"Letter Against the Christians" [Written by Bryan Caplan to Steve Blatt, May 25, 1993] Hmm. I won't be prepared to offer my final verdict on the historical role of Christianity until I finish Johnson's history. Sadly, I had to return it before I left school, so I'm without a copy. I think that tomorrow I'll order one from Laissez-faire books -- none of the stores around here have it. I guess that the best way to think about the question is to understand the possible interpretations of it. Thus, if Christianity were the one true way, then it would be difficult to conclude that Christianity was over-all a bad thing. One might point out excesses, but these would never be particularly convincing to the believer; after all, what earthly ill can compare to the wonder of eternal salvation? So I suppose that my queries into the historical role of Christianity presuppose its falsity, at least to some extent. But I can think of three other important versions of the question. First, one could wonder if Christianity usually elevated people'e moral character (understood broadly) above what it would otherwise have been. Note that this requires that we have some idea about what is moral; for I might concede that Christianity generally repressed people's sexuality, but hold that free sexual expressible is basically a good thing, in which case the moral influence was bad. Second, one could wonder if Christianity promoted respect for individual rights, law-abiding behavior, and other basic building blocks necessary for civilization to exist at all. Third, one could wonder if Christianity has made people on the whole happier than they would have been in its absence. But wait. I think that I am too hasty. I consider Christianity only in comparison to what was most likely to replace it. While this is reasonable to some degree, it might be that all of the alternatives were bad, so Christianity deserves condemnation (albeit a milder one) even if it did have a net positive influence. I suppose that this criticism would be most reasonable if one had a new and positive alternative to all of the major cultural forces throughout history -- at least that would show that one wasn't expecting the impossible. Anyway, let me try a tenative survey of the consequences of Christianity from each of these perspectives. 1. Has Christianity elevated people's moral character? I see Christianity as a very negative force here (though like I said, this heavily depends on what is in fact moral). For example, I think that one of our highest duties is to believe what is true; and as a corrolary, we must be objective, intellectually honest, open-minded, and look for disconfirming as well as confirming evidence for our beliefs. And I will say that Christianity has been the major opponent of this virtue: even in today's "liberal" atmosphere, Christian religions inculcate irrationality, dogmatism, close-mindedness, and emotionalism. I grew up Catholic, which is actually one of the more rationalist wings of Christianity. And I can tell you that one of the chief cruelties perpetrated on Catholic youths was indoctrination. Priests, catechism instructors, parents and the like bark out "the truth" and kids are supposed to swallow it whole. Naturally, this is bad not only in itself; it also builds bad intellectual habits across the board. Mainly, I see that this dire consequence of Christianity appears whenever Christians have to think about anything philosophical or deep: that is, they fail to think at all. Even if Christianity were 100% correct, I would still deplore this method of inculcation. To take a second instance, I think that it is good for people to have high self-esteem and to like themselves (unless they are bad people, of course). But Christianity incessantly tells people that they are sinners, warns them against pride, and tells them that they have a long list of impossible duties to fulfill. Thus, I remember hearing that the truly good person would give away all of their worldly possessions; that they would "turn the other cheek" (i.e., offer no resistance to abuse of any kind); that they would be celibate/asexual, etc. Initially, one might wonder why a religion would impose such impossible duties on people; after all, no one is going to fulfill them. However, imposing impossible duties destroys pride and self-esteem and makes everyone feel (somewhat) guilty. And since we are supposed to feel guilty anyway -- no matter what we've done -- the doctrine achieves the desired results. To take a third instance, I think that it is perfectly laudable for responsible adults to enjoy sex. But Christianity is notorious not just for discouraging irresponsible sex, but all sex. Indeed, this is probably the place where Christianity built its most lasting edifice of hangups and psychological problems. And fourthly, Christianity has long condemned self-interest in general and money-making in particular. I think that this is bad for two reasons. First, I think that honest production is good, and I admire productive people. Second, Christianity's blanket condemnation of self-interest makes no distinction between criminals and users who get ahead at the expense of other people, and productive people who get ahead by hard work. I think that this is one of the central roots of Marxism and socialism, and it has a securely Christian origin. But perhaps I'm being unfair; let me look for