Baker 1

Carson Baker
Kenneth Clatterbaugh
HONORS 212
The Inefficiency of Christian Ideology
Starks Victory of Reason makes the bold claim that Christianity is largely responsible
for many of the philosophical, scientific, political, and economical innovations leading to the
modern era, but most notably the rise of science and capitalism throughout the Western World.
While Karl Marx would agree that Christianity well supports capitalism, he believes it is an
ensnaring illusion trapping people in it. Marx would agree with Starks conclusion that basic
Christian principles support scientific inquiry and capitalism, he would argue that Christianity is
neither the most efficient means of promoting technological discovery, nor is capitalism a
reliable economic platform for advancing Christian notions of human freedom. This will be
explored by examining the topics of Christianity as a rational theology, Christianity historically
through the Dark Ages, and Christianitys effect on economies.
Stark begins his argument by describing Christianity as the only theological platform
supporting a strong focus on rationalism. His primal claim is that Christianity, even when
compared to monotheistic religions including Islam and Judaism, is the only religion that places
a foremost emphasis on rationality. Stark believes Christian application of reason to scripture has
been a direct and leading cause to the advancement of both science and capitalism over the past
millennia.
While he recognizes that having the ability to accrue a greater knowledge and
understanding of God over time is a basic axiom shared by many theologies, Stark posits that
Christianity places more emphasis than any other religion on the discovery of Gods nature on
Baker 2
both a cosmic and individual level. Stark describes the Christian God as a conscious, rational,
supernatural being of unlimited power and scope who cares about humans and imposes moral
codes and responsibilities upon them (Stark 5). Though God has carefully defined the
relationship between Himself and mankind, religious followers are called to investigate the
character of God in order to best adhere to His commands. Rather than provide explicit
instructions for daily activities, whether religious or not, humanity must rely on reason to
interpret Biblical principles and apply them to their lives. Christianity believes that a perfect and
rational God created the world, and that His handiwork functions in accord with His immutable
nature by reflecting Gods attributes. Appreciating the wonders of Gods handiwork leads to a
better understanding of God and enables man to best love and honor God and thus live a better
life. Additionally God charges humanity with the task of caring for His creation and reigning
over it. From these premises comes a sense of religious duty toward scientific exploration.
Christians developed science because they believed it could be done, and should be done
(Stark 14). Stark acknowledges that just as our scientific knowledge of the world undergoes
constant revision and scrutiny as data is taken and interpreted, religious doctrines may be
modified, even radically, as humanity seeks after God through study of the scriptures. This
progressive tone is assumed throughout the book, for Stark believes the future inevitably holds
improvement as humanity draws closer to God. Consequently, Stark makes an unusual claim,
arguing the assumption of progress may be the most critical difference between Christianity and
all other religions (Stark 9). He claims that among religions, Christianity alone takes an
optimistic viewpoint concerning humanitys future.
All other religions supposedly conceive history either as a numbing repeating cycle, or
one doomed to inevitable decline and ruin. This allegedly marks Christianity as the only
Baker 3
religious platform for a worldview awaiting increased human comprehension, and thereby
validating the worth of intellectual engagements and scientific exploration. Stark frankly declares
that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-
Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else (Stark 15). He reasons to
such a condemning statement by expressing that under any other worldview an occurrence may
either originate from the whim of an irrational despot or as the natural product of impersonal
forces; neither of these sources providing the same confidence as could be found in the
comprehensible rationality of a personal God (Stark 15).
To support this claim Stark aims to show that certain historical events attributed to
material causes in reality have their roots in religious beliefs. He begins this argument by trying
to overturn the common belief that the Dark Ages were a stagnant time void of innovation and
technological progression. To the contrary he argues that the period had significant
technological and intellectual advancement, primarily due to the influence of Christianity. Stark
is convinced that when released from the restrictive grip of Roman dictatorial rule, innovation
was allowed to flourish. He writes, the era from the fall of Rome through the Middle Ages was
a time of spectacular technological progress that erupted when innovation was freed from the
grip of Roman despotism (Stark xv.) Only due to Christianitys commitment to progress that
they might bring glory to God could further innovation prosper. He boldly heralds Christianity as
the reason for Europe and Americas technological leadership in the world overall for the past
millennia. Stark acknowledges that the result of Spain and France becoming autocratic states
ruled by Catholic monarchs were sharply negative effects upon both economic development as
well as citizens freedom in both countries. However Stark attests this not to Catholicisms
supposedly inherent opposition to capitalism, but rather to the despotic nature of the monarchy.
