Weber & Bureaucracy (was: MO's Vision...

[Michel Ryckx]

First: Terrance's observation: "(...) It is possible that there is something
inherently secularizing about Christianity, for no other religion seems to
give rise spontaneously to secular  beliefs.(...)"

Then Paul : "Just a stab, but did any other religion set about to analyze and
rationalize itself with Aristotle? Did Islam? Does thinking too hard and
precisely about the sacred tend to destroy it? Substitute something else?
Protestants weren't big on Aquinas's legacy. Augustine's approach seems more
suitable to any possible modernist reconciliation to religion I'd think.
Who's to know? "

And me.
One has to make a difference between religion (having one or more convictions
that cannot be proven scientifically, shared by more people and uttered in a
more or less structured way), religiosity (the need to feel oneself part of a
greater entity) and ethics (the (judgment of) human behaviour).

Some religions, like Buddhism or Confucianism, do not need conceptions like
supernatural beings -though one may use them.  Life on the planet is at their
centre.  They are already secular in their own way.  The christian
conceptions lose their value, or have lesser adherents where man has a
greater grip on his environment.  Science often provides such a control.
This is a tendency, which means it is not a natural law; there are exceptions
(i.e. christian fundamentalism in the US).

The link between protestantism and the rise of capitalism is not direct,
though some ideas in protestantism made accumulation of capital easier,
especially the idea that to be good is reflected in the richnesses one may
acquire in this world -it was (is) considered a blessing.  This was one of
mr. Weber's main ideas.  Do not forget there was a main tabu on accumulating
wealth just by lending money during the Middle Ages.  Transnational banking
business was developed mainly in protestant areas.

One can ask the same question an other way: imperial China knew a division of
labour, a scientific development and an accumulation of wealth that can be
compared to Europe's.  Why did capitalism did not evolve there?  The answer
(according to Marx) was that Western Europe lived in chaos politically and
economically -hence the possibility of concurring-, while China's Emperors
were doomed to reign very strictly in order to tame nature (the economy of
water) and to control the peasants.

A bit on Aristotle: Spain, under the Kaliffs, was the main port for Aristotle
to enter Western Europe.  The Islam (and their jewish friends) was profoundly
aware of the interesting knowledge Aristotle offered.  But Islam has nover
known -and will never know, I think- one and only one main theology.  The
catholic church is unique in the rigidity of its dogmas, but has been able
sometimes to incorporate 'new' ideas, like Aristitelism.  But there was a
battle for about 100 years at different universities which parts could be
used.  In the end, it was only logic.  Those who wanted to go further, like
Abélard (author of Sic et Non, Yes or No) or Siger of Brabant, one of the
great philosophers named by Dante, were marginalised.

One of the main characteristics of Protestantism is predestination.  It is
clear that Augustine/Plato is more relevant to a protestant theologian than
Aristotle -it has more mysticism in it.  If I remember well -correct me if
I'm wrong- is that Aquinas was the man of the transsubstantion theory, an
idea that is even now repulsive to other christian churches.  But are holy
texts not even more important to book readers like protestants?  The hard
science (mr. Pynchon mentions Leibnitz) was, at the same time, Aristotelian
by nature (the use of formal logic).

Sorry for the chaotic reply.

Writing from a town where every third citizen has voted fascist,
Michel.