some disconfirming evidence. Well, Christians have long prided themselves on their charity and benevolence toward their fellow humans. Johnson mentions that a certain Roman emperor lamented that the Christians took care of all of their own with voluntary contributions, while the Roman state never had enough to care for its people. This is an area where there are stark differences among different Christian groups: I believe that the pacifist Quakers were really interested in human well-being; but I doubt that Calvinists were a positive force in any sense. Now I think that it is a good thing to help other people (though not the sole good); but this moral principle requires two qualifications. Firstly, we must always distinguish between the deserving and the undeserving poor. Children, the severely handicapped, victims of war or crime or government policies -- these kinds of people deserve help. But poverty is often self-inflicted -- laziness, drug or alcohol abuse, etc. I don't think that such people deserve help -- or at least not much. Well, let me give credit where credit is due. It was actually Protestant theologians who came up with this distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. But they were only one narrow wing of Christianity. I think that the overall thrust has been in the other direction -- one again, of blurring the distinction. While growing up Catholic, I remember nothing but blanket injunctions to help "the poor" -- all of them. No indication that anyone might be to blame for their own condition. And this is predictable, because the general Christian thrust has been to say that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, to ask who we are to throw the first stone, etc. So while Christians came up with this distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor, the dominant thrust runs the other way. Second, I think that it is silly to discuss the question of poverty apart from the question of production. In the long run, we aren't going to eliminate poverty by giving charity to people; we have to increase our total production. And this is another area where Christianity is, on the whole, a sinner. Read the New Testament, or listen to any typical sermon on the subject. Christianity focuses almost exclusively on redividing a fixed pie of wealth, never on producing more. It usually acts as if the only reason that poor people are poor is because rich people are rich. But that's nonsense, as every economist knows. Admittedly, certain Protestant sects emphasized the value of hard work; but even they paid little attention to economic growth, which is the real solution to poverty. So again on the issue of charity and benevolence, Christianity comes out looking bad. While it may have encouraged some good acts, it usually ignored two crucial points: Namely, the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, and the importance of economic growth. Its moral contribution again seems on the whole negative. And I might again mention that these two omissions were picked up by Marxists and socialists, who discovered even worse forms of the error. -- 2. Did Christianity encourage respect for individual rights, the law, and other basic building blocks of civilization? Many people have made this claim, but I just don't see what their evidence is. As soon as it got the chance, Christianity did away with all of the religious and intellectual tolerance of Rome and instituted a moderate form of totalitarianism for a thousand years. And it was probably moderate because the Church didn't have the resources to crush all dissent and conquer everyone, not because they wouldn't have wanted to. Once Protestant groups came along, the deeply ingrained intolerance sparked by Christianity led to a couple more centuries of inter-faith blood-letting. It is true that Christianity tried to discourage random violence and lawlessness. But so does every society. Did crime rates and the like substantially drop after Christianity took over the empire? We don't have the numbers, but I doubt it. I suppose that international comparison of crime rates would be the best test. Prima facie, the case doesn't look too good: Japan and other Asian nations seem to have the best record there. Anyway, private crime is always trivial compared to the violations of individual rights institutionalized in government; and here there can be little doubt about the record of Christianity. But what about the struggles for religious toleration? Weren't these championed by Christians? Well, I take a cynical view of all this. I think that Christians want tolerance when they are a minority sect, but want enforced conformity when they are the majority. And history confirms this: the most tolerant countries were usually those with many Christian factions, so that all of them were minorities. Like the United States or Britain, for example. (In the latter case, there was the Anglican Church, but Catholic and Calvinist minorities were large and well-armed.) The nations under the sway of Martin Luther, or Spain, France, and Italy under Catholic influence, or Switzerland under Calvin, each with overwhelming majority factions, were the least tolerant and the slowest to respect minority rights. Christianity discouraged some wars; to that I'll assent. If you read Harold Berman's Law and Revolution, you will learn about the Peace of God and Truce of God