6 ms·

Interesting, but I believe Stephenson is completely wrong about the motivation. Thomas More, as his writings in Utopia make clear, was most worried about the a

Interesting, but I believe Stephenson is completely wrong about the motivation. Thomas More, as his writings in Utopia make clear, was most worried about the all-against-all that comes from anarchy. Moreover, in some sense, he and his fellow anti-Reformation thinkers were correct; the Reformation did lead to enormous trouble. The Wars of Religion, from Luther's 95 Theses to the Treaty of Westphalia, lasted for 100 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion). The anti-Reformation thinkers could see perfectly well that they would be the near-inevitable result of letting just anybody set forth their own interpretation of Scripture. From our own vantage point, the Reformation was undoubtedly a good thing, even if you are Catholic, because it established freedom of thought (relatively speaking), but it was several generations of conflict that was often vicious even by the standards of war. If More had had perfect knowledge of the future, looking at the Wars of Religion that the Reformation would lead to, he would not have been at all surprised. If he thought that burning half a dozen heretics was preferable to several generations of civil war, well, he might have been incorrect, but it doesn't make him a monster. It makes him a man afraid of the storm that's coming, and desperate to avoid it by any means possible.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
It's widely forgotten that burning heretics was widely accepted in Christian theology, especially at the time. The rationale is quite simple: They believed in an eternal Hell. Unrepentant heresy places you in eternal Hell. Hell also has levels and is not the same for everyone; not necessarily Dante's circles, but not far off. This is easily proven, just look at Saint Thomas Aquinas, who warned that sins against the deliberate intellect (heresy, blasphemy, schism) are much more inexcusable than sins of the passions and nature (lust, sloth); even if both are damnable. Vice versa, Heaven also has levels, and it was (and is) a pious opinion that no two people are ever at exactly the same level. If Hell is eternal, and it is possible for you to make your own Hell worse, killing you if you refuse to repent directly prevents you from making your eternal punishment worse. It also prevents bringing other people with you, and the guilt you would bear for influencing other people. In a way, it is an act of charity to other people and yourself; causing some Saints and scholars to comment at the time to do otherwise would actually be hateful. There's also the issue of, if someone was going to repent, the logical assumption that going to the noose or stake is a much stronger motivator than dying in your sleep at 73. In line with the above, the very act of burning itself was seen as somewhat of a charity. A public spectacle to warn against following them (charity to the viewers); but also a constant suggestion, even to the end, to the burned of what is waiting for them eternally, giving them one last chance to repent. For what it's worth though, Historians tell us that most of the burned died by suffocation and not by the actual burning, which would have been probably also been known at the time. (Worth remembering, both the Reformers and the original Catholics burned at the stake for similar rationales.)
- flerchin 2y ago
  They burned people, alive, for literally nothing. Your 4 paragraphs of apologia are simply that.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    I have no doubt, nor question, that some people were burned alive, for no actual crime; just as I have no doubt, nor question, that some people are imprisoned for stupid reasons today. The principles matter; and explaining the cold logic behind it, should not be interpreted as an apologia. On that note, "for nothing" implies an automatic bias towards lack of belief; not shared by the majority of people on earth. While Christians no longer burn at the stake, Islamic countries still stone for adultery.
    - fifticon 2y ago
      if it matches what happened in my country during the witch hunt era, people were often burned so other people could take their loot. That is, there was a strong alignment between who drove the accusations, and who stood to gain from the victim's untimely death.
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        Quite possibly; however, it's very difficult to say due to lack of data and no way to prove it one way or the other. I do know that within Christian theological circles, this would have been considered an abhorrent crime of bearing false witness, just as it has always been. The other reason it's difficult is the sheer prevalence, even in our modern culture, of the Black Legend which injected all sorts of myths regarding the Inquisition and Medieval culture. For example, the Inquisition rarely used torture, Torquemada only had 1% of his heretics executed, and there is only one documented instance of a woman ever being racked (and it wasn't even part of the Inquisition). The effects of the Black Legend were so extreme, that to quote the modern European historian Elvira Roca Barea: "If we deprive Europe of its hispanophobia and anti-Catholicism, its modern history becomes incomprehensible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend Or, if that sounds too boring, broad, or controversial, here's History for Atheists admitting the Inquisition and witch hunts is one of the dumbest arguments for atheism, due to heavy involvement of commonly accepted myths: https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-the-inquisition-myths-and-history/ https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-th...
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
Nitpick, because it really rubs me the wrong way, to see this repeated again and again. What you are describing as anarchy here, is anomy in reality. Anarchy is basically any society without rule from the top, whatever the top may be, replace by reasonable self-rule and consensual interactions of that society. Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses. That is a big difference.
- sympil 2y ago
  Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses. Then anarchy as you describe it can not exist. In a power vacuum someone will have the biggest bat and thus be the ruler.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    Anarchy argues that supreme executive power should not rest in a ceremonially selected individual but instead derive from a mandate from the masses. Yes that’s paraphrasing Monty Python. But real anarchism isn’t the rejection of all authority, just the rejection of hierarchies of power in favour of ideas of collective responsibility and decision making. Committees, not Crowns.
    - sympil 2y ago
      …hierarchies of power in favour of ideas of collective responsibility and decision making. Thus it can’t exist becuase some group will eventually gain more power than others and thus exert control.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    Even if only a purely speculative, theoretical concept, it's still a misnomer to use it as substitue for anomy.
Neonlicht 2y ago
Actually most countries did not choose freedom of religion. Protestant countries kicked the Catholics out and vice versa. The Netherlands was for a long time the only place in Europe that considered religion to be a personal affair- Amsterdam famously was the only city with a synagogue. However even the Dutch occasionally had to execute or banish religious extremists.
- thinkingemote 2y ago
  The point is that it eventually led to it in the 19th century. Very hard to predict it happening but easy to see with hindsight.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gjsman-1000 2y ago