Baker 4
It was not Catholicism, but tyranny that impeded capitalism in France and Spain, and
suppressed it in Italy and the southern Netherlands. (Stark 194)
Starks theories are very difficult to prove. At best Stark can only hope to logically show
that Christianity did not hinder the development of technology, but to claim that it is a leading
cause is a claim Stark does not provide enough information to adequately show. His glorification
of the worth of Christianity in society is an irresponsible dismissal of the many accomplishments
of humanity not accredited to Judeo-Christian societies. This type of argument is easily
weakened with any contrary evidence, and the fact that non-Christian societies developed
technological advancements during the period. The Chinese inventing gunpowder and paper, and
the construction of massive projects such as the Great Wall, is such evidence. Additionally Stark
neglects to give credit to the significant technological progress made during Greek and Roman
eras where Polytheistic religious notions did not seem to impede the advancement of science and
philosophy. Greek philosophy continues to be influential today, and was foundational to the
teachings of Augustine and Aquinas.
Admittedly much of our scientific knowledge has been revised since the Greco-Roman
era, but the fact that the explanations provided by ancient scientists were crude does not diminish
the significance of their scientific endeavors. These studies occurred completely independent of
any notion of a rational and personal supernatural governing force. While it is conceded that
often the ancients offered many mystical solutions whereby natural causes were attributed to the
effects of spiritual beings, Christianity certainly is not innocent of this critique. Copernicus
stubbornly believed that heavenly bodies must necessarily orbit in a circle as this was a reflection
of Gods holy perfection. The Christian community initially opposed the Big Bang Theory
because it did not align with their preconceived notions of God creating the world in seven
Baker 5
sequential steps over the course of a week. The last several centuries have captured the most
rapid advancement of modern science as advancements in communication technologies have
enabled collaborative efforts on a global scale. These advancements have occurred in an age
where religion has been declining in its social influence within modern Western society.
Stark may have merited from choosing to show that Christianity is not a deterrent of
philosophy and scientific study rather than argue that it is the best platform for the advancement
of innovation and scientific discovery, but even this claim is unwarranted. Clergy members have
often used their religious authority to impede the scientific community over the course of its
history. The Catholic Church is famously rebuked for dismissing Galileo because his scientific
studies went against the official positions held by the religious leaders. When Galileo discovered
evidence for a heliocentric model of the solar system which was contrary to the church
authoritys preconceived notions of the cosmos, he was placed under arrest and his findings
rejected on religious rather than scientific grounds. Here the supposed religious rationalism
stomps out Galileos innovative science, a far cry from being a catalyst for discovery, and hardly
the best framework for promoting technological advancement. Starks theory that Christianity
was essential to scientific innovation is not only shows negligence toward the accomplishments
arising from other religious systems, but does not accurately analyze the effectiveness of the
Christian system as a producer of scientific inquiry.
Marxism is strongly at odds with many of Starks claims. The notion that science is best
pursued when its motive is to understand the nature of a supernatural being is inconsistent with
Marxs theory of productive forces. Technological development allows individuals to exert
control over their natural surroundings, over themselves, and over social relations. As science
functions to meet the needs of people, it is a significant force that enriches human life. Science
Baker 6
can be considered as a productive power in that scientific knowledge contributes to societys
capacity to produce. Marx would argue that the increase in productive capacities is a more than
sufficient reason for pursuing scientific inquiry. Studying science in order to benefit the self and
collective society without any sense of religious duty is a valid motive. There is no reason why
science cannot serve class interests (as Marx obviously supposes a materialist science of history
serves the interest of the proletariat) (Wood 123-124). Marx argues that the motive of benefiting
the self and society is a more powerful driving force than one for religious motivations. To show
this, Marx depicts natural science as being subservient to capital. Where would natural science
be without industry and commerce? Even this pure natural science is provided with an aim, as
with its material, only through trade and industry, through the sensuous activity of men
(Marx [1] 63). If religious motivations provide the best means of pursuing science, then we
might expect significant financial support stemming from religious institutions. While many
pharmaceutical firms researching medicinal cures and treatments are supported by charitable
donations by religious organizations, the majority of funding for scientific discovery is sourced
in industry. No churches financially support research on the tensile properties of steel in the
name of discovering more about Gods nature. Industry is simply more effective at promoting
technological advancement without any necessary reliance on religious grounds.
