The Holy Capitalists - Right Wing Ideologs
David Brooks had a strange op-ed (behind subscription barrier) in the New York Times today in which he chose to highlight recent research by Rodney Stark of Baylor University showing, at least as Brooks explains it, that science and capitalism developed because they were fostered by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, not because of the secularization of society and the growth of the Age of Reason.
As Brooks puts it, “Catholic theology had taught them that God had created the universe according to universal laws that reason could discover. It taught that knowledge and history move forward progressively, so people should look to the future, not the past.”
Frankly, that just doesn't sound right to me. I haven't had to opportunity to read Professor Stark's work, nor am I an expert in the period, so I am treading into a mine field by questioning this. But, everything I have read about the position of the church in the Middle Ages suggests that it believed insight and wisdom were found not through observation of nature or rational deduction, but through study of the scripture, study of church history, and prayer. Those are exactly the views that would encourage you to look to the past, not the future.
I'm sure that one can find any number of counter-examples among the writings of the Middle Ages, and obviously there is no question that the future always grows out of seeds planted in the past, but I doubt that the Church was particularly helpful in the rise of capitalism or science. I'm certainly skeptical that, “The Catholic Church nurtured one of the most impressive economic takeoffs in human history,” as David Brooks put it.
As I read this, I wondered what Brooks was up to. He rarely writes without a purpose in mind, and it's usually a right wing ideological purpose. Was he trying to argue in favor of theocracy? Was he suggesting that Muslims can't be expected to adopt democracy and capitalism because they're not Christian or Catholic? Is he wading into the “War on Christmas” stupidity? I really don't know for sure.
Brooks concludes his piece with, “Today, as Catholicism spreads in Africa and China, it's important to understand the beliefs that encourage people to work hard and grow rich.”
What's that supposed to mean?
Just for fun, I Googled Professor Rodney Stark to see what else he had done. He claims his field is “Sociology of Religion,” whatever that is, and has a bachelor's degree in journalism and a masters degree and doctorate in sociology. He is widely published and his curriculum vitae is as long as your arm. But, one thing I noticed – he has co-authored articles and books frequently with Professor William Bainbridge.
Among other things, Professor Bainbridge is a blogger – a wingnut blogger from the far far right. In fact, he's so far to the right that he got completely duped yesterday by a spoof in The Onion yesterday that claimed the liberal 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the private celebration of Christmas was illegal and must be stopped. Bainbridge bought that hook, line, and sinker and blogged that this was proof of the reality of the “war on Christmas.”
Of course, you can't judge Stark on the basis of his co-authors alone, but the relationship certainly suggests the two may share ideologies that taint their work. And, why else would David Brooks pick up on this?
posted by walldon | 12:02 PM
5 Comments:
Well, the claim that the medieval Catholic Church fostered the development of science has validity (whether it is conclusive or not is another matter). I am suspicious of a similar claim regarding capitalism, but am not as familiar with that one.
When St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century incorporated the perspectives of the classical Greek philosopher Aristotle into his theology, the natural world came to be understood as a source of "divine revelation". (It was not the primary source, however.) Thomas' positive valuation of reason and the natural world together could well have fostered the early development of science, and I reckon did so. This is the basis for Brooks' comment, "God had created the universe according to universal laws that reason could discover."
Thomas' English contemporary, Roger Bacon, was a Franciscan brother as well as an early light in the development of scientific reasoning. He, too, read and valued Aristotle. I get the impression that he was further out ahead of actual study of nature than Thomas, and (consequently?) got in a bit of trouble with his religious superiors for it. (I have reviewed an article in Roman Catholic online source, New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, for this.) His case seems to argue for a cautious approach to the claim.
The centuries-later case of Galileo (early 1600s) marks a later watershed for matters of the Church and science, though it is the dominant event in most peoples' minds. Even that event did not utterly estrange the two. But in any case, by that time science and reason had taken a stronger and more independent cultural root.
