So your ancestors were killed by stupid peasants, not the Church.
Peasants who were Catholics, taught by Catholic doctrine and engaged in a Crusade started by the Catholic Church. Yet you don’t see such mobs systematically destroying entire Jewish villages in Protestant areas, and you don’t see it in Russian Orthodox areas until the 1500s.
What? Everyone remembers the Albigensian Crusade. “Kill them all, God will know His own.”
There may be an illusion of transparency here. Very few people remember where that phrase came from even if they’ve heard some version.
And if heretics won’t repent you should expel them or kill them.
Somehow a lot of other religions have managed ok without doing that.
And if heretics won’t repent you should expel them or kill them. I agree with the Church on that one. There are demons who would mislead the people, you can’t just let them get away with it. You know what happens when you don’t kill the heretics? Communism. And communism killed way more people than the Church ever did.
I’m wondering if I’m misreading what you are saying here.. Are you arguing that the Catholic Church should kill Catholic heretics and groups that disagree because otherwise other groups who will be more violent will arise?
Peasants who were Catholics, taught by Catholic doctrine and engaged in a Crusade started by the Catholic Church. Yet you don’t see such mobs systematically destroying entire Jewish villages in Protestant areas, and you don’t see it in Russian Orthodox areas until the 1500s.
Protestantism didn’t even exist until the 1500s. I don’t see why/how you’re making the comparison.
A bunch of peasants got out of hand, directly went against the wishes of the Church, and killed some people. (Not very many, either, in the grand scheme of things.) When it comes to crimes against humanity, this is about a 1.1 on a scale of 1 to 10 for the Church, maybe about 3 for the peasants.
There may be an illusion of transparency here. Very few people remember where that phrase came from even if they’ve heard some version.
Hm, fair enough, but I was under the impression that most intelligent people at least knew that the Church had killed all the Cathars, and that’s why Cathars don’t exist anymore.
And if heretics won’t repent you should expel them or kill them.
Somehow a lot of other religions have managed ok without doing that.
Managed what okay? No religion has managed to be as awesome as Catholicism, either. Catholics are responsible for universities.
I’m wondering if I’m misreading what you are saying here.. Are you arguing that the Catholic Church should kill Catholic heretics and groups that disagree because otherwise other groups who will be more violent will arise?
Well, they shouldn’t do it anymore, for obvious reasons. But at that time it was a good idea. The Reformation led to a shift in values and political structures that reached one climax with the French revolution, heights never before seen with the Nazi camps and Soviet gulags, and will likely reach yet another climax with uFAI. The rise of atheism was the rise of sheer unadulterated Evil. It might have been better had the Church just killed all the protesters when they had the chance. But this is idle political speculation about counterfactual histories, so I mean, I’m probably horrifically wrong. But I could be horrifically right. It’s hard to tell.
(ETA: By the way, I basically never get into “my side is better than your side” fights, and this fight is clearly inconsequential, so I’m mostly just having fun with it. Apologies if you were expecting me to be serious.)
Peasants who were Catholics, taught by Catholic doctrine and engaged in a Crusade started by the Catholic Church. Yet you don’t see such mobs systematically destroying entire Jewish villages in Protestant areas, and you don’t see it in Russian Orthodox areas until the 1500s.
Protestantism didn’t even exist until the 1500s. I don’t see why/how you’re making the comparison.
So the Protestants had 500 years to do so and they didn’t do it. But the really relevant group above is the Russian Orthodox who didn’t start heavy persecution of Jews until later, and did so generally after absorbing memes from Catholics.
I was under the impression that most intelligent people at least knew that the Church had killed all the Cathars, and that’s why Cathars don’t exist anymore.
While most people who know about Cathars probably know that they were wiped out by the Catholic Church, you are likely overestimating how many people know about them at all.
Well, they shouldn’t do it anymore, for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons? Question: if you somehow time traveled back to 1491 and the pope asked you whether he should endorse a new Inquisition in Spain, would you tell him yes?