The Marxist theory of technological determinism opposes Starks belief that the rise of
science in Europe was necessitated by a Christian worldview. Marx does not adhere to a strictly
technological theory of history, wherein productive forces are the essential basic explanatory
feature of historical circumstance and development. Nevertheless, technology is an essential
basis of many productive forces, and serves as a catalyst for a wide range of social relations, and
ultimately radical historical formations. Marx writes that The multitude of productive forces
Baker 7
accessible to men determines the nature of society, hence, that the history of humanity must
always be studied and treated in relation to the history of industry and exchange (Marx [1] 50).
Marx clearly advocates that productive forces determine production relations, and this occurs as
certain relations are constrained while others are favored by the technological forces at hand.
Every productive force is the result of an individuals spent energy, but the degree to which
individuals have over their own productive powers is limited. While one can learn a new skill,
increase their knowledge regarding a certain trade, or resituate to an environment more tenable to
a certain task, ultimately everyone is subject to conditions they did not create which are the
products of others. The basic thing in history is the relentless promethean expansion of
humanitys creative powers (Wood 75).
Marx would agree with Stark that at the turn of the Renaissance, the rise of industry and
science were inevitable and were caused by a capitalist revolution, but denies that either
capitalism or Christianity are necessary socioeconomic conditions for modernization. Marx thus
argues that given the material and social circumstances of Western Europe at the end of the
middle ages, the productive forces of an industrial society could only be acquired and employed
through the adoption of capitalist formsbut it is not Marxs view that these same productive
forces inevitably require capitalist forces for their growth and employment (Wood 72). The
creation and subsequent industrialization of the Soviet Union among other countries constitutes
sufficient evidence to validate Marxs theory that the same productive faculties may arise
through different economic means. Marxism reveals that Starks belief that the successful
technological revolutions in Europe were caused by a Christian focus on rationality and that no
other cause is as successful for the promotion of scientific discovery, is innately flawed.
Baker 8
Stark appeals to an invalid conception of classical Western ideological philosophy which
presumes history has always been viewed progressively. Prior to the Renaissance, time was
conceived non-dialectically in that from antiquity through the Middle Ages there was seldom
awareness of the forward advancing movement of time. For instance, art and architecture did not
typically seek their justification with regards to the past or future for it was ineffable and
timeless. For this reason the styles created appeared classic to the classical epoch that
followed. The classic could not be represented or simulated but could only exist in essence. It
manifest a straightforward assertion of itself that was non-narrative and timeless. For the
majority of history since Christianitys emergence, common man has focused more on
maintaining the present and was unable to afford the luxury to focus on the betterment of the
future.
In the mid-fifteenth century this notion shifted and the idea of a temporal origin emerged,
and with it a strengthened conception of the past. This interrupted the eternal and ethereal cycle
of time by positing a fixed point of beginning. This resulted in the loss of the pervasive
timelessness, for the existence of origin required a temporal reality. The Renaissance movement
attempted to recover the classical feeling of timeless but ironically turned to a time-bound
concept of history as a source of timelessness. Moreover, the consciousness of times forward
movement came to explain a process of historical change. By the nineteenth century this process
was again seen as dialectical in that the present was understood and judged as separate from
the past. Though caused by the past, the common belief was the present should be judged on its
own terms. With narrative time came the idea of an aspired-to timelessness of the present.
Implicit was the notion that man should always be in harmony, or at least in a non-disjunctive
relation, with his time (Eisenman). It is this notion to which Stark appeals and assumes has been
Baker 9
the mindset of Christianity since its foundations. Though certainly Christian tenets are not at
odds with these principles, this perspective is certainly not a necessary product of Christianity,
nor one unique to religious worldviews. Mans understanding of his relation to the progression of
time has changed over the course of history. Starks understanding that Christianity has always
stressed an assumption of progress, a forward-looking mindset that validates innovation to
understand God is thus not adequately warranted.
