Prime Minister BoJo It Is.

[mongers]

This documentary about Boris Johnson is well worth a viewing:

'The Invention of Boris Johnson'
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-invention-of-boris-johnson/on-demand/70323-001https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-invention-of-boris-johnson/on-demand/70323-001

[Duque de Bragança]

If it truly was then wouldn't this prohibition be a factor across all Christian denominations? Yet I don't really hear about this outside medieval Catholicism. If it is so essential to Christianity that it is universal Christian doctrine to the point it is a law then please explain that.

My understanding is that Luther and Zwingli accepted the existing doctrine; Calvin was more moderate and would permit some interest to be charged on commercial loans if not abusive.
Generally speaking, I don't think mainline Protestantism differed on this issue, but at the same time they left legislation to secular rulers.

Luther famously disagreed over interest rates with Johann Eck, a staunch catholic debater, who proposed a five percent rate, refused by Luther.
I don't know how much Calvin suggested but his "moderation" in this aspect does not seem far from what the Catholic Church suggested.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck

As a political economist he defended the lawfulness of putting out capital at interest.[2] and successfully argued his view at disputations at Augsburg (1514) and Bologna (1515), where he also disputed about predestination. These triumphs were repeated at Vienna in 1516. Through these successes he gained the patronage of the Fuggers, but they scandalized Martin Luther.[3]

I know this is just a wiki link but it is not generally disputed. Besides, it is sourced.

PS: this is the Johann Eck insultingly nicknamed Dreck (Dr. Eck) by Luther who seemed to be a sore loser sometimes.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why is that when it comes to Islamic religious views and how they have influenced policy and behavior, we all seem to have this need to come up with some other reason why some outcome was the result of some non-religious factor? But we are happy to talk about the relative influence of Catholic versus Protestant ideas around usury and how they impact policy and laws, and how those laws an policies then impact actual results in the human condition?

That's a bit of a strawman - I think we are doing the analysis the same way for both faiths.  My understanding is that both faiths viewed the usury question very similar - the same moral objection on the same basis.  But the surrounding institutional and political structures were different so practice evolved differently in the two spheres.

You said earlier that the enlightenment was (to some extent) the result of the Protestant Reformation. We can argue that I suppose (it is certainly an interesting discussion on its own merits), but what I find more interesting is this desire to find a *religious* reason for something that is seen as a positive outcome - but of course the flip side to that coin is that there was a *religious* reason that said Enlightenment (if the argument is correct) did not happen earlier - presumably Catholic suppression of whatever forces the Protestant Reformation unleashed.

I don't think there is a direct connection (the Enlightenment is after all a cross-national, cross-denominational phenomenon).  I'm quite sure the Reformers didn't set out to encourage a skeptical attitude towards religion and the elevation of the truths derived from human reason over revelation -- quite the contrary.  The connection is simply that the Reformation and the Catholic response encouraged the growth of literacy, which in turn was a pre-requisite for the Enlightenment to take root.  It also prompted a certain kind of literate production - namely pamphlets and polemics - that also ultimately feeds into the development of a modern literate culture.  Political authorities did try to control or suppress this production but dispersion of political authority in Europe made the task impossible.

Islam is not hostile to literacy, far from it.  Literacy is and was encouraged to be able to read the Koran (although rote memorization by ear was also deemed an acceptable and often necessary substitute). However, the production of critical of polemical tracts on political and religious matters was not encouraged, other than learned works by eminent scholars.  The discouragement is not so much a matter of religious doctrine, as political control.   For example, the Ottomans did not suppress the growth of a free press because they truly believed newspapers were inherently un-Islamic, they did so because newspapers posed a threat to their political control over a polyglot multi-cultural empire.

It's not excuse making to point out the full historical and institutional context.

Here is what I think:

I agree with your general viewpoint.

Specifically, in regards to Islam, I think right now, of all the major world religions, it has some of the worst ideas when it comes to advancing human well being, today. Not all Islam, and not all Islamic ideas, of course, but enough of them that it is and should be seen as a specific challenge to liberal ideals, today. And I think the left, in particular, and likely as a response to bigotry and intolerance (and a healthy dose of naval gazing wokeness) has taken on this bizarre attitude that any questioning or noting that Islam today, because of many of their specific ideas that are pretty obviously terrible, can only come from the standpoint of right wing bigotry.

Finally, this results in actually strengthening the very forces it is supposed to be opposing. The unwillingness of political figures on the left to honestly talk about these problems means there is a significant number of people who care about this who are presented with the choice of one side that insists that there is no problem when there is clearly a problem, and another side that exaggerates the problem, but at least is willing to admit it exists. This is, if nothing else, a tactical error on the part of the left.

No doubt there are particular manifestations and factions of Islam that are truly awful and can be fairly characterized the way you do. That can't be seriously questioned.  ISIS for example, is unquestionably an Islamic movement and it would be hard to think of something worse than that.  And at least at this point in history, there isn't a Christian, Jewish or Buddhist equivalent to ISIS (knock wood)

On the other hand, there are about 3.5 million Muslims in the US.  Compared to the average population, they tend to have higher levels of educational attainment and income. While their Islamic belief may not be the *cause* of that result, it does undermine the claim that there is something inherent to Islam as opposed to other faiths that makes it inimical to human progress.

[Razgovory]

What other denominations, in the hundreds if not thousands that currently exist, use the medieval Catholic canon law? I mean probably some do. Some weird radical Catholic breakaway cult or something.

I didn't want to create a really long post of quotes and counter-points, so cut everything down except for the first statement so you know what I'm responding to.  When I asked about denominations, I thought we were talking about the middle ages, since "Medieval Catholic" is not a current denomination and comparing it to modern denomination or even the modern Catholic Church doesn't make much sense to me.


I also wanted to respond to the last statement you made in that post.  Yes, Christianity collapsed at the end of the Middle Ages.  Secular governments pretty much supplanted it, and created their own versions that would serve the state.  The power of the Catholic Church waxed and waned several times during this period.  There were times when a Pope could order an emperor to march around in the snow without shoes and other times was controlled by noble families in Rome.

[Berkut]

On the other hand, there are about 3.5 million Muslims in the US.  Compared to the average population, they tend to have higher levels of educational attainment and income. While their Islamic belief may not be the *cause* of that result, it does undermine the claim that there is something inherent to Islam as opposed to other faiths that makes it inimical to human progress.

I cut the rest of your post because I basically agree with all of it.

But this part - well, I don't disagree with it per se, but I think it misses the point.

The problems with Islam are not with practitioners of Islam who live in the US - at least, not in any significant sense from the standpoint of the numbers. I know plenty of Islamic people, and they are pretty much like all other religious Americans - they run the gamut from a bit fundy (but harmless) to mostly religious in name only. I don't think anyone has any issue with them by an large (a couple extreme examples notwithstanding, and lord knows if you want to worry about violence in the US, Islamic radicals ought to be about, I dunno, 8th on your list of concerns or something?).

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

And the dangers of radical Islamic thought to those who are actually living in countries where they have majority political control are real, and should be of concern to anyone who cares about human well being everywhere, not just at home.

[Valmy]

Yeah the problem is the bad ideas in Islam. Which is not to say there are not plenty of other bad ideas out there or even that this is the worst thing ever, but it is a problem for those who live in societies and communities based on those ideas.

But I do get concerned about well meaning people insisting there are no bad ideas and no problem. I have great confidence that Muslims, and former Muslims, can work all this out for the most part but the conversation needs to be had in order for that to happen. Too many Muslim states, insular Muslim communities, and their political friends and allies seem to want that conversation to not happen. That would be a very bad for Muslims IMO...and the rest of the world as well.

[frunk]

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

This can be a concern, but Fundamentalist Christian thought in the US is the bigger threat here, both because of the numbers of adherents and the general acceptance of it in the wider populace as opposed to Islam.

[Tamas]

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

This can be a concern, but Fundamentalist Christian thought in the US is the bigger threat here, both because of the numbers of adherents and the general acceptance of it in the wider populace as opposed to Islam.

While in Western Europe I would say that fundamentalist islam is the biggest potential religious issue.

e.g. in the US you have Christians protesting abortion education etc. Here in the UK, we have Muslims protesting (for months now) education plans in Birmingham which teach kids that same-sex couples are people too.

[Valmy]

We do not only have fundamentalist Christianity but non-mainstream Christian cults that dominate some areas of the country. Hell in New York some local areas are dominated by Orthodox Jewish sects. It is a real problem. So while Muslims have generally been great immigrants I am not just super excited to see conservative Islam also start to dominate some areas locally. Great. Just what we need.

I am just thankful that after Islam I don't think there are any other similar religions that can move in.

I don't see fundamentalist Hindus or Sikhs starting to achieve local political dominance.

[Valmy]

Here in the UK, we have Muslims protesting (for months now) education plans in Birmingham which teach kids that same-sex couples are people too.

I am kind of glad this is happening because it makes the issue harder to ignore.

[Valmy]

I have read theories that China failed to industrialise because labour was much cheaper.  There was no incentive to replace cheap labour with machines.  You only need to replace expensive labour with machines. 

Yeah. Obviously the same kind of thing gets said about Brazil and the Southern US and other areas that relied on slavery and other forms of cheap labor for so long.

[Josquius]

I have read theories that China failed to industrialise because labour was much cheaper.  There was no incentive to replace cheap labour with machines.  You only need to replace expensive labour with machines. 

Yeah. Obviously the same kind of thing gets said about Brazil and the Southern US and other areas that relied on slavery and other forms of cheap labor for so long.

I'd add the disclaimer of skilled labour here.
Labour was cheap in England and other places that did industrialise.
It was a desire to take advantage of this cheap labour that was a big part in giving us this  industrialisation.
Skilled labour however...it tended to keep its own numbers artificially small with the whole system of guilds et al which kept costs high.

[grumbler]

I'd argue that the problem China had was a religious one, in the sense that Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion.  And the highest moral value was ascribed to filial piety - being a good son or daughter.  The way one showed filial piety was to follow the wishes of one's parents, even after their deaths.  That meant doing the same work as one's parents, because the change jobs was to essentially claim that one's parents had been in the wrong jobs. 

So long as population growth didn't provide too many people in the successive generations to fill the available jobs of the previous generation, this provided a great deal of social stability.  But when medicine improved to the point that population exploded, that social stability turned to social instability.  The Chinese couldn't undergo an industrial revolution without abandoning so many of the ideas that, they felt, made them Chinese and superior to other societies, but "modernization in accordance with traditional values" proved a contradiction in terms.  It took a real revolution in 1949 to finally cut the Gordian Knot.

[Malthus]

I'd argue that the problem China had was a religious one, in the sense that Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion.  And the highest moral value was ascribed to filial piety - being a good son or daughter.  The way one showed filial piety was to follow the wishes of one's parents, even after their deaths.  That meant doing the same work as one's parents, because the change jobs was to essentially claim that one's parents had been in the wrong jobs. 

So long as population growth didn't provide too many people in the successive generations to fill the available jobs of the previous generation, this provided a great deal of social stability.  But when medicine improved to the point that population exploded, that social stability turned to social instability.  The Chinese couldn't undergo an industrial revolution without abandoning so many of the ideas that, they felt, made them Chinese and superior to other societies, but "modernization in accordance with traditional values" proved a contradiction in terms.  It took a real revolution in 1949 to finally cut the Gordian Knot.

I would argue against characterizing Neo-Confucianism as a "religion". If it can rightfully be a "religion", any school of thought or philosophy is a "religion" and the term loses any distinct meaning. 

Indeed, Neo-Confucianism was seen by its adherents as a humanistic and rationalistic reaction against ideas we would, in fact, more readily consider "religious": namely, Buddhism and Taoism. Its critics argued that Neo-Confucianism was itself 'infected' with concepts taken from Buddhism and, in particular, Taoism, but that's not really the same thing as it being a religion: the concepts that Neo-Confucianism took from Taoism were not particularly a "religious" way of seeing the world, more a philosophical one (namely, a concern with understanding humanity's relationship with the universe, whether morality is innate or learned, etc.).

The cornerstones of Neo-Confucianism weren't all that different from those of the Enlightenment in the West: the idea that reality is something that could be perceived through reason, and an emphasis on humanism. Which raises the question as to why Neo-Confucianism never lead to any flowering of science etc. The reason seems to be that Chinese philosophy remained straight-jacketed by pre-existing concepts, much as Western philosophy, for centuries, remained straight-jacketed by those derived from ancient Greece. 