movements, which basically tried to strangle warfare by reducing the number of religiously permissible days on which to fight. A certain pope convinced Atilla to spare Rome. Christian missionaries helped pacify Germanic tribes. Other examples doubtlessly exist. But to this we must compare the endless list of religious wars both between Christian factions and between Christians and other groups. I have no doubt where the balance lies. Christianity is also vaguely associated with respect for private property. But almost all historical societies have respected private property, so that's not that impressive. It is roughly the same as Christianity's role in discouraging crime and lawlessness. My view is that Christianity tends to support whatever the status quo is: Christianity has a long history of support for serfdom too. I might also note that early Christians lived in communes and preached the superiority of communal life, and that this ideal inspired many socialists, both Christian and non-Christian. Overall, it is hard to be pro-private property when you condemn self- interest and care more about distributing than producing wealth. In any case, in the 20th-century Christianity has been almost invariably social democratic or socialist in political philosophy, so its commitment to private property couldn't run too deep. 3. Has Christianity made people happy(er)? Again, I think that it definitely hasn't. As I argued above, one of its main themes is that we are all guilty and we are all sinners. Who ever heard of a happy, guilty sinner? In general, Christianity sets up impossible moral ideals. So you either have to devote your whole life to their service, turning the other cheek day after day, or be a hypocrite. Neither is likely to promote happiness. I find it very interesting that some Christians blame the decline of the family on the decline of Christianity, and at the same time associate the decline of Christianity with the search for personal happiness. I just read a column in the LA Times to this effect. I think that this idea is just riddled with errors. First, it apparently assumes that family life is less happy than broken homes, divorce, illegitimacy, etc. I find this difficult to understand. It seems to me that the best way to promote the nuclear family is to argue that it benefits all concerned and to show that it is an attractive ideal. Second, many non-Christian societies -- such as those of Asia -- have very stable family structures. Third, these critics correctly realize that Christianity discourages the pursuit of personal happiness. But that doesn't seem to bother them, which puzzles me greatly. I would say that one important cause of our nation's decaying family structure isn't so much the decline of Christianity as the decline of some features of Christianity. Let me explain. It is true that Christianity has generally supported traditional familes and discouraged premarital sex. Hence the association between Christianity and the family. However, Christianity has also discouraged critical thinking and forethought, especially on sexual matters. I think that marriage is an area where many people are especially prone to unrealistic expectations and act on their emotions. And this is precisely the kind of attitude toward serious questions that Christianity encourages. Now I think that in recent decades, Christian sexual taboos eroded, while respect for rational thinking has remained at its usual low level. Naturally, this environment creates a lot of misery. But what if we combined a freer sexual ethic with unsquemish critical thinking and forethought about the consequences of sex? Wouldn't that give us the best of both worlds? I think that it would. Moreover, we could have better families than we traditionally had, families in which the parents carefully considered their life choices, planned ahead for each child, and so on. This is the vision that makes sense to me; and I notice that it differs significantly both from the "no-fault" views of liberals and the hellfire and damnation views of traditional Christians. -- Paul Johnson, among others, gives Christianity the credit for many of our best moral traditions that I endorse. For example, he says that the ethic of personal responsibility, of individual merit and blame, the value of the individual life, and free will all come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think that this is nonsense: one may find all of these ideas in the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, Epictetus, and other Graeco- Roman philosophers. Moreover, many strands of Christianity militantly oppose these values. Catholics, for example, believe in Original Sin; somehow, we're all guilty because of what Adam did. (Collective responsibility). Many Protestant sects reject free will, claiming that God picks our the elect and damns the rest (e.g., Lutheranism, Calvinism, and many others). The "who are we to cast the first stone" mentality found in the New Testament is difficult to reconcile with an ethic of personal responsibility. Actually, collective guilt and punishment originates in the Old Testament with God's orders to Moses to exterminate the native inhabitants of Palestrine en masse; and it continues into the New Testament with Christ's claim that towns that turn away the disciples will suffer (collective) punishments worse than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. As