While Stark looks to Christianity as the primary explanatory cause for the rise of science,
he also writes that the capitalist revolution was largely a Christian creation. Stark determines this
by examining the emphasis on individualism found in Christianity, where personal exploration of
God is encouraged, and salvation is on a case by case basis according to each person. Sin is a
personal matter that does not inhere primarily in the group (Stark 24). Stark suggests
Christianity operates off a dichotomy of virtue and sin, with no middle ground. An action may
either be glorifying God, or rebellion against God. Through the notion of free will humanity is
given the capacity, and thus the moral responsibility to carry out their lives in accordance with
Gods commands. This responsibility is not only a duty but a human right given at creation. As
God possess the ability to act for himself independently, man reflecting this image of God is
empowered with free will. Stark compares Christianity to other monotheistic religions and
declares that while other religions foremost stress adherence to religious practice, whereby
fundamental emphasis is placed on law and regulation of community life (Stark 8),
Christianity is unique in its focus on correct opinion and gives greater emphasis on belief and its
intellectual structuring of creeds, catechisms, and theologies (Stark 8). As a result, Stark labels
Christianity as a catalyst for modern individualistic society. Because of its reoccurring theme of
man (through the sanctifying work of God) overcoming his own fallen nature by reconciliatory
Baker 10
submission to God, Christianity acts as a deterrent of socialistic societies which focus on the
collective rather than the individual lifestyle. Stark asserts Christianity supports a system
strongly emphasizing human rights and liberties, and believes this emphasis on human freedom
results in the rejection of slave based societies. Christianity thus supports the economic model
that best promotes freedom, which he believes to be capitalism. The combination of Christianity
and capitalism together create a supposedly rational society that is a unique and Godly solution.
Stark concludes speaking of despotic regimes squelching innovation and the hoarding
and consuming of wealth and further remarks on the futility of command economies. Despotic
states produce universal avarice (Stark 71). Democratic capitalism was needed to overthrow
these regimes. This was made possible because Christianity encouraged individual and moral
equality among man because of human rights given to them by being made in the image of God.
He reasons that private property rights follow from this as well as the separation of church and
state governments. Thus Stark would argue that if religious belief can operate independently of
fundamental economic factors to alter a societys culture, laws, and political structure (what
Marx terms the superstructure) then it is incorrect to contend, as Marx did, that religious
beliefs are wholly shaped so as to conform to the interests of the dominant economic class. In
fact, Stark posits that it may often be the case that economic practices reflect religious influences
to a far greater extent than in the opposite direction.
To analyze the effects of Christianity in making economic decisions, it is profitable to
study the economic system between the church and its congregation. Because religious
communities rely heavily on the active contribution of members, they are extremely vulnerable
to individuals who exploit group resources. Religious organizations tend to solve this free rider
problem by placing high costs on religious membership. Costs can include tithing requirements,
Baker 11
expectations of time commitment, and behavioral restrictions that may increase social stigma or
isolation form society at large. These kinds of costs insure that individuals are not simply
exploiting a group for personal gain; their personal monetary sacrifices become tangible
evidence of their commitments to faith. Nevertheless, many outside observers of strict religious
groups feel that the costs of religious participation far outweigh the benefits and thus question
whether the faithful have closely enough measured the costs involved of their religious
practice. Certainly someone giving away their earthly belongings, denying themselves certain
pleasures in life, or risking their lives for a religious cause, has poorly considered their self-
interest. Religious adherents choose to neglect themselves because they believe that they are
commanded to by some higher power.
Beyond behavior within specifically Christian circles, Stark argues that belief should be
considered an integral part of an individuals calculations in making any decision. If one believes
he is destined to hell if he does not give away his possessions, then the idea of hell becomes a
perceived cost of religious inaction. The promise of eternal pleasures in heaven is certainly worth
the temporary pains of worldly deprivation. For this reason Stark indicates that compensations of
the afterlife, or otherworldly rewards are perhaps more important than social rewards in making
religious decisions. Belief in otherworldly rewards often explains action that appear wholly
irrational; suicide bombers and religious martyrs are not necessarily depressed or hopeless but
may be idealists who expect to receive compensation in the afterlife for their earthly sacrifice.
Within this mindset, death does not appear final but is instead a doorway into a preferable
existence. In the final analysis, true religious faith profoundly influences decision making and
can lead to astonishing actions. (Froese)
Baker 12
Starks work uncovers a fatal problem which centers on attributing ostensibly religious
motives to socioeconomic motives. Bridging these motives in this way confuses the means by
which people interpret their experience through the lens of their ideology, and more
fundamentally, how their own subjectivity is formed. Only a study of social theory can
effectively address this question, not a crude conception of underlying ulterior motives whereby
an assumption that mythical thinking is a mechanically determined epiphenomenon of rational
material interests, rather than a translation of subjective stimuli into objective material
motivations without taking into account the formation of the subjectivity itself. This subjectivity
is by nature poorly defined and simply labeled free will. To this end, Starks work does not
satisfactorily answer what religions precise role is in its relation to social causality. The liberties
of free will empower humanity to follow their subjectivity and Stark cannot claim that
Christianity necessarily lead to democratic capitalism which is merely one socioeconomic
solution. (Dumain)
This is evidenced through European history, wherein Christianity has not consistently
supported capitalism. