4 ms·

Confused by the thesis, which is that modern capitalism owes itself to Protestantism turning away from predestination. But Catholicism had never embraced predes

Confused by the thesis, which is that modern capitalism owes itself to Protestantism turning away from predestination. But Catholicism had never embraced predestination.

keithnz 6y ago
His point was more about the progression of protestant thought from predestination to free will which then formed the shared thinking necessary for Adam Smiths ideas. For clarity, the idea was that the catholic church didn't control your afterlife through their priests and rituals etc so you didn't need the pope and the catholic church for salvation. Your salvation was independent of that. Which was initially thought of as predestination ( names written in the book of life stuff )
analog31 6y ago
It could also be the other way around, that religion adapted to nascent capitalism and developments in other fields including science and technology.
wombatmobile 6y ago
The key point is not predestination. It is the locus of control. Under Catholicism, the church enjoyed a monopoly over interpreting and proclaiming the word of God. The Catholic Church secured this monopoly by encoding the bible in Latin, and requiring priests to know Latin before they could participate in religious dissemination, the source of which was the Vatican. Protestantism, enabled by the printing press, changed the locus of control to parishes, and ultimately, to individuals. Rome no longer held a broadcast monopoly on the word of God. Suddenly, the bible was in English. And German. And French. And Dutch. And Belgian. And American. It was possible for congregations to roll their own sermons, without instruction from the central authority. It was even possible for an individual preacher to break the shackles of the institution by speaking his own interpretation of the bible to his congregation. From the article: > Americans still have a profound faith that our individual destinies are in our own hands. That’s why many people who have only the remotest prospect of ever making their way into the top income-tax bracket nonetheless favor keeping that tax rate low, and why people who have no chance of inheriting money from a taxable estate passionately oppose “death taxes.”
- gscott 6y ago
  Even to the point of discouraging Catholics from reading the bible lest they find something out of line with the Catholic Church's take on things.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    When you see the loopier parts of American Protestant theology (Dominionism and Dispensationalism, anyone?) the Catholic bishops may have had a point. As I understand it, in Judaism you are discouraged from studying the Bible without a study partner, because without one you might easily leave the confines of reason and orthodoxy. So it's not just the Catholics who think you shouldn't make stuff up out out thin air in the name of religion.
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      Dominionism is simply a return to the Puritan ethic that the teachings of the Bible should influence every aspect of the world. I’d agree about dispensationalism, but it’s a stretch to say that people shouldn’t study the Bible by themselves just because an errant doctrine may enter their head. I mean, look at all the errant doctrines of Rome, it hasn’t helped them any.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      To outsiders they're no more loopy than anything you'll find in Catholicism, or in any of the tens of thousands of other mainstream and fringe denominations. The Bible has always been more of a political powerplay than a coherent text. It can literally be interpreted convincingly to support any moral position, from slavery and genocide of unbelievers to soup kitchens for the poor. It's the ultimate meta-text - a patchwork of absolute inconsistency, which makes it possible for anyone with a yearning for political power to cherry pick from it for an effective Proof by Authority gambit. And so all Christians invariably believe their own personal interpretation is the correct one and all other interpretations are more or less obviously wrong. And some will literally fight each other violently over this. A moment's thought should suggest there's something a bit strange and unconvincing about this.
f154hfds 6y ago
The article is indeed confusing on that point. Calvinism in particular holds predestination and free will in tension - via primary and secondary causes. There have always (since long before and after Calvin) been Calvinists and Arminians so it seems strange to say Protestantism 'turned away' from predestination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
- throwaway17_17 6y ago
  I feel like the article confuses this point as well, in addition to disregarding the Calvinist effect on the drive for monetary success in American Protestantism.

Confused by the thesis, which is that modern capitalism owes itself to Protestantism turning away from predestination. But Catholicism had never embraced predestination.

keithnz 6y ago

His point was more about the progression of protestant thought from predestination to free will which then formed the shared thinking necessary for Adam Smiths ideas. For clarity, the idea was that the catholic church didn't control your afterlife through their priests and rituals etc so you didn't need the pope and the catholic church for salvation. Your salvation was independent of that. Which was initially thought of as predestination ( names written in the book of life stuff )

analog31 6y ago

It could also be the other way around, that religion adapted to nascent capitalism and developments in other fields including science and technology.

wombatmobile 6y ago

The key point is not predestination. It is the locus of control. Under Catholicism, the church enjoyed a monopoly over interpreting and proclaiming the word of God. The Catholic Church secured this monopoly by encoding the bible in Latin, and requiring priests to know Latin before they could participate in religious dissemination, the source of which was the Vatican. Protestantism, enabled by the printing press, changed the locus of control to parishes, and ultimately, to individuals. Rome no longer held a broadcast monopoly on the word of God. Suddenly, the bible was in English. And German. And French. And Dutch. And Belgian. And American. It was possible for congregations to roll their own sermons, without instruction from the central authority. It was even possible for an individual preacher to break the shackles of the institution by speaking his own interpretation of the bible to his congregation. From the article: > Americans still have a profound faith that our individual destinies are in our own hands. That’s why many people who have only the remotest prospect of ever making their way into the top income-tax bracket nonetheless favor keeping that tax rate low, and why people who have no chance of inheriting money from a taxable estate passionately oppose “death taxes.”

gscott 6y ago
Even to the point of discouraging Catholics from reading the bible lest they find something out of line with the Catholic Church's take on things.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  When you see the loopier parts of American Protestant theology (Dominionism and Dispensationalism, anyone?) the Catholic bishops may have had a point. As I understand it, in Judaism you are discouraged from studying the Bible without a study partner, because without one you might easily leave the confines of reason and orthodoxy. So it's not just the Catholics who think you shouldn't make stuff up out out thin air in the name of religion.
  - tesmar2 6y ago
    Dominionism is simply a return to the Puritan ethic that the teachings of the Bible should influence every aspect of the world. I’d agree about dispensationalism, but it’s a stretch to say that people shouldn’t study the Bible by themselves just because an errant doctrine may enter their head. I mean, look at all the errant doctrines of Rome, it hasn’t helped them any.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    To outsiders they're no more loopy than anything you'll find in Catholicism, or in any of the tens of thousands of other mainstream and fringe denominations. The Bible has always been more of a political powerplay than a coherent text. It can literally be interpreted convincingly to support any moral position, from slavery and genocide of unbelievers to soup kitchens for the poor. It's the ultimate meta-text - a patchwork of absolute inconsistency, which makes it possible for anyone with a yearning for political power to cherry pick from it for an effective Proof by Authority gambit. And so all Christians invariably believe their own personal interpretation is the correct one and all other interpretations are more or less obviously wrong. And some will literally fight each other violently over this. A moment's thought should suggest there's something a bit strange and unconvincing about this.

f154hfds 6y ago

The article is indeed confusing on that point. Calvinism in particular holds predestination and free will in tension - via primary and secondary causes. There have always (since long before and after Calvin) been Calvinists and Arminians so it seems strange to say Protestantism 'turned away' from predestination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

throwaway17_17 6y ago
I feel like the article confuses this point as well, in addition to disregarding the Calvinist effect on the drive for monetary success in American Protestantism.