way
Also a reasonable hypothesis. Hmm, do we have cases where the boundaries of the Roman Empire don’t match up well with linguistic boundaries? Probably not, simply because anywhere conquered by the Romans would probably have tended to learn to speak Latin, producing an artificial lowering of language barriers within the empire.
cases where non-Christian rulers [...] made practice of the religion illegal
Yes. Though in the most famous recent case I can think of—the Soviet Union—it seems that they weren’t very effective in suppressing Christianity; it came back pretty strongly once the communists lost power. Still, paying a lot of attention to the ruler(s) does seem like an effective strategy for those wanting to spread a religion to a new place.
Going back to the higher-level question of how necessary conquest is to the spread of Christianity: there are apparently something like 100M Christians in China, and not because China was ever conquered by Christians. On the other hand, in the past there seem to have been multiple instances where Christian missions produced a fair number of converts but then the religion largely died out until the next wave of missionaries came in.
My impression after all this is as follows. (1) It is certainly not impossible for Christianity to spread without conquest, and there are a few major instances where it has done so. (2) Most of the world’s Christians, however, are part of Christian communities that got way way by conquest. (3) Attempts to spread Christianity by mere persuasion are sometimes very effective but often very ineffective.
I would expect that all these things apply equally to any other major religion. #2 will of course be untrue for religions that have never gained official approval by any political power, but we should expect all such religions to be pretty small in numbers for that exact reason. Maybe Hinduism is a sort of exception, being found almost exclusively in India, but I am shockingly ignorant of Indian history and don’t know whether e.g. there’s a history of conquest within what is now a single country.
Hmm, do we have cases where the boundaries of the Roman Empire don’t match up well with linguistic boundaries? Probably not, simply because anywhere conquered by the Romans would probably have tended to learn to speak Latin, producing an artificial lowering of language barriers within the empire.
Hmmm. I don’t know enough history to be able to name specific situations, but what about the other way round—countries that learned Latin without being conquered? (Perhaps for ease of trading?)
Though in the most famous recent case I can think of—the Soviet Union—it seems that they weren’t very effective in suppressing Christianity
I believe the Roman Empire once tried to suppress it as well. It doesn’t appear to have worked then, either.
Going back to the higher-level question of how necessary conquest is to the spread of Christianity: there are apparently something like 100M Christians in China, and not because China was ever conquered by Christians. On the other hand, in the past there seem to have been multiple instances where Christian missions produced a fair number of converts but then the religion largely died out until the next wave of missionaries came in.
Yes; there seem to have been specific instances where missionary conversion worked, and specific instances where it did not.
My impression after all this is as follows. (1) It is certainly not impossible for Christianity to spread without conquest, and there are a few major instances where it has done so. (2) Most of the world’s Christians, however, are part of Christian communities that got way way by conquest. (3) Attempts to spread Christianity by mere persuasion are sometimes very effective but often very ineffective.
Those conclusions do not seem unreasonable to me.
I would expect that all these things apply equally to any other major religion.
I think it also depends somewhat on the structure of the religion in question. Judaism doesn’t have missionaries, for example, and I don’t think there’s any way for a non-Jew to become a Jew (I may be wrong on that point, but if there is, the Jews certainly don’t advertise it).
You can convert to Judaism. However you are right that they are not actively interested in converting someone.
There seems to be a certain historical arc here. The earliest religions did not try to convert anyone because they were simply part of the culture of an individual nation, and you don’t convert people to a nationality. Judaism is part of this tradition but at the border of the next, namely the point where people realize that insofar as religions make claims about the world, it does not make sense for some people to accept them and some people to reject them. If a claim about the world is true, everyone should accept it. This leads religions to try to convert people. Now we are reaching a third stage: as even religious people come closer to realizing that those claims were not actually true in the first place, even the religious people are backing away again from converting people. An example would be Pope Francis condemning proselytism and saying that he is not interested in converting Evangelicals etc.
Consider also that religions that convert more people tend to spread faster and farther than religions that don’t. So over time religions should become more virulent.
The book “The Rise of Christianity” is an excellent analysis, using the tools of modern sociology, of the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Key insights
It grew exponentially mostly via transmission from people you knew. As your social world became more than 50% Christian, you were more likely to convert. In recent times Mormanism has grown in a similar fashion.
