Scientists and Their Gods: (Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?)

When you say that you don't think Europe can become a Judeo-Christian society like the US, do you mean that (a) Europeans are too jaded to return to Christian belief or (b) that since Europeans decided to murder almost all their Jews, there is no longer a large enough Jewish population in Europe to exert the beneficial cultural influence that Jews have among US Christians?

Yes Europeans are jaded, but I cannot see a way for Europe to renew itself if the spread of atheism and agnosticism continues. I believe that one generation brought up with religion can become atheist and remain largely moral (not knowing or crediting the source of their moral sense) but not subsequent generations. Christianity is there for Europeans to return to when they choose.

As to the second question, it is not only that Jews in Europe are numerically insignificant today (with the exception of the UK and France), but they also are dwarfed everywhere by the number of adherents of Islam. The effort of integrating Europe's Moslems into society (probably by establishing some kind of Euro-Islam, with heavy government involvement) will be a project that will consume incredible effort and energy during the next decades, and a successful outcome is by no means assured.

In addition, I see a difference in how Christians in Europe and Christians in the U.S. feel about the Jewish religion. It seems to me that "replacement theology", the idea that Christianity has superseded and obsoleted Judaism, is more common in Europe than in the U.S.

Hence you hardly hear Europeans speak of "Judeo-Christian values", for example, but in the U.S. this is quite common.

the way out of the current mess for Germany (and Europe) is a return to the roots of bourgeois (in the non-derogatory sense) society: Christianity (although I'm Jewish, I don't think Europe can become a Judeo-Christian society like the U.S.), family, and the enlightenment.

I completely agree and would even strengthen this in two ways. Firstly (and it is in this context that I came to think similarly), I would say that all of the above applies to the U.S.: this nation was better and better off when it was Christian.

It it strange to hear this from a Jew (I am Jewish), but I came to believe strongly that abandoment of religion is at the root of most of social problems we have. True, given the current prominence of the Jewish community in American life, the country would become strongly Judeo-Christian. But I do not care much about the names, and the founders of this great nation were Christian; it would not bother me if someone spoke of purely Christian roots, as I myself did earlier.

Which brings me to the second point, namely, that the problems of Germany and the U.S. are largely the same: post-Christian (as they proudly call it there) view of the worldm, and negative population growth. Whereas they "import" Turkish population, we do the same with Mexicans.

It is my belief that return to what you called "family" follows from return to Christianity: for what other reason wouyld you form a family, if cohabitation is not sin? And, once you displace G-d from one's life, man invariably takes the center stage. Why shoul that man even bother with children if he is at the center of the universe? Thus, I do believe that "family" follows from "Chirstianity" in your list.

"Christianity and the enlightenment are mutually incompatible. And 'family' is on the wane anyway."

That is the man without G-d speaking. And speaking falsely.

Was it not Christianity that created the universities? Was it not under Christianity that the idea of democracy blossomed? (WideAwake, you spoke well on that in the previous post). It's a modern (since mid-1800s, I believe) concept that the two are incompatible. Those who claim incompatibility of religion and enlightenment do not want enlightenment but the power to define what light is.

No explanation, no reasoning, no sign of critical self-examination. Exactly. So much for the enlightened mind.

I believe that one generation brought up with religion can become atheist and remain largely moral (not knowing or crediting the source of their moral sense) but not subsequent generations.

We have a great deal in common, TicToc! I too came to think this way. I said to my daughter a few times, "It's not entirely up to you whether to attend the Temple: you yourself have become a moral and kind person and, should you abandon religion, will problably remain the same person. But your children will go further, and you will not like where they will have gone."

I enjoyed reading your posts, TicToc.

Hence you hardly hear Europeans speak of "Judeo-Christian values", for example, but in the U.S. this is quite common.

I believe that the term "Judeo-Christian" came into wide use after the war, when anti-Semitism became unpopular and, simultaneously, the Jewish community entered fully the mainstream of American life with the ensuing success in professions, art, science, etc.

It is my impression that for most people to say "Judeo-Christian" rather than "Cristian" is mere polightness and acknowledgement of these contributions, rather than a conclusion reached upon study and realization of the great commonality of Jewish and Christian values. I think so becasue I hear this expression evem from those people whom I cannnot suspect of leading an examined life.

In contrast, there is not need for such politeness in Europe, where Jews are almost absent and the few remaning try to be as inconspicuous as possible --- not professionally, but culturally.

Thanks, TQ. Interesting post.

Some comments: there was always great political freedom in Christianity for several reasons: the Empire and the Church were in an adversarial relationship for the first 300 years of their existence. That bred a distrust of tyranny among Christians that has had a lasting effect.

The Hebrew Scriptures contain a very strong critique of tyranny and of the potential evils of monarchy - this resonated strongly.

Christianity assumes that society will never be perfect and this creates a skepticism toward totalizing regimes. Conversely, of course, Muslims idealize the Caliphate and a seamless continuity between politics and religion.

When you say that the term "Judeo-Christian" is more a term of art than a meaningful one, I have to dissent. There is a sense in which it's just a patronizing term, true. But in the past century a vast number of Christian theologians have learned Hebrew and read the Scriptures in that language. from 400 to 1900 AD there were never more than a few dozen Christian theologians alive at any one time that knew Hebrew. That situation has been completely transformed and the mental world of the Christian theologian has been transformed with it. One example: in the Catholic Mass, when we collectively confess our sins before the Scripture readings begin, we strike our chest three times with our fists as a sign of penitence - the earliest Christian liturgies attest to this practice. This is also done by Orthodox Jews, I believe, during the Shacharis before the Shemonah Esrei.