Responding to your ETA remark, I think you really don’t get the problem. Aside from the potential problem of projection. Essentially you made an extremely positive remark about the Catholic Church and then aren’t apparently seriously defending it while claiming that criticism is somehow a “fight’ between which “side” is better. But that’s not the issue here. The issue here is that you said that the Catholic Church had an “absurdly good” track record. You didn’t say that it was better than some others or that on balance it has done more good than harm (both of which are not unreasonable claims), but rather you made a much stronger claim. And that claim simply doesn’t hold ground. The Catholic Church like most other religions and long-term institutions is a mixed bag. There’s been good and there’s been bad. They’ve helped preserve learning and they’ve burned books, they’ve saved lives and they’ve taken them. That’s not “absurdly good” by any reasonable notion of that term.
So in my head I was comparing the Church to, say, communism, which is where I got the “absurdly good” idea. Communists killed roughly 5,000 times as many people as the various Catholic inquisitions. But in retrospect that wasn’t a very fair comparison, and so I repent of it. Mea culpa.
What obvious reasons?
If the Catholic Church tried to kill heretics in modern times, it would first have to declare war on the entirety of the United Nations. …Surely it is clear why this would not accomplish anything useful.
Question: if you somehow time traveled back to 1491 and the pope asked you whether he should endorse a new Inquisition in Spain, would you tell him yes?
Reservedly but emphatically yes. I suspect the Church’s involvement in the Spanish Inquisition, however limited, saved many lives and prevented costly wars.
I’m curious if you’ve read Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. A major part of how humans have become less peaceful is that we’re less willing to kill over ideas, whether those ideas are religious or ideological in nature.
That part seems less controversial than the others—no Reformation and no Enlightenment means no science, which means no GAI, which means no uFAI. Although I’m sure there’s multiple disjunctive ways science might have come about, it is rather strange that it took humanity so long.
As it is, LW—or at least Yudkowsky—believes uFAI is more likely than FAI, and is the most concerning current existential risk.
I don’t really see how retaining the divine right of kings would have forestalled all the other existential risks, though.
The Reformation led to a shift in values and political structures that reached one climax with the French revolution, heights never before seen with the Nazi camps and Soviet gulags,
It’s worth noting that none of these revolutions happened in protestant countries, with the partial exception of the Nazis, and even there the movement started in the Catholic parts of the country.
That is worth noting, but of course looking at the proximate cause can only tell us so much. It’s true that Catholics took a (IMO minor) part in the German reaction, but the underlying cause of that was the popular disillusionmnent with American-Marxist mimicry and policy, and the cause of that was the United States’ leftist meddling in World War 1 and the armistice that followed.
As far as revolutions in Catholic countries, the Catholics should have more violently put down all threats to politico-religious authority. For that they can be blamed. Even so, it was a sin of omission, and there’s little they could have done after the Reformation. The plague of chaos had already begun to spread.
That’s my narrative, anyway. I’m not trying very hard to make it accurate, and so I don’t trust in it much. I only started thinking about politics like three months ago.
As far as revolutions in Catholic countries, the Catholics should have more violently put down all threats to politico-religious authority. For that they can be blamed. Even so, it was a sin of omission, and there’s little they could have done after the Reformation. The plague of chaos had already begun to spread.
And yet Protestant countries don’t seem to have this problem despite being even less inclined to put rebellions down violently.
Cool essay. But dude, check this out. Conclusive proof that, just as I suspected, Lucifer in his guise as Luther was personally responsible for the Holocaust. It’s from Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Liberty or Equality.
It only trolls those who deserve to be trolled; it was dense in information for those who deserve information. My comments have become all things to all men, that they might by all means win some!
How so? Could there ever be reprociation in Europe without a kind of catharsis through another disaster culturally, and American hegemony militarily? I think that on the whole what’s surprising about the 20th century is how little we lost in its mind-boggling soul-crushing catastrophes, not that we had them.
Oh, and how was the US “marxist” (in any meaningful sense that makes it such a bad thing) at that point?
No Versailles, no National Socialist rise to power, no Hitler, no Holocaust
The Soviet Union is much smaller. It seems much less likley to dominate Eastern Europe and that part of the world is under German and Austria-Hungarian domination. Standards of living in Eastern Europe are as a result higher. Ukraine at the very least dosne’t experience the Holodomor. Who knows perhaps Germans and Austrians even manage to do what the Entente couldn’t and stamp out the Bolsheviks of Russia. In any case the mass slaughter and destruction of the Great Patriotic War are probably fully avoided.