It had many rules that encouraged having large families (no birth control, no abortion, no infanticide, no sex outside marriage which encouraged young marriage, bans on many sources of fun other than having sex with your spouse, bans of divorce which made marriage more secure in a sense).
The higher status of women in Christianity than in the Roman world encouraged women to convert. An example of this higher status was that a pagan man could order his wife to have an abortion. Many of the patriarchal statements in the new testament were latter additions when the church, which was originally very egalitarian, did become very patriarchal.
Christians were only allowed to marry pagans if the pagan converted, or at a minimum, agreed for the children to brought up as Christians.
(3) and (4) combined with the shortage of women due to infanticide of female children meant that men who wanted a wife often had little choice but to marry a Christian. The children would then be Christians.
Once they achieved critical mass they seized control of the state and enacted coercive measures which ruthlessly crushed the other religions. As an example, even visiting pagan temples was banned, books were destroyed, priests killed, temples burned or converted to churches.
Another factor is that Christianity is exclusive—one could not adhere to Christianity and, say, Mithraism at the same time, since Christianity claimed a monopoly on religious truth. Other saviour cults which did not function in the same way would not have been able to work up the same amount of religious fervour, since a man’s trust in his religion is limited by that religion’s trust in itself.
there seems to be a rather large gap where a single missionary, armed with nothing more than information and presumably a fairly persuasive tongue, can go into a large enough group of humans who have little or no previous knowledge of religion and end up persuading a number of them to join.
When do you believe this happened, aside from cases where “Jesus” was translated as “Buddha”? Missionaries today typically harass other Christians.
A brief Google points me at this fellow. He was a medieval Fransiscan missionary to China, and established what appears to have been a reasonably successful church there that stayed around for about forty years after his death (until the Ming Dynasty arose in 1369 and expelled them from the country).
Furthermore, I would expect to see, in countries where it is not a majority religion, it would slowly fade and die (as social ostracism is used against it by the majority)
No, it just has to get big enough that Christians have enough other Christians around that the social structure becomes self-sustaining. Social ostracism is used to get rid of spontaneously appearing non-Christian individuals, not large groups.
But assuming it to be an exhaustive list does not appear to match reality -
So don’t assume it’s an exhaustive list.
It really doesn’t matter for the purposes of my point that it also spreads through peaceful missionaries. You seem to think that I’m complaining that Christianity spreads violently, so you’re bringing up non-violent missionaries. But that isn’t my point.
My point is that Christianity spreads as a meme system. Belief systems have traits which lead them to spread regardless of their truth. Some of those traits I listed above. Other traits include, of course, the belief system telling its members to send out missionaries to spread the belief system. Having missionaries is an adaptation which helps the belief system to spread, in the same way that coconuts being able to float so they can travel to distant islands helps coconuts to spread. Belief systems which spread efficiently will do better than belief systems that don’t, and will soon cover as much area as they can right until they run into other well-adapted belief systems.
No, it just has to get big enough that Christians have enough other Christians around that the social structure becomes self-sustaining. Social ostracism is used to get rid of spontaneously appearing non-Christian individuals, not large groups.
Fair enough. A neighbourhood or other small community can be self-sustaining, then.
But it still needs to be started.
So don’t assume it’s an exhaustive list.
As soon as I don’t assume it’s an exhaustive list, your point collapses. Yes, it does spread as a meme system, This is because it is a meme system.
Newtonian physics is also a meme system. And Newtonian physics can also spread as a meme system, in all three of the ways you describe. (I don’t think anyone ever has tried to spread Newtonian physics by the sword, but it could be done in theory; but Newtonian physics has most certainly been spread by parent-to-child transmission and by social ostracisation).
Similarly for relativistic physics. Or, for that matter, any other descriptive model of the universe, including ones that are perfectly accurate and 100% true. Because any descriptive model of the universe is a meme system, and can therefore be spread as a meme system.
Your conclusion, in short, relies on the idea that Christianity is only spread by means that are not dependant on the truth of its ideas, and never spread by means that are dependant on the truth of those ideas. This you have not shown.
It isn’t all or nothing. These methods of transmission exist for Newtonian physics, but they are much less fundamental to how Newtonian physics spreads.