This is a liturgical survival from the Qoheleth Gadol of Ezra. Today, as we write, hundreds of millions of Catholics all over the world repeat this act of humility before the G-d of Jacob that was performed by a tiny band of Jews who wandered out of Babylonian captivity 2,500 years ago. I am very aware of that fact as I assist at Mass. That's Judeo-Christian.

Tictoc probably knows this name, but you also might find him interesting, TQ: Carl Schmitt. He was a German political philosopher who was quite critical of the Enlightenment and wrote a small book called Politische Theologie. He points out that once the Treaty of Westphalia and the French Revolution had diminished or eliminated religious discourse from political life, politics became a religion and those who dissented from approved political ideas became heretics worthy of persecution. Enforced religious uniformity became enforced political uniformity.

Carl Schmitt. He was a German political philosopher who was quite critical of the Enlightenment ... He points out that once the Treaty of Westphalia and the French Revolution had diminished or eliminated religious discourse from political life, politics became a religion and those who dissented from approved political ideas became heretics worthy of persecution. Enforced religious uniformity became enforced political uniformity.

This is quite interesting given that he apparently was very much preoccupied with the notion of "Jewishness" and the "Jews" and alined himself with the Nazis -- up until the defeat in 1945, after which he apparently undegone a "transformation." Are these facts correct?

I've actually done some inquiry into this. He never aligned himself with the Nazis as other German academics, notoriously Heidegger, did.

Basically, he was staunchly anti-Communist throughout the 1920s and critiqued the parliamentary system of Weimar Germany very harshly. He advocated invoking the famous 48th article of the Weimar Constitution - a provision allowing the President to declare himself a dictator in order to deal with a domestic crisis (specifically, in Schmitt's fears, a Communist coup d'etat).

When Hitler seized power, he basically ignored (as so many others did) his anti-Semitic rhetoric and hoped that he would avert the horror of a Bolshevik takeover of Germany.

When Hitler made good on his anti-Semitic rhetoric and enacted the Nuremberg laws, Schmitt basically exited public life. He was automatically suspect because his wife was a non-German Slav and a foreigner and his little daughter was of mixed blood. He decided at that point not to draw any attention to himself and went into semi-retirement.

it should be noted that his favorite student, Leo Strauss, was Jewish and Schmitt pulled strings to get him an academic scholarship in America and the visa that enabled him to escape the Nazi regime. Strauss always defended Schmitt for this reason and said that he was not an anti-Semite.

After the war, Schmitt claimed that he was always secretly opposed to Nazism and that's why he was not active in public life after 1935. In reality, he was probably fearful for his wife and daughter and too cowardly to risk losing his academic career.

I've read many of his articles from the 1920s and I don't recall any that discuss Jews or Judaism in any detail.

Understand that I'm not making excuses for his cowardice. He should have taken a stand and he did not. He should have openly opposed the regime and he failed to.

I just find it amusing that so many academics on the left, including Hannah Arendt, are willing to make excuses for Heidegger - who openly allied himself with the Nazis, gave public speeches in support of the regime and never apologized for advocating it - while they damn Schmitt for not having the courage to speak up. To this day, Heideggerian philosophers like Derrida and Deleuze dominate the academy.

The main reason: Schmitt never stopped vocally opposing Communism and, both before and after the war, advocated parties like the Catholic Center and the Christian Democrats who were more classically conservative in the American sense of the word.

Thank you for the link. I don't see an actual link there to his doctoral thesis.

The Institute for Social Research is, by the way, a Marxist research institute. Its original founder, Theodor Adorno, was a prominent Communist from Frankfurt who knew Schmitt personally and professionally. They hated each other.

The webpage seems to make reference to his famous early paper Der Begriff des Politischen where he makes the argument that all political groupings are organized along friend/enemy lines. Neither the 1927 or 1967 editions make any reference to Jews or Judaism.

I'd like to see more of ISR's evvidence.

wideawake, thank you for your posts, which are gems.

[Schmitt] was staunchly anti-Communist throughout the 1920s and critiqued the parliamentary system of Weimar Germany very harshly.

This jibes with what I've read about Schmitt. I agree with TopQuark that "cowardly" may be too harsh a word for Schmitt.

He advocated invoking the famous 48th article of the Weimar Constitution - a provision allowing the President to declare himself a dictator in order to deal with a domestic crisis (specifically, in Schmitt's fears, a Communist coup d'etat).

Irony of ironies - today Arnulf Baring bemoans that Germany no longer has Article 48!

BTW, here in Frankfurt, where I live, Adorno and his academic collaborator Horkheimer are "Säulenheilige", i.e., revered as cerebral giants by those who fashion themselves "intellectuals". The "dialectical method", which Adorno championed, is a sterile, witless exercise in hair-splitting and not-so-crypto-Marxian exegesis. But immensely popular among the chattering classes.

I was saved from falling into this trap by reading at age 17 the clueless, condescending, anti-sensual putdown by Adorno of jazz music. But I wasn't a conservative yet then, which meant that for many years afterward I remained conflicted, confused and lonely.

Thanks for the post. I notice that things come full circle: we're discussing Adorno, and remember that in the Broder article we translated a Swiss academic said that not only did the attack on America occur on September 11, but that September 11 was also Adorno's birthday. He said that he and his friends prefer to celebrate it that way and that in the future the world will realize that Adorno's birth was the more important event.

Since I went to college in America in the 90s, I've been forced to read more Adorno than I would ever have voluntarily read - but I've never read his essay on jazz. I'm a big jazz fan, and I'd like to hear more about his, presumably stupid, anti-jazz comments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.