Japanese expansion in the Far East is probably more limited, reducing the possibility of a Japanese-American war
National humiliation in France and Britian could perhaps result in either a Fascist or Communist take over. But both seem pretty unlikely. Even if they do happen, France in itself is far too weak for any revanchist warmongering, while Britain could only manage this if it was willing to lose its empire. And neither seem that likely to receive American support in such a war unless a US president does a FDR on steroids.
The Middle East remains under Ottoman control for the time being, I have a strong feeling that the Middle East several decades later in a alternative 2012 would be much less messed up than it currently is.
The immediate effects seem pretty darn beneficial and hard to beat. The end of the first world war with a Central powers victory basically changes the balance of power making Britain a second rate force decades earlier, preventing a Soviet rise to power, America remains much more isolationist… I have a very hard time seeing anything like a part two to that struggle.
A Stalin like figure might decide to try and invade central Europe but this seems unlikely. An American-Japanese war is still possible, but it seems unlikely to involve a European theatre in itself.
Did I mention we avoid the fucking holocaust and keep large chunks of Eastern Europe away and safe from Bolsheviks at least during their most damaging and bloodthirsty years? It just seems so overwhelmingly likely that this is a better world that I’m mystified why anyone would think it very likley to be worse.
Reducing the relevance of a global Communist vs. Capitalist struggle narrative also seems to much reduce the possibility of global annihilation. Maybe nukes are used in one or two ill though out wars, but then again nukes where used in our time line in a ill thought out war and we didn’t turn out so bad.
Ah! You meant German victory! (or, at least, whatever the German masses would accept as victory or an honorable draw); I hadn’t even thought about that; my first reaction was “So the French and the British bleed Germany dry on their own and impose an even harsher treaty”, and I just went on from there. I’ll have to consiider the above in detail, thanks a lot. This indeed sounds agreeable.
Yes I guess I should have stated that without US involvement a Central powers victory seemed to me likely. Things like the Battle of Caporetto, show pretty clearly that positional warfare was slowly coming to an end and that the Central powers where making surprisingly effective tactical innovations.
Germans would probably consider the gains in the East and Serbia being a puppet or occupied by Austro-Hungary to be a victory. Note that both where basically already achieved at that point if just the French and British would stop fighting! With the Russians out of the war and no American support, it seems likely the French and British would at least consider a peace treaty.
They could perhaps secure an independent Serbia in their negotiations but I can’t see any further gains. Such a peace treaty would be seen as a German victory and at the very least Germany wouldn’t have to become the scape goat for the war and wouldn’t be forced to pay massive reparations.
Well, they shouldn’t do it anymore, for obvious reasons. But at that time it was a good idea. The Reformation led to a shift in values and political structures that reached one climax with the French revolution
But the revolution happened after a second round of religious toleration, no? If the French government had kept up its reputation as able to put down threats of politco-religious unorthodoxy then the revolution might never have gotten traction. Or is that not accurate?
Peasants who were Catholics, taught by Catholic doctrine and engaged in a Crusade started by the Catholic Church. Yet you don’t see such mobs systematically destroying entire Jewish villages in Protestant areas, and you don’t see it in Russian Orthodox areas until the 1500s.
There may be an illusion of transparency here. Very few people remember where that phrase came from even if they’ve heard some version.
Somehow a lot of other religions have managed ok without doing that.
I’m wondering if I’m misreading what you are saying here.. Are you arguing that the Catholic Church should kill Catholic heretics and groups that disagree because otherwise other groups who will be more violent will arise?
Protestantism didn’t even exist until the 1500s. I don’t see why/how you’re making the comparison.
A bunch of peasants got out of hand, directly went against the wishes of the Church, and killed some people. (Not very many, either, in the grand scheme of things.) When it comes to crimes against humanity, this is about a 1.1 on a scale of 1 to 10 for the Church, maybe about 3 for the peasants.
Hm, fair enough, but I was under the impression that most intelligent people at least knew that the Church had killed all the Cathars, and that’s why Cathars don’t exist anymore.
Managed what okay? No religion has managed to be as awesome as Catholicism, either. Catholics are responsible for universities.
Well, they shouldn’t do it anymore, for obvious reasons. But at that time it was a good idea. The Reformation led to a shift in values and political structures that reached one climax with the French revolution, heights never before seen with the Nazi camps and Soviet gulags, and will likely reach yet another climax with uFAI. The rise of atheism was the rise of sheer unadulterated Evil. It might have been better had the Church just killed all the protesters when they had the chance. But this is idle political speculation about counterfactual histories, so I mean, I’m probably horrifically wrong. But I could be horrifically right. It’s hard to tell.