for the value of human life -- Old and New Testaments alike prescribe death, torture, and eternal suffering for even trivial offenses. I might add that when you say that all people are by nature sinners, you inherently sully the value of human life. If people can't be good and pure, why should we value their lives anyway? -- But perhaps I am unfair, historically if not philosophically. What better movements does history offer us? Well, I think that Graeco-Roman culture and the Enlightenment are the best historical alternatives to Christianity. Not perfect, by any means. But a lot better. Graeco-Roman culture was much more tolerant than Christianity. They focused a lot more on economic growth and earthly progress. They usually believed in reason and science, even if some of their methods were poor. And they were far from amoral: such noted moralists as Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus arose from classical civilization, and they were widely read, at least among the educated classes. Johnson notes that philosophical systems never appeal much to the masses. He is somewhat right, but I see this as bad marketing more than anything else. And that is where my second example comes in: the Enlightenment. Especially in early America, the ideals of liberty, tolerance, critical thinking and so on seemed to spread to regular people, via such great popularizers as Thomas Paine. And in Europe it was the same: Enlightenment ideas helped do away with serfdom and encourage the growth of a commercial society. I strongly disagree with Burke's interpretation of the Enlightenment, along with that of many conservatives. They are certainly correct to point out the totalitarian factions under the influence of Rousseau. But here is the question: were totalitarian factions the essence of the Enlightenment, or merely a deviation? I take the latter view. Totalitarian views had been around in Europe ever since Christianity took over; the movement itself was a prototype for modern totalitarianism. And Rousseau got most of his ideas from the most totalitarian of all Christians of his time, Jean Calvin. Imagine that there had been no libertarian part in the Enlightenment. We would then surely say that the remaining factions were basically secular Christians, seeking the same total state with a different rationale. But what then should we say about the actual situation, in which there was a large libertarian faction? I think that we should realize that the libertarian faction was the essential break with the totalitarianism of the past, and that the Rousseau-wing was the backward-looking and confused branch. It seems especially peculiar to blame totalitarianism on the Enlightenment, when all of the features of totalitarianism existed under Christianity. Surely it makes more sense to blame the bad parts of the Enlightenment on the dark cultural legacy of Christianity. I confess that I find conservatives' blanket condemnation of the Enlightenment difficult to understand. Whatever its failings, this was the movement that abolished serfdom, that granted widespread religious toleration, that broke the power of absolute monarchs, and so on. I might also note that most of the great classical liberal economic thinkers came out of the Enlightenment: not only Adam Smith, David Hume, Adam Ferguson, and other Scottish figures; but Jean-Baptiste Say, Frederic Bastiat, Turgot, and other members of the French Enlightenment. After the 1815 Reaction engineered by Metternich, liberal ideas lived on to push for free trade, peace, anti-colonialism, elected governments, minority rights, and the end to feudalism everywhere. It must be said that socialists gradually took up many of these ideas; but nevertheless laissez-faire and Enlightenment went together for many decades. Astute historians note the similarities between the monarchist reactionaries and the revolutionary socialists: both wanted a regimented and hierarchical society, both wanted to impose their ideas by force, and both hated the rising bourgeoisie. (For the perspective of an honest socialist, see Carl Landauer, History of European Socialism; for a libertarian restatement of the same viewpoint, see Murray Rothbard's "Left and Right: the Prospects for Liberty," reprinted in The Libertarian Alternative). You might remember my question at Toastmasters regarding your favorite historical period. If I had to choose one, it would be early northern America after the revolutionary war. As I see it, this was the freest society on earth, and one dominated by optimism, economic growth, religious toleration, and a secular and rational outlook. And at the same time, it was a deeply moral culture: by 1800, all of the northern states voluntarily abolished slavery, beginning, if I recall correctly, with Quaker Pennsylvania. It must be admitted that the leading thinkers (Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and other deists) were on the irreligious fringe of the population; but nevertheless, a secular outlook spread deep into the attitudes of the people. All this preceded a century of economic growth, free immigration and haven for the oppressed of most nations (Indians and later Asians excluded), and other wonders. That is what I think the world could and should be like without Christianity. -- But does my analysis really apply to modern times? You are perfectly correct