I have referred on this blog several times to the dispute between the Roman noble Symmachus and St. Ambrose. It was one of the last public disputations between the paganism of classical Rome and the rising Christian confession, after this point (the late 4th century), classical paganism lost any eloquent partisan who could argue for it in the public sphere (the isolated intellectuals at The Academy in Athens do not count), and the next century witnesses the slow fixation of Christianity as an endemic trait of European high culture. I thought about this as I saw an advert over at Skeptic for Jonathan Kirsch's new book, God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism (details of his lecture at CalTech later this month). When I selected the link for Amazon I was surprised to see that the Publisher's Weekly thought that Julian was Constantine's son (he was Constantine's half-nephew)-but I was not surprised to see some reviewers point to pagan treatment of Jews & Christians as examples of religious persecution. A reading of the history seems to show Jewish & Christian tensions with the pagan Roman state were rooted in religio-political differences, and its more appropriate analogy is with political dissidents, not religious heretics (blasphemy is a pagan concept, but heresy seems really not to be due to pagan pluralism of belief).

Personally, I side with paganism over Christianity for personal reasons, as I am a secularist who sees space for skepticism in the pagan fold (despite its dominant superstition), while the more intellectually tightly knit Christian system of beliefs leaves less "space" for my kind (and Islam for that matter). Nevertheless, I do not discount the argument made by scholars like Rodney Stark that Christianity was a necessary condition for the scientific and socio-political revolution that resulted in the modern liberal West (though Stark tends to play fast and loose with facts when I read his work closely when it is outside his core sociological speciality, especially history [1], and his animus toward liberal secularism is plain and rather unconcealed [2]).

But back to Symmachus & Ambrose.

Says Symmachus:

It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.

Who could imagine a more liberal and modern sentiment?

But now see this small assertion from Ambrose:

This alone was common to me with the barbarians, that of old I knew not God.

Where Symmachus offers a toleration of old, Ambrose offers universal salvation, to barbarian and Roman, all under heaven. Both sentiments are expressions of universal urges in humanity-did not Sargon of Akkad, the first emperor known to history, call himself Lord of the Four Corners of the World, signifying his universal rule? An understanding that other peoples have other ways is also ancient, and understanding that other individuals have their own way of behaving, their own motives, is likely part of social intelligence.

Our personal biases infuse our perceptions of ancient paganism and Christianity with sins and virtues that we would like to see in a society that we prefer (whatever our vantage point might be, ergo, Christian socialists argue that socialism is inevitable from Christianity, while Christian libertarians argue the converse). To decompose the elements of European culture, and view Christianity a la carte, is supremely difficult at this point in our history. Using eloquent men like Symmachus as exemplars of the pagan way is tempting, but we neglect the barbarity that lurks within acceptance of pluralism [3].

Finally, we do neglect a culture that might be a reflection of what-might-of-been had there been a further maturation of classical European paganism: Hindu India. India's acceptance of pluralism, and toleration of minority faiths (relative), stands in contrast with the cultures to its West. But there is No Free Lunch, an understanding of the virtues of plural belief and practice seems to come at the price of a universal passion for justice and equality, and ossification of class and caste differences as humans fracture into a thousand sects.

The meme might not be the machine, the engine that causes, but the enzyme that enables and amplifies. The God of Abraham catalyzed the tendency toward equality (moral) that was common in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA). On the other hand, mature "paganism," with its diversity of belief subsumed under the rubic of a diffuse philosophical monism, crystallizes the occupational and cultural specialization that characterized the rise of city-state. Seen this way, the God of Abraham might be seen as the revenge of the caveman!

[1] At one point, Stark tells us that he has mined historical scholarship and found much at variance with public perceptions of Christianity and its relationship to the West. But I am somewhat more skeptical of his historical erudition when he proceeds to re-hash the Charles Martel in stirrups thesis a few pages later, a theory known in the public arena as "fact", but debunked for a few decades now among historians.

[2] Stark in one of his books honestly and objectively analyzes the possibility that a conservative Christian conception of history that posits a primal monotheism (somewhat like Islamic ideas) might be empirically correct, and that we shouldn't reject such ideas out of hand because of their supernatural foundations. Later on, he decides to dismiss the ridiculous superstitions of neo-pagans as irrational rants. Also, he contrasts the relative tolerance of Christians vs. the aggressive intolerance of secular intellectuals. Stark has some truth in what he says, but he overplays his hand when behaving as if religious believers are graced by large doses of toleration in comparison to the godless.

[3] Even pagan pluralism had its limits, the Romans regularly suppressed the practice of human sacrifice.