Instigator / Pro
12
1499
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1960

Christianity has done more good than harm for humanity.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1522
rating
18
debates
58.33%
won
Description

This debate is about Christianity's historical impact, and nothing more. We aren't here to discuss whether God exists, who Jesus claimed to be, or any other intensely exciting question that is not relevant to the Christian faith's historical influence. Though the emphasis is on the past, contemporary social ills/benefits on Christianity's part are undoubtedly appropriate.

Christianity refers to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations (those varieties of religion that agree with the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc.).

This is my first debate here, so let me know if I've missed anything in setting this up!

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point Pro

>Reason for Decision: See comments

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter justifies his sources point pursuant to the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************

Ironically enough. Christianity is to be like and follow christ. Jesus never killed or hurt anyone but told us to love our neighbor as ourself. So if christianity causes problems and harm, then its not christianity, but a perversion thereof.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Insightful analysis. I appreciate the feedback.

S&G and CONDUCT: Tie
You both write well and there were no conduct violations. At times I felt Con's tone was more combative than Pro's, but nothing so extreme as to be labeled a conduct problem.

2 OF 2

Pro made a decent opening argument with the one-two punch (i.e. Christianity in theory should promote science and we have some evidence that it did). These arguments were supported by sources, as well. Con countered with some nice points about Christianity being toxic to the cause of rationality and science over the years, but these points were largely asserted and not sourced, thus weakening their strength. I also think Pro hit back with decent sources in defense, so on balance, this one-two punch argument leaned toward Pro’s favor.

On the subjects of the Enlightenment and Middle Age scientific advancements, a similar story played out. Pro started with decent arguments that were supported by sources, Con came back with some incisive and intuitive counters that largely failed to use sources for support. For example, the following statement by Con could’ve been a stronger counterpoint if a source had been cited to support it: “During the Early Middle Ages, or 500 to 1000 CE, scientific progress truly was stagnant in Europe, yet the Christian faith was practiced with devotion almost unrivalled in world history.” So, once again, I lean in favor of Pro on this subject.

Lastly, we have what I have mentally labeled the Atrocities Category. I was not super impressed with either side’s arguments here. Again, Con put forth some incisive, intuitive, but ultimately insufficiently supported claims about Christianity’s misdeeds. Another example: “the Church stifled, censored, and persecuted any scientist who dared publish any findings that went against Christian dogma. The height of persecution lasted from the late 16th to the early 18th century - before that, during the Renaissance, the Church was more lax, which is why Copernicus went unpersecuted. But by Galileo’s time, the Counter-Reformation had set in, and the Church took a more staunch fundamentalist attitude. Thus, they put him on trial for arguing that the Earth moves around the Sun, the opposite seen as Biblical doctrine at the time.” Now, as an atheist, I enjoy reading about how the Church was bad for censoring free thought. This one should go down easy. But Con doesn’t provide any sourcing, and for historical claims such as this, sourcing is important for the strength of the point. But as I said, I wasn’t impressed with either side’s performance in this category. I was displeased with Pro because he often resorted to the “that’s not true Christianity” defense. A real whopper was at the end of his R4 when he claimed Christianity doesn’t support slavery. Whether his definition of true Christianity supports slavery is irrelevant, per my assessment framework mentioned previously.

Pro performed better overall, though not well enough to meet his burden of proof. I was not convinced that had Christianity not existed (or at least been significantly less influential) the world would be a worse place. There are two reasons for my lack of conviction on this point. First, when extolling the scientific and enlightenment values of Christianity, Pro’s arguments never surpassed the plausibility threshold. Sure, we can identify some ways Christianity in theory would promote science. And sure, Christian scientists gave glory to god in the forewords of their books and whatnot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Christianity was the primary causal factor behind the growth of science. Without a precise and definitive account of the various factors at play in the growth of science and other benefits, I’m not confident Pro has met his burden. Second, as I stated, I was unimpressed with Pro’s defense against Christian atrocities by appeals to “not a true Christian.” Of course, Con’s arguments were not very strong due to a lack of sourcing, but this is still overall not good for Pro, considering they carry the burden of proof.

I’ll conclude by saying this was a robust, complicated debate, and I think other intelligent and well-meaning voters could come to a different conclusion. In fact, I think it’s possible someone could offer a better analysis than I have.

1 OF 2

ARGUMENTS: Tie
In my view, for Pro to uphold the claim that Christianity has done more good than harm, he needed to demonstrate a counterfactual. Namely, that had Christianity not existed (or at least not been as influential as it was), the world would be a worse place. I have reason to believe Pro should accept this assessment framework of mine, given that he essentially asserts this counterfactual at the beginning of his opening argument.

I prefer this framework over the two-point standard Pro and Con agreed to in R4, as the second point (actions must originate from Christian beliefs) is too susceptible to the “that’s not real Christianity” defense/excuse for my taste. Furthermore, I think the counterfactual standard is a good way to identify whether Christianity as a phenomenon was a primary causal mechanism behind various good and bad historical developments.

That said, here is my assessment of the clash.

SOURCES: Pro
I’ll divide my assessment here into two categories: Use in Debate and Source Quality.

Starting with the second, I had concerns with both sides' sources from the start. Con was referencing Wikipedia a lot and other blogs (one of which was an atheist blog about Thomas Jefferson - oof!). Wikipedia is ok, but we could do better. Superficially, it looked like Pro was citing a nice academic library of supporting literature, but I was concerned the library might have actually just been an assortment of pseudo-academic Christian historical revisionist garbage (excuse my bluntness).

After reviewing a few of Pro’s sources, I found a mixed bag. Two sources, Schmidt and Amos, looked like they might be closer to the pseudo-academic Christian garbage end of the spectrum than the objective, secular scholarship end. I cannot be sure, however, because I haven’t read them. My suspicion was generated by the book publishers, descriptions, and opening sentences (also the background of the authors wasn’t super encouraging, though I admit I didn’t do a deep background check on them or anything like that). However, Pro’s Efron source was clearly high quality. Written by objective authors (half of them claim to be agnostic/atheist) who just want to set the historical record straight and published by Harvard University Press, I trust this source. Pro and Con had a bit of spat over what the source’s true implications were. When I reviewed it, I found it to be about dispelling myths about science and religion. Most of these myths would have benefited Con, but as Con pointed out, the “Myth 9” chapter had some things to say that weren’t really in Pro’s favor. With that being said, I’m not going to read Myth 9 and try to parse out to what extent Pro and/or Con were selectively quoting. So, when it comes to quality of sources, it’s kind of a draw. I don’t care for Con’s reliance on Wikipedia and blogs, and I have concerns about the integrity of some of Pro’s sources as well.

When it comes to Use in Debate, I think it’s clear that I thought Con did not support his claims with sources frequently enough. Pro’s argument was written like a well-researched college essay, meaning he made claims and then turned to the literature for support.

Given that Quality is a rough draw and Use in Debate goes to Pro, points for Sources go to Pro.

I plan to vote on this.

When I point out that European science was stagnant in the Early Middle Ages, I am excluding the Byzantine Empire. The point still stands, since Western Europe was highly Christian, and should have advanced scientifically if Pro's argument were correct.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

I can't believe I am even saying this right now, but this guy is no normal guy. He "rose from the dead" because he is moral by the old standards.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

Does? well not "does". More like "did".

-->
@User_2006

There is morality iv virtually every other known civilization, some more so than others. Just because you believe a guy was crucified and rose from the dead, and he may come back does not make you moral. Christianity does not bring morality.

My position is that Christianity had done well for humanity because it is a faith that is moral. However under science Christianity is just a road block.

Hello! I'm not quite as bellicose as Dawkins on this subject, as I will admit that Christianity has done some good for humanity. However, I will be arguing that it's far outweighed by the harm. I look forward to debating with you.