« Sic Transit Venus? | Main | Corpus Christi »
June 09, 2004
Mangled musings .....
Ever wondered what the Western world would be like if Christianity had not flourished? Or even if Constantine had adopted another religion as the State faith? What would our world be like? What sort of society would it be?
It is a fascinating question, and one which, I suspect, has no real answer. I am reasonably sure that several things which we take as "natural freedoms" or "natural philosophy" would not in fact be around today. My reason for this is that many of these are in fact founded upon Hellenistic interpretations of things which come from the Christian Gospels or the early Christian thinkers. Now, it is always tricky trying to guess whether or not these philosophical concepts would have arisen if the world religion choices had been different, but I would suspect that some of them would be unlikely to have a risen in a society in which the religious thinking was based on Mithraism. Even Islam is unlikely to have emerged, as it owes a considerable amount of its philosophical foundatiion to Judeo-Christian thinking and writing in the early 3rd and 4th Centuries - and if no Islam - then aspects of Sikhism would be different as well - if that religion had in fact EVEN emerged.
Had Constantine elected to adopt Mithras and the Mithraic religion as the State Religion of Byzantium, we would indeed be living in a very different world. By the way, this was the alternative choice - Constantine having invited leaders from both "Cults" to debate the principles with his advisers, and apparently the Christian leaders impressed him more. In some ways this was both a blessing and a curse for the church, because although it stopped the persecution and "established" it as the one true faith, it also linked it to the secular authority and made it a political body. Suddenly the Church assumed power, and power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But, what would we have had if the debate had gone the other way. What would we have had from Mithraism?
Well, for one thing, based upon the tenets of the Mithraic doctrine (and it is mainly a "fertility" religion) we would most likely still have slavery. "Human Rights" would almost certainly not have arisen as a philosophy, since there is no doctrine, or foundations for a doctrine, of the sanctity of human life. We would probably not still be living in a Mediterranean-centred Empire, but we would almost certainly be living in a society where might was power, in which the ability to wield the big money would buy anything and anybody to a much greater extent that is true today. And when I say "buy" I mean that in the literal sense.
Mithraism was an Eastern "Mystic" religion, arising in Persia, originally, and it was one favoured by many of the soldiery of the Empire. It espoused the virtue of the warrior and saw the pursuit of conquest and war as being something to glorify. Those who fought bravely and well were believed to be "favoured" and would reap rewards mostly in this life, but with some suggestion of an afterlife remarkably like that on this earth. There was certainly no praise of peace and no suggestion that anyone could expect to be equal. Slave is slave, and the heirarchy rises from there. Don't expect promotion!
So, the world this would most likely have created would have been one of almost constant revolt and war, a world in which life was cheap and human rights consisted of what you could carve out and hang onto for yourself. Slaves would be a norm in the households of the wealthy, and we would still be able to settle debts by "selling" a child into slavery or perhaps even becoming one ourselves. Many of our "moral" standards would also be absent - again because there was no philosophical basis for them in the theology of Mithraism. Some might argue that this is a good thing, but I rather think that if it is properly thought through, it will be seen that it would lead to a society that is debased, brutalised, and generally rather ugly.
Christianity has certainly made some mistakes along the way. Usually when it has tried to be a Secular Power instead of a way of life to which people are invited to subscribe. It has followed some dead ends and as a world religion has made some rather unpleasant choices in its history. However, by and large, the fanatics have not held sway universally or for long. Most have been expoosed as frauds and swept aside fairly swiftly. Worse have been some of the excesses committed in the name of Christianity by political leaders seeking to use the Church as a vehicle for their own ends. Joe Stalin was a very good example in 1940 - 41 when he suddenly espoused the Russian Orthodox faith, restoring it to legality - because he could use it as a way to mobilise and energise the cowed peasantry of Russia.
Without Christianity as a moderating source for philosophy I suspect that life today would be much more like that experienced in the former Eastern Bloc countries under Stalin - with little, if any, hope of change.
I think I prefer the world we have. Of one thing I am certain, I do not wish to live in a world dominated by fanatics of any persuasion - Christian or anything else - and I have every sympathy for those living in Iraq, Iran, and any other country dominated by fanatical clerics whose abuse of power is really getting beyond a joke. This post at On The Third Hand illustrates my point quite well. Ironic, isn't it, that the place that gave rise to Mithraism is now in thrall to people who think along very much the same terms as regards human rights, freedom of choice, and particularly the status of women.
We've a lot to be thankful for that, wrinkles and all, Christian, Judaic, and, yes, reasonable Islamic tenets are now the norm, rather than the terrible prospects that would have issued from centuries of a perverted philosophy. Much of what we now consider as "normal" and, equally, as "unacceptable" stem from the religious influences of these three major religions. Humanism, Marxism, Socialism all have their roots in the message of the Gospel and the religious philosophy that gave rise to them and to Islam. If you doubt this - take a look at the Acts of the Apostles and the "model" community it proposes in Chapters 3 and 4.
Nope, we are fortunate that Constantine chose as he did.
Posted by The Gray Monk at June 9, 2004 12:23 PM