If it’s medieval times, and I announce to the members of my village that I’m not a Christian and act accordingly. I may end up dead, lynched, expelled, tortured by the Inquisition, or sent to a ghetto. If i get up now and announce that I don’t believe in Newtonian physics, not much is going to happen to me unless I have a job that depends on Newtonian physics. The social ostracization may not be completely missing (people can still laugh at me), but it’s far weaker than for Christianity.
And parents teach Christianity to their children because Christianity directly asserts that it is good to teach itself to your children, and implies that their children will be in terrible supernatural peril if they don’t. There really isn’t anything comparable for Newtonian physics that isn’t related to the fact that Newtonian physics works—if parents don’t teach their children not to walk off cliffs, the children won’t grow up to refuse to teach Newtonian physics to their own children.
I’m pretty sure that the main modern transmission vector for Newtonian physics is schoolteacher-to-child (which is very similar to parent-to-child, except that the parent hires an intermediary). Mind you, I don’t have any stats or data handy to back that up, it’s just a general impression.
But again, that happens because it’s piggybacking on the fact that people teach things that work. Since science works, it gets taught. If science didn’t make factual claims with real-world implications, nobody would teach it. Religion is not bound by this; it gets taught even in the absence of such factual claims, because it has a bunch of commands that amount to “spread this religion regardless of the facts”.
I think there’s some equivocation here between different meanings of “expert”. Experts in Shakespeare are experts in what Shakespeare said and what things mean within the context of Shakespeare’s plays and Shakespeare’s life. A comparable “expert in Christianity” would be able to tell me what Christianity claims and put it into context as a whole.
But “amateurs should defer to experts”, in reference to Christianity, doesn’t mean “amateurs should accept the experts’ word about Christianity,” it means “amateurs should accept the claims presented by Christianity”. There’s nothing comparable for Shakespeare. In this sense, neither experts nor schools teach Shakespeare at all.
But “amateurs should defer to experts”, in reference to Christianity, doesn’t mean “amateurs should accept the experts’ word about Christianity,” it means “amateurs should accept the claims presented by Christianity”. There’s nothing comparable for Shakespeare. In this sense, neither experts nor schools teach Shakespeare at all.
Um.
Going back to the comment that started this all—over here—shows that the quote originally comes from this page, which is an essay written from the atheist perspective on how to go about arguing the historicity of Jesus. The ‘experts’ in question appear (to me) to be not theologists but historians, seeking whether or not a given person, referenced in certain historical documents, actually lived at one point or not, and the author bluntly states that he expects the odds of said existence, using his best estimate of requisite probabilities, to be about one in twelve thousand. (He then goes on to say that this is far from the least likely claim in the Christian faith; supernatural miracles are far more unlikely, and thus far better things to call into question).
So, no, the original context does not say that amateurs should accept the claims made by Christianity (and it does not define professionals by their religious leanings). It says that amateurs should not take a firm position on a question where the experts do not take that firm position. (It does not say that the amateurs have to agree with the experts when those experts do take a firm position, amateurs are allowed to remain uncertain).
You made a claim that schools teach their curriculum because the curriculum is useful. (e.g. If science didn’t make factual claims with real-world implications, nobody would teach it)
Teaching Shakespeare is an example where it’s not clear whether there any use to it. Schools might simply teach it because teaching Shakespeare is high status.
The math curriculum is also not optimized by teaching children the kind of math that’s likely to be useful for them. It instead tries to teach them calculus because calculus is high status while making Fermi estimates isn’t.
I didn’t claim that the only reason schools teach their curriculum is that it is useful. There can be (and are) different parts of the curriculum taught for different reasons, some related to being useful and some not.
How well do they serve each purpose? I’m given to understand Newton’s Laws are highly useful in engineering. How do they compare with alternative means of producing status, like teaching everyone ‘Ubik’ and ‘fnord?’
Or latin. Theres a bedrock sense of what works, and there is a more socially defined sense. If your society values some religion, dead language or author, then it works to teach it, because it gives people acceptability and status.
I live in a suburban school district in the Southeast US. The public middle and high schools here do teach Latin as one of the foreign language options, along with Mandarin, French, German and Spanish.
This is a good argument, and one way of seeing that is by contrast with Islam, where the method described is historically much closer to being exhaustive—and in general it was indeed introduced into new areas was by means of swords, and missionaries did take swords with them as standard equipment. (In the future Islam may continue to spread more in the fashion that Christianity did in the past, however.)