(ETA: By the way, I basically never get into “my side is better than your side” fights, and this fight is clearly inconsequential, so I’m mostly just having fun with it. Apologies if you were expecting me to be serious.)
So the Protestants had 500 years to do so and they didn’t do it. But the really relevant group above is the Russian Orthodox who didn’t start heavy persecution of Jews until later, and did so generally after absorbing memes from Catholics.
While most people who know about Cathars probably know that they were wiped out by the Catholic Church, you are likely overestimating how many people know about them at all.
Actually, similar institutions existed elsewhere, especially in the Islamic world. The House of Wisdom functioned in many ways very similar to a university. By many accounts, Al-Karouine is the oldest university in existence, and clearly predates the European universities. There’s a serious argument that Islamic schools played a vital role in influencing the establishment of universities in Christendom (although I think the influence here is probably often overstated).
What obvious reasons? Question: if you somehow time traveled back to 1491 and the pope asked you whether he should endorse a new Inquisition in Spain, would you tell him yes?
Responding to your ETA remark, I think you really don’t get the problem. Aside from the potential problem of projection. Essentially you made an extremely positive remark about the Catholic Church and then aren’t apparently seriously defending it while claiming that criticism is somehow a “fight’ between which “side” is better. But that’s not the issue here. The issue here is that you said that the Catholic Church had an “absurdly good” track record. You didn’t say that it was better than some others or that on balance it has done more good than harm (both of which are not unreasonable claims), but rather you made a much stronger claim. And that claim simply doesn’t hold ground. The Catholic Church like most other religions and long-term institutions is a mixed bag. There’s been good and there’s been bad. They’ve helped preserve learning and they’ve burned books, they’ve saved lives and they’ve taken them. That’s not “absurdly good” by any reasonable notion of that term.
So in my head I was comparing the Church to, say, communism, which is where I got the “absurdly good” idea. Communists killed roughly 5,000 times as many people as the various Catholic inquisitions. But in retrospect that wasn’t a very fair comparison, and so I repent of it. Mea culpa.
If the Catholic Church tried to kill heretics in modern times, it would first have to declare war on the entirety of the United Nations. …Surely it is clear why this would not accomplish anything useful.
Reservedly but emphatically yes. I suspect the Church’s involvement in the Spanish Inquisition, however limited, saved many lives and prevented costly wars.
I’m curious if you’ve read Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. A major part of how humans have become less peaceful is that we’re less willing to kill over ideas, whether those ideas are religious or ideological in nature.
I haven’t read it, but I’ve seen various discussions about it, and I’m most willing to trust Vladimir_M’s opinion on the subject.
What do you see as the causal connection here?
That part seems less controversial than the others—no Reformation and no Enlightenment means no science, which means no GAI, which means no uFAI. Although I’m sure there’s multiple disjunctive ways science might have come about, it is rather strange that it took humanity so long.
As it is, LW—or at least Yudkowsky—believes uFAI is more likely than FAI, and is the most concerning current existential risk.
I don’t really see how retaining the divine right of kings would have forestalled all the other existential risks, though.
It’s worth noting that none of these revolutions happened in protestant countries, with the partial exception of the Nazis, and even there the movement started in the Catholic parts of the country.
That is worth noting, but of course looking at the proximate cause can only tell us so much. It’s true that Catholics took a (IMO minor) part in the German reaction, but the underlying cause of that was the popular disillusionmnent with American-Marxist mimicry and policy, and the cause of that was the United States’ leftist meddling in World War 1 and the armistice that followed.
As far as revolutions in Catholic countries, the Catholics should have more violently put down all threats to politico-religious authority. For that they can be blamed. Even so, it was a sin of omission, and there’s little they could have done after the Reformation. The plague of chaos had already begun to spread.
That’s my narrative, anyway. I’m not trying very hard to make it accurate, and so I don’t trust in it much. I only started thinking about politics like three months ago.
And yet Protestant countries don’t seem to have this problem despite being even less inclined to put rebellions down violently.
They’re also pretty communist and becoming moreso… and they tend to produce a lot of uFAI researchers. …Political history is hard, let’s go shopping.
Here is a good blog post on the history of the relationship between the church and politics.
Cool essay. But dude, check this out. Conclusive proof that, just as I suspected, Lucifer in his guise as Luther was personally responsible for the Holocaust. It’s from Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Liberty or Equality.
Please don’t troll. You are better than that.
It only trolls those who deserve to be trolled; it was dense in information for those who deserve information. My comments have become all things to all men, that they might by all means win some!
Alas, not really.
This is a counter-factual but I’m pretty sure the world would be a much better place had the US not intervened in the First World War.
How so? Could there ever be reprociation in Europe without a kind of catharsis through another disaster culturally, and American hegemony militarily? I think that on the whole what’s surprising about the 20th century is how little we lost in its mind-boggling soul-crushing catastrophes, not that we had them.
Oh, and how was the US “marxist” (in any meaningful sense that makes it such a bad thing) at that point?
No Versailles, no National Socialist rise to power, no Hitler, no Holocaust
The Soviet Union is much smaller. It seems much less likley to dominate Eastern Europe and that part of the world is under German and Austria-Hungarian domination. Standards of living in Eastern Europe are as a result higher. Ukraine at the very least dosne’t experience the Holodomor. Who knows perhaps Germans and Austrians even manage to do what the Entente couldn’t and stamp out the Bolsheviks of Russia. In any case the mass slaughter and destruction of the Great Patriotic War are probably fully avoided.
Japanese expansion in the Far East is probably more limited, reducing the possibility of a Japanese-American war
National humiliation in France and Britian could perhaps result in either a Fascist or Communist take over. But both seem pretty unlikely. Even if they do happen, France in itself is far too weak for any revanchist warmongering, while Britain could only manage this if it was willing to lose its empire. And neither seem that likely to receive American support in such a war unless a US president does a FDR on steroids.
The Middle East remains under Ottoman control for the time being, I have a strong feeling that the Middle East several decades later in a alternative 2012 would be much less messed up than it currently is.
The immediate effects seem pretty darn beneficial and hard to beat. The end of the first world war with a Central powers victory basically changes the balance of power making Britain a second rate force decades earlier, preventing a Soviet rise to power, America remains much more isolationist… I have a very hard time seeing anything like a part two to that struggle.
A Stalin like figure might decide to try and invade central Europe but this seems unlikely. An American-Japanese war is still possible, but it seems unlikely to involve a European theatre in itself.
Did I mention we avoid the fucking holocaust and keep large chunks of Eastern Europe away and safe from Bolsheviks at least during their most damaging and bloodthirsty years? It just seems so overwhelmingly likely that this is a better world that I’m mystified why anyone would think it very likley to be worse.
Reducing the relevance of a global Communist vs. Capitalist struggle narrative also seems to much reduce the possibility of global annihilation. Maybe nukes are used in one or two ill though out wars, but then again nukes where used in our time line in a ill thought out war and we didn’t turn out so bad.
Ah! You meant German victory! (or, at least, whatever the German masses would accept as victory or an honorable draw); I hadn’t even thought about that; my first reaction was “So the French and the British bleed Germany dry on their own and impose an even harsher treaty”, and I just went on from there. I’ll have to consiider the above in detail, thanks a lot. This indeed sounds agreeable.
Yes I guess I should have stated that without US involvement a Central powers victory seemed to me likely. Things like the Battle of Caporetto, show pretty clearly that positional warfare was slowly coming to an end and that the Central powers where making surprisingly effective tactical innovations.
Germans would probably consider the gains in the East and Serbia being a puppet or occupied by Austro-Hungary to be a victory. Note that both where basically already achieved at that point if just the French and British would stop fighting! With the Russians out of the war and no American support, it seems likely the French and British would at least consider a peace treaty.
They could perhaps secure an independent Serbia in their negotiations but I can’t see any further gains. Such a peace treaty would be seen as a German victory and at the very least Germany wouldn’t have to become the scape goat for the war and wouldn’t be forced to pay massive reparations.
This is the reason why the French revolution happened in Catholic country that followed your advice and extirpated all heresy without mercy.
But the revolution happened after a second round of religious toleration, no? If the French government had kept up its reputation as able to put down threats of politco-religious unorthodoxy then the revolution might never have gotten traction. Or is that not accurate?