Neo-Confucianism is a social and ethical philosophy using metaphysical ideas, some borrowed from Taoism, as its framework. The philosophy can be characterized as humanistic and rationalistic, with the belief that the universe could be understood through human reason, and that it was up to humanity to create a harmonious relationship between the universe and the individual.[4]

The rationalism of neo-Confucianism is in contrast to the mysticism of the previously dominant Chan Buddhism. Unlike the Buddhists, the neo-Confucians believed that reality existed, and could be understood by humankind, even if the interpretations of reality were slightly different depending on the school of neo-Confucianism.[4]

But the spirit of Neo-Confucian rationalism is diametrically opposed to that of Buddhist mysticism. Whereas Buddhism insisted on the unreality of things, Neo-Confucianism stressed their reality. Buddhism and Taoism asserted that existence came out of, and returned to, non-existence; Neo-Confucianism regarded reality as a gradual realization of the Great Ultimate... Buddhists, and to some degree, Taoists as well, relied on meditation and insight to achieve supreme reason; the Neo-Confucianists chose to follow Reason.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism

This source is much more in-depth than a wiki article, concerning the leading Neo-Confucian thinker, Zhu Xi. Of particular note is the chapter on natural philosophy, which shows how this school of neo-Confucianism missed 'getting' science.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhu-xi/#InvThiForNatKnoAct

The Neo-Confucians created a philosophical view of reality, but it was something they believed they had discovered in nature, not something they believed was created by a god or gods. The problem with it was that it incorporated a bunch of Chinese philosophical baggage.   

4.2 Philosophic Synthesis
Zhu Xi erected a philosophical synthesis that has been compared broadly to the systems of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Whitehead, and others. These "Great Chain" systems are hierarchical and rooted in the distinction between form and matter. Recent immanental readings of Zhu Xi's thought have stirred comparisons with Spinoza and even Husserl (Choi 1999; Yeo 2013). Zhu Xi preserved the immanental character of his hierarchy by incorporating Zhou Dunyi's conception of world (and self) as shown in the Diagram of the Supreme Polarity (Taiji tu), as a way to combine the Cheng brothers' concept of li (pattern) with Zhang Zai's notion of qi (cosmic vapor) as organically integrated in a holistic system. In Zhou's treatise, Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Polarity (Taiji tu shuo) (Adler 2014), Zhu discerned a viable account of the formation of the world in stages from the original unformed qi, to yin and yang, the five phases, earth, wood, fire, water, and metal, and on to heaven, earth and the ten thousand things. Zhu blended this conception with ideas from the Book of Change and its commentaries in setting forth a comprehensive philosophy of cosmic and human creativity and providing philosophical grounds for the received Confucian concepts of human nature and self-cultivation.

Zhu Xi's penchant for thinking in polarities, li and qi, in particular, has continued to stir critics to regard him as a dualist who used two fundamental concepts to explain reality. For his part, any viable account of the complexity of phenomena must involve two or more facets in order to register their complexity, variety, and changes. Zhu generalized the organic understanding of li and qi implied in Zhou Dunyi's Explanation under a principle of complementarity, inspired by Cheng Hao's observation that all things have their complement (discussed in the next section). At first, Zhu thought this principle only governed qi phenomena as patterned by li, but eventually he admitted that not only were yin and yang paradigmatic polar complements but that the supreme polarity (taiji) complemented the yin-yang polarity, and inferred that li and qi, as the references of taiji and yin-yang, respectively, too had to be complements. This meant that li and qi were functionally on a par and mutually implicative. Zhu still felt the need to prioritize li ontologically and ethically, however, for the reason that li underwrites both the possibility of qi ordering (to yield a world and phenomena) and the possibility of moral feelings and norms (to yield ethics and a system of rites). Treating li and qi as full ontological complements would quite possibly entail a Daoist conception of nature as pure spontaneity and ethics as just perspectival while prioritizing qi over li would be inadequate for understanding the world and phenomenal orders, and reduce ethics to the received norms.

[mongers]

An interesting post, thanks Malthus.


One of the reasons, Languish is all but the last 'social media' I still read.