It's widely forgotten that burning heretics was widely accepted in Christian theology, especially at the time. The rationale is quite simple: They believed in an eternal Hell. Unrepentant heresy places you in eternal Hell. Hell also has levels and is not the same for everyone; not necessarily Dante's circles, but not far off. This is easily proven, just look at Saint Thomas Aquinas, who warned that sins against the deliberate intellect (heresy, blasphemy, schism) are much more inexcusable than sins of the passions and nature (lust, sloth); even if both are damnable. Vice versa, Heaven also has levels, and it was (and is) a pious opinion that no two people are ever at exactly the same level. If Hell is eternal, and it is possible for you to make your own Hell worse, killing you if you refuse to repent directly prevents you from making your eternal punishment worse. It also prevents bringing other people with you, and the guilt you would bear for influencing other people. In a way, it is an act of charity to other people and yourself; causing some Saints and scholars to comment at the time to do otherwise would actually be hateful. There's also the issue of, if someone was going to repent, the logical assumption that going to the noose or stake is a much stronger motivator than dying in your sleep at 73. In line with the above, the very act of burning itself was seen as somewhat of a charity. A public spectacle to warn against following them (charity to the viewers); but also a constant suggestion, even to the end, to the burned of what is waiting for them eternally, giving them one last chance to repent. For what it's worth though, Historians tell us that most of the burned died by suffocation and not by the actual burning, which would have been probably also been known at the time. (Worth remembering, both the Reformers and the original Catholics burned at the stake for similar rationales.)

flerchin 2y ago
They burned people, alive, for literally nothing. Your 4 paragraphs of apologia are simply that.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  I have no doubt, nor question, that some people were burned alive, for no actual crime; just as I have no doubt, nor question, that some people are imprisoned for stupid reasons today. The principles matter; and explaining the cold logic behind it, should not be interpreted as an apologia. On that note, "for nothing" implies an automatic bias towards lack of belief; not shared by the majority of people on earth. While Christians no longer burn at the stake, Islamic countries still stone for adultery.
  - fifticon 2y ago
    if it matches what happened in my country during the witch hunt era, people were often burned so other people could take their loot. That is, there was a strong alignment between who drove the accusations, and who stood to gain from the victim's untimely death.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Quite possibly; however, it's very difficult to say due to lack of data and no way to prove it one way or the other. I do know that within Christian theological circles, this would have been considered an abhorrent crime of bearing false witness, just as it has always been. The other reason it's difficult is the sheer prevalence, even in our modern culture, of the Black Legend which injected all sorts of myths regarding the Inquisition and Medieval culture. For example, the Inquisition rarely used torture, Torquemada only had 1% of his heretics executed, and there is only one documented instance of a woman ever being racked (and it wasn't even part of the Inquisition). The effects of the Black Legend were so extreme, that to quote the modern European historian Elvira Roca Barea: "If we deprive Europe of its hispanophobia and anti-Catholicism, its modern history becomes incomprehensible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend Or, if that sounds too boring, broad, or controversial, here's History for Atheists admitting the Inquisition and witch hunts is one of the dumbest arguments for atheism, due to heavy involvement of commonly accepted myths: https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-the-inquisition-myths-and-history/ https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-th...

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

Nitpick, because it really rubs me the wrong way, to see this repeated again and again. What you are describing as anarchy here, is anomy in reality. Anarchy is basically any society without rule from the top, whatever the top may be, replace by reasonable self-rule and consensual interactions of that society. Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses. That is a big difference.

sympil 2y ago
Anomy is chaos, ruled by the ones with the biggest bats, without any protections against that, for the masses. Then anarchy as you describe it can not exist. In a power vacuum someone will have the biggest bat and thus be the ruler.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  Anarchy argues that supreme executive power should not rest in a ceremonially selected individual but instead derive from a mandate from the masses. Yes that’s paraphrasing Monty Python. But real anarchism isn’t the rejection of all authority, just the rejection of hierarchies of power in favour of ideas of collective responsibility and decision making. Committees, not Crowns.
  - sympil 2y ago
    …hierarchies of power in favour of ideas of collective responsibility and decision making. Thus it can’t exist becuase some group will eventually gain more power than others and thus exert control.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  Even if only a purely speculative, theoretical concept, it's still a misnomer to use it as substitue for anomy.

Neonlicht 2y ago

Actually most countries did not choose freedom of religion. Protestant countries kicked the Catholics out and vice versa. The Netherlands was for a long time the only place in Europe that considered religion to be a personal affair- Amsterdam famously was the only city with a synagogue. However even the Dutch occasionally had to execute or banish religious extremists.

thinkingemote 2y ago
The point is that it eventually led to it in the 19th century. Very hard to predict it happening but easy to see with hindsight.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]