to point out that extreme Christianity is pretty trivial in our day and age. But I think that the Christianity that lingers is still harmful. After all, people intellectually still believe everything I attacked above; they are just hypocrites and/or willfully ignore their alleged beliefs. I occasionally ask Christians why they don't want to put me to death as the Bible prescribes, and I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. Mainly, the irrationality, emotionalism, and unwillingness to think critically about important questions -- all of which I blame on Christianity -- remain. I remember Corina once asked me why I liked philosophy. I said that I liked to get the answers to important questions. And she replied: "That's what religion is for." I was pretty stunned; but I think that her attitude is prevalent. Namely, the idea is that we have a pre-cooked philosophy and we don't need to wonder if it is true. If we don't like it, we can ignore it; but we can't actively question it. I think that this is all dishonest; preposterous. Either Christianity is true or it isn't; if it is true, we'd better shape up and start following it; and if it isn't, we better figure out what is correct. Hypocrisy may dilute the harm of Christianity, but it can't make it a positive force. But hey -- most Christians seem like decent people, right? I think that this is just their common sense popping through, overriding their Christianity. They aren't decent because they are Christians ("And they'll know we are Christians by our loveI" goes one Catholic hymn), but because they've got common sense and don't take religion too seriously. If you doubt this, try to be friends with someone who takes Christianity really seriously, and you will realize that they are not much fun to be around. Johnson is quite pro-Christianity, but he is also an honest and factual historian, so I intend to finish his book. I passed over a lot of subtleties. There are sure to be Christian scholars who could point out exceptions to each of my points. My point is that we must recognize the exceptions as exceptions. For every Christian thinker who supported tolerance, there were hundreds who didn't; for every monk economist who wrote on the need for economic growth, there were thousands of crude redistributionists; and so on. As a final point, let me restate my view that modern totalitarianism is a cultural legacy of Christianity. Christianity logically led to the establishment of a total society. There was one dogmatic set of beliefs that everyone had to believe. They was an oligarchy of leaders that everyone had to obey. Personal happiness was denounced and sacrificed in favor of the grandiose schemes for the world's salvation. Free scientific inquiry was suppressed if it contradicted dogma. The labor supply was rigidly controlled by the government; labor was tied to the land. Wars were periodically waged against "external enemies." Internal heretics were suppressed. Etc. As you should notice, any of these charges could be made against Christianity, Marxism, Nazism, and other totalitarian belief systems -- whenever they achieve cultural dominance*. You should also note that what replaced totalitarian Christianity was basically the open, commercial, bourgeois society of the 18th and 19th-centuries. A lot of people -- especially intellectuals -- hated this society precisely because it was open. They liked the way things used to be -- not exactly, of course. But they liked the totalitarianism. This is what I think inspired Marx and other socialists who pioneered modern totalitarianism. As for Nazism and fascism, I think that Paul Johnson is perfectly correct to say "But what exactly was [fascism]? It was unthinkable [for Communists] to recognize it for what it was - a Marxist heresy, indeed a modification of the Leninist heresy itself." (MT, p.102) Alas, Johnson himself finds it unthinkable to recognize Marxism for what it is: the most successful and vicious of a long line of Christian heresies. *I suppose that there are two dimensions to dominance: proportion of the population and intensity of belief. Most Americans are Christians, but they are mild and secular, so Christianity doesn't dominate our current culture. It is just one voice among many. P.S. I don't remember who made this point, but you said that someone believed that guilt (inculcated by Christianity) was a positive moral force, and that shame -- a less effective alternative -- would be our only substitute. Well, I've observed that most people -- whatever their religious views - - feel guilty if they seriously hurt others. Not shame, but guilt. I too would feel guilty if I did wrong. As I should. It seems to me that upbringing does a lot more to instill "self- monitoring" than religion does. I bet that a very high percentage of criminals are religious believers -- it doesn't stop them. And a relatively high percentage of professors are irreligious -- but they still seem to have internalized some moral precepts. Actually, one could argue that Christianity uses guilt in all the wrong ways: it damns everyone, so the marginal moral cost of criminality is pretty small. And it all gets washed away at confession, so why worry? Guilt, properly used, would apply selectively to people who actually did something wicked; but atonement would then require serious reform and restitution, not just an Act of Contrition.