This idea seems to be more or less taken for granted by people who oppose either Islam. Is there actually a perspicuous source of data describing in detail how Islam spread, that allows assessments of that kind to be made?
You could start by reading about the topic on Wikipedia (that will also refer you to many other sources.) Of course you could say that probably most of those articles and their sources were written by non-Muslims. But that is like saying that most people who have argued for any position have tended to be people who believe that position, and therefore we should ignore their arguments.
Just because there’s an article on the spread of Islam doesn’t mean that a balanced quantitative analysis on the means of its proliferation either exists or is possible. Usually when someone asserts something to that effect, the onus is on them to support their assertion by referencing a specific source.
I’m not sure that you do.
From your previous post:
If this were true—and if it were an exhaustive list of the predominant ways—then I would expect to see the following:
Parent-to-child transmission only works if the parents are Christian. Social ostracisation only works if a majority of a given person’s possible social acquaintances are.
Thus, the only means on the list of introducing is into a new area is by the sword
Thus, I would expect missionaries to either have been abandoned, or to be given a sword as standard equipment on setting out. I do not see this.
Furthermore, I would expect to see, in countries where it is not a majority religion, it would slowly fade and die (as social ostracism is used against it by the majority)
Now, I am not saying that it is never spread by such means. (Fortunately, ‘by the sword’ appears to have been largely abandoned in recent history). But assuming it to be an exhaustive list does not appear to match reality—there seems to be a rather large gap where a single missionary, armed with nothing more than information and presumably a fairly persuasive tongue, can go into a large enough group of humans who have little or no previous knowledge of religion and end up persuading a number of them to join.
You would expect (peaceful) missionaries to be abandoned (at least as a tool for spreading Christianity to places where there is no Christianity) if there were a careful effort to track their effectiveness. I do not believe there usually is. Is your impression different?
If you look at the places where there are a lot of Christians, they do seem to match up pretty well with (1) where the Roman Empire was plus (2) places colonized by countries that used to be part of the Roman Empire.
One obvious counterexample is Korea, which (I think) is evidence that missionaries can sometimes introduce Christianity to a new place with long-term success. But what others are there?
(Incidentally, I think your analysis is incomplete. Another way to introduce Christianity to a new area would be immigration. I don’t know to what extent this has actually happened.)
I don’t think you need a careful effort to track their exact effectiveness. It would be fairly obvious in a couple of generations that peaceful missionaries would fall in one of two categories—either they have some success (as evidenced by some number of converts that they win over) or they have no success (as evidenced by every missionary outreach pretty much collapsing as soon as the missionary either leaves or dies).
A careful effort to track effectiveness could tell the difference between slight success and strong success, but I think that even with a merely cursory checkup people could tell the difference between some success and no success at all.
I’m not surprised. There are many possible explanations for this; a sufficient explanation might be that these are places that early (Latin-speaking) missionaries could be reasonably sure of finding Latin-speaking people, and thus were not required to face the additional hurdle of learning a new language first.
Hmmm… would Japan count?
That is true. I don’t know to what extent that has happened either, but I imagine it would be accompanied (if successful) by a very strong spread of the immigrant’s culture in other ways, as well. (Such as language).
I think missionaries are usually sent to particular places by organizations, and when one leaves another goes. So there isn’t opportunity to identify where they aren’t making progress. And the actual question isn’t really “no success” versus “any success”; no one claimed or implied that converting people is literally impossible, only that generally when Christianity spreads successfully it does so along with military conquest.
You’re welcome to be (having had the facts pointed out to you) as surprised or unsurprised as you please; I remark that much the simplest explanation would seem to be that Christianity mostly spreads by military conquest.
It’s hard to tell how big a Christian community the missionaries there were able to produce. (Right now, as I understand it, Japan is one of the world’s least religious countries, so I guess you are thinking of the 17th century.) So, I dunno: maybe?
… Oh, I thought of another way for Christianity to get into a new area that’s consistent with the “converting people is really ineffective” narrative. Again, no one claims that converting people is 100% ineffective. So, what you do is to find a place whose rulers are very much in control of the population, and send your missionaries to the royal court or whatever. They probably won’t convince the ruler, but if they do then bingo, you’ve got thousands or millions of new converts fairly immediately. I think this has happened once or twice. I bet it’s been attempted a lot more.