I guess I'll have to try to dig up Brooks' article to get a sense of the rest. Hopefully this is a bit helpful.
ChiTom, are you sure you haven't just picked up the examples I suggested when I said, "I'm sure that one can find any number of counter-examples among the writings of the Middle Ages, and obviously there is no question that the future always grows out of seeds planted in the past?"
Walldon, I see what you mean. But I rather think that there is more of a sea-change starting in the 13th century. (Before that time, I would accept your description, "insight and wisdom were found . . . through study of the scripture, study of church history, and prayer.")
Thomas Aquinas at least is not just an isolated "counter-example": he very quickly became the center ring, where he remains in Roman Catholic theology. Bacon, too, is widely read as marking the philosophical beginning of the scientific thinking (although I am not as sure of his influence upon immediately succeeding generations). It is fair to say that Thomas at least did not value science as a separate and equal discipline to theology.
Nevertheless, his doctrine did allow for a change in how the world was looked at. Yet another factor here was the Christian encounter with Muslim culture, science, and philosophy (in the Middle East and in Spain). The Moors had translated Aristotle into Arabic, and so the Christian West encountered him.
I have, by the way, now read Brooks' piece. I still cannot evaluate the parallel claim the Church fostered capitalism. But I do have three observations:
1. Surely the rise of the nation state during this late Medieval period was a factor in the rise of capitalism. These states existed in an uneasy relationship with the Church and always needed capital for armies and buildings and so forth (during the English Reformation, Henry VIII was at least as interested in the wealth of the monasteries he "suppressed" as he was in having his marriage annulled).
2. One obstacle to the argument that the church stimulated capitalism is (so I have long understood) that Christians were not allowed to charge each other interest, in obedience to Biblical commandments. This inhibited loans and therefore capitalism (except between Jews and Christians, where the prohibition of charging interest, ironically, did not apply). This may be a glitch in the Brooks/Stark thesis.
3. Brooks' final paragraph is problematic in several ways. What I said about Thomas Aquinas was not to say, "The Catholic Church nurtured one of the most impressive economic takeoffs in human history." Rather there were significant elements in theology that allowed for the development of the physical sciences. There was a lot else going on in the period.
Similarly his conclusion is far from obvious: "Today, as Catholicism spreads in Africa and China, it's important to understand the beliefs that encourage people to work hard and grow rich." It is not clear that this was true of the general populace then or now (think feudalism).
The foundations for Capitalism was laid down at the School at Salamanca (re. Saurez, Molina et al) which was attempting to explore economics and systems that was congruent with the Summas. It is interesting to note that this same school established the basis for International Law as well.
As far as contribution to science is concerned just look at the moon. Who are those craters named after? Astronomers and mathematicians. 37 of them happen to be named after Catholic priests who happened to be astronomers and mathematicians. The Big Bang Theory itself was formulated by Lemaitre in 1927 who happened to be a priest.
All those universities, Oxford, Cambridge, The Sorbonne, Cologne, Padua, Turin, Paris established by the clergy to educate. University of Notre Dame, Fordham, Georgetown are among several universities run by the Catholic Church.
Those teaching at the University of Salamanca were Dominicans and Jesuits.
The foundations for Capitalism was laid down at the School at Salamanca (re. Saurez, Molina et al) which was attempting to explore economics and systems that was congruent with the Summas. It is interesting to note that this same school established the basis for International Law as well.
As far as contribution to science is concerned just look at the moon. Who are those craters named after? Astronomers and mathematicians. 37 of them happen to be named after Catholic priests who happened to be astronomers and mathematicians. The Big Bang Theory itself was formulated by Lemaitre in 1927 who happened to be a priest.
All those universities, Oxford, Cambridge, The Sorbonne, Cologne, Padua, Turin, Paris established by the clergy to educate. University of Notre Dame, Fordham, Georgetown are among several universities run by the Catholic Church.
Post a Comment
<< Home