It’s not going to be perfect. Sometimes there will be more missionaries than established places to send them, and new missions can be opened—but sometimes a missionary will, through mischance or malice, die before he’s expected to do so and there will be no replacement ready to send.
I don’t actually know about specific incidences, but there should be enough data on what happens when a mission is abandoned to be able to tell how successful it can be.
That is a simple explanation, yes. Another simple explanation is that Christianity mostly spreads where language barriers don’t get in the way.
I don’t see either of these two explanations as being significantly simpler than the other.
Hmmmm. That would be a sensible scenario. There have also been cases where non-Christian rulers, perhaps fearing the political power of the church, made practice of the religion illegal, with severe punishments for doing so. Taking the two together, it seems fairly clear that converting the ruler would be a very important step for many successful missionaries.
I remain doubtful, but perhaps you’re right.
Also a reasonable hypothesis. Hmm, do we have cases where the boundaries of the Roman Empire don’t match up well with linguistic boundaries? Probably not, simply because anywhere conquered by the Romans would probably have tended to learn to speak Latin, producing an artificial lowering of language barriers within the empire.
Yes. Though in the most famous recent case I can think of—the Soviet Union—it seems that they weren’t very effective in suppressing Christianity; it came back pretty strongly once the communists lost power. Still, paying a lot of attention to the ruler(s) does seem like an effective strategy for those wanting to spread a religion to a new place.
Going back to the higher-level question of how necessary conquest is to the spread of Christianity: there are apparently something like 100M Christians in China, and not because China was ever conquered by Christians. On the other hand, in the past there seem to have been multiple instances where Christian missions produced a fair number of converts but then the religion largely died out until the next wave of missionaries came in.
My impression after all this is as follows. (1) It is certainly not impossible for Christianity to spread without conquest, and there are a few major instances where it has done so. (2) Most of the world’s Christians, however, are part of Christian communities that got way way by conquest. (3) Attempts to spread Christianity by mere persuasion are sometimes very effective but often very ineffective.
I would expect that all these things apply equally to any other major religion. #2 will of course be untrue for religions that have never gained official approval by any political power, but we should expect all such religions to be pretty small in numbers for that exact reason. Maybe Hinduism is a sort of exception, being found almost exclusively in India, but I am shockingly ignorant of Indian history and don’t know whether e.g. there’s a history of conquest within what is now a single country.
Hmmm. I don’t know enough history to be able to name specific situations, but what about the other way round—countries that learned Latin without being conquered? (Perhaps for ease of trading?)
I believe the Roman Empire once tried to suppress it as well. It doesn’t appear to have worked then, either.
Yes; there seem to have been specific instances where missionary conversion worked, and specific instances where it did not.
Those conclusions do not seem unreasonable to me.
I think it also depends somewhat on the structure of the religion in question. Judaism doesn’t have missionaries, for example, and I don’t think there’s any way for a non-Jew to become a Jew (I may be wrong on that point, but if there is, the Jews certainly don’t advertise it).
You can convert to Judaism. However you are right that they are not actively interested in converting someone.
There seems to be a certain historical arc here. The earliest religions did not try to convert anyone because they were simply part of the culture of an individual nation, and you don’t convert people to a nationality. Judaism is part of this tradition but at the border of the next, namely the point where people realize that insofar as religions make claims about the world, it does not make sense for some people to accept them and some people to reject them. If a claim about the world is true, everyone should accept it. This leads religions to try to convert people. Now we are reaching a third stage: as even religious people come closer to realizing that those claims were not actually true in the first place, even the religious people are backing away again from converting people. An example would be Pope Francis condemning proselytism and saying that he is not interested in converting Evangelicals etc.
Consider also that religions that convert more people tend to spread faster and farther than religions that don’t. So over time religions should become more virulent.
The book “The Rise of Christianity” is an excellent analysis, using the tools of modern sociology, of the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Key insights
It grew exponentially mostly via transmission from people you knew. As your social world became more than 50% Christian, you were more likely to convert. In recent times Mormanism has grown in a similar fashion.
It had many rules that encouraged having large families (no birth control, no abortion, no infanticide, no sex outside marriage which encouraged young marriage, bans on many sources of fun other than having sex with your spouse, bans of divorce which made marriage more secure in a sense).
The higher status of women in Christianity than in the Roman world encouraged women to convert. An example of this higher status was that a pagan man could order his wife to have an abortion. Many of the patriarchal statements in the new testament were latter additions when the church, which was originally very egalitarian, did become very patriarchal.
Christians were only allowed to marry pagans if the pagan converted, or at a minimum, agreed for the children to brought up as Christians.
(3) and (4) combined with the shortage of women due to infanticide of female children meant that men who wanted a wife often had little choice but to marry a Christian. The children would then be Christians.
Once they achieved critical mass they seized control of the state and enacted coercive measures which ruthlessly crushed the other religions. As an example, even visiting pagan temples was banned, books were destroyed, priests killed, temples burned or converted to churches.
Another factor is that Christianity is exclusive—one could not adhere to Christianity and, say, Mithraism at the same time, since Christianity claimed a monopoly on religious truth. Other saviour cults which did not function in the same way would not have been able to work up the same amount of religious fervour, since a man’s trust in his religion is limited by that religion’s trust in itself.
When do you believe this happened, aside from cases where “Jesus” was translated as “Buddha”? Missionaries today typically harass other Christians.
A brief Google points me at this fellow. He was a medieval Fransiscan missionary to China, and established what appears to have been a reasonably successful church there that stayed around for about forty years after his death (until the Ming Dynasty arose in 1369 and expelled them from the country).
No, it just has to get big enough that Christians have enough other Christians around that the social structure becomes self-sustaining. Social ostracism is used to get rid of spontaneously appearing non-Christian individuals, not large groups.
So don’t assume it’s an exhaustive list.
It really doesn’t matter for the purposes of my point that it also spreads through peaceful missionaries. You seem to think that I’m complaining that Christianity spreads violently, so you’re bringing up non-violent missionaries. But that isn’t my point.
My point is that Christianity spreads as a meme system. Belief systems have traits which lead them to spread regardless of their truth. Some of those traits I listed above. Other traits include, of course, the belief system telling its members to send out missionaries to spread the belief system. Having missionaries is an adaptation which helps the belief system to spread, in the same way that coconuts being able to float so they can travel to distant islands helps coconuts to spread. Belief systems which spread efficiently will do better than belief systems that don’t, and will soon cover as much area as they can right until they run into other well-adapted belief systems.
Fair enough. A neighbourhood or other small community can be self-sustaining, then.
But it still needs to be started.
As soon as I don’t assume it’s an exhaustive list, your point collapses. Yes, it does spread as a meme system, This is because it is a meme system.
Newtonian physics is also a meme system. And Newtonian physics can also spread as a meme system, in all three of the ways you describe. (I don’t think anyone ever has tried to spread Newtonian physics by the sword, but it could be done in theory; but Newtonian physics has most certainly been spread by parent-to-child transmission and by social ostracisation).
Similarly for relativistic physics. Or, for that matter, any other descriptive model of the universe, including ones that are perfectly accurate and 100% true. Because any descriptive model of the universe is a meme system, and can therefore be spread as a meme system.
Your conclusion, in short, relies on the idea that Christianity is only spread by means that are not dependant on the truth of its ideas, and never spread by means that are dependant on the truth of those ideas. This you have not shown.
It isn’t all or nothing. These methods of transmission exist for Newtonian physics, but they are much less fundamental to how Newtonian physics spreads.
If it’s medieval times, and I announce to the members of my village that I’m not a Christian and act accordingly. I may end up dead, lynched, expelled, tortured by the Inquisition, or sent to a ghetto. If i get up now and announce that I don’t believe in Newtonian physics, not much is going to happen to me unless I have a job that depends on Newtonian physics. The social ostracization may not be completely missing (people can still laugh at me), but it’s far weaker than for Christianity.
And parents teach Christianity to their children because Christianity directly asserts that it is good to teach itself to your children, and implies that their children will be in terrible supernatural peril if they don’t. There really isn’t anything comparable for Newtonian physics that isn’t related to the fact that Newtonian physics works—if parents don’t teach their children not to walk off cliffs, the children won’t grow up to refuse to teach Newtonian physics to their own children.
I’m pretty sure that the main modern transmission vector for Newtonian physics is schoolteacher-to-child (which is very similar to parent-to-child, except that the parent hires an intermediary). Mind you, I don’t have any stats or data handy to back that up, it’s just a general impression.
But again, that happens because it’s piggybacking on the fact that people teach things that work. Since science works, it gets taught. If science didn’t make factual claims with real-world implications, nobody would teach it. Religion is not bound by this; it gets taught even in the absence of such factual claims, because it has a bunch of commands that amount to “spread this religion regardless of the facts”.
Do schools also teach Shakespeare because “that’s what works”?
I think there’s some equivocation here between different meanings of “expert”. Experts in Shakespeare are experts in what Shakespeare said and what things mean within the context of Shakespeare’s plays and Shakespeare’s life. A comparable “expert in Christianity” would be able to tell me what Christianity claims and put it into context as a whole.
But “amateurs should defer to experts”, in reference to Christianity, doesn’t mean “amateurs should accept the experts’ word about Christianity,” it means “amateurs should accept the claims presented by Christianity”. There’s nothing comparable for Shakespeare. In this sense, neither experts nor schools teach Shakespeare at all.
Um.
Going back to the comment that started this all—over here—shows that the quote originally comes from this page, which is an essay written from the atheist perspective on how to go about arguing the historicity of Jesus. The ‘experts’ in question appear (to me) to be not theologists but historians, seeking whether or not a given person, referenced in certain historical documents, actually lived at one point or not, and the author bluntly states that he expects the odds of said existence, using his best estimate of requisite probabilities, to be about one in twelve thousand. (He then goes on to say that this is far from the least likely claim in the Christian faith; supernatural miracles are far more unlikely, and thus far better things to call into question).
So, no, the original context does not say that amateurs should accept the claims made by Christianity (and it does not define professionals by their religious leanings). It says that amateurs should not take a firm position on a question where the experts do not take that firm position. (It does not say that the amateurs have to agree with the experts when those experts do take a firm position, amateurs are allowed to remain uncertain).
You made a claim that schools teach their curriculum because the curriculum is useful. (e.g. If science didn’t make factual claims with real-world implications, nobody would teach it)
Teaching Shakespeare is an example where it’s not clear whether there any use to it. Schools might simply teach it because teaching Shakespeare is high status.
The math curriculum is also not optimized by teaching children the kind of math that’s likely to be useful for them. It instead tries to teach them calculus because calculus is high status while making Fermi estimates isn’t.
I didn’t claim that the only reason schools teach their curriculum is that it is useful. There can be (and are) different parts of the curriculum taught for different reasons, some related to being useful and some not.
How do you know that the reason students teach Newtons laws is them being useful and not for status purposes?
How well do they serve each purpose? I’m given to understand Newton’s Laws are highly useful in engineering. How do they compare with alternative means of producing status, like teaching everyone ‘Ubik’ and ‘fnord?’
But most students will not do jobs as engineers.
Touch typing is a useful skill for nearly all jobs yet most schools don’t teach it.
There are no professors of touch typing that give the subject academic prestige. On the other hand academic physic has prestige.
Calculus has more academic prestige than statistics and thus schools are focusing more on teaching calculus.
Or latin. Theres a bedrock sense of what works, and there is a more socially defined sense. If your society values some religion, dead language or author, then it works to teach it, because it gives people acceptability and status.
Schools still teach Latin?
...mine didn’t. (It did teach Shakespeare, though).
I live in a suburban school district in the Southeast US. The public middle and high schools here do teach Latin as one of the foreign language options, along with Mandarin, French, German and Spanish.
Ive no idea if they do now. I went to a old fashioned school, a long time ago, which did.
This is a good argument, and one way of seeing that is by contrast with Islam, where the method described is historically much closer to being exhaustive—and in general it was indeed introduced into new areas was by means of swords, and missionaries did take swords with them as standard equipment. (In the future Islam may continue to spread more in the fashion that Christianity did in the past, however.)
This idea seems to be more or less taken for granted by people who oppose either Islam. Is there actually a perspicuous source of data describing in detail how Islam spread, that allows assessments of that kind to be made?
You could start by reading about the topic on Wikipedia (that will also refer you to many other sources.) Of course you could say that probably most of those articles and their sources were written by non-Muslims. But that is like saying that most people who have argued for any position have tended to be people who believe that position, and therefore we should ignore their arguments.
reading about the topic on Wikipedia
Just because there’s an article on the spread of Islam doesn’t mean that a balanced quantitative analysis on the means of its proliferation either exists or is possible. Usually when someone asserts something to that effect, the onus is on them to support their assertion by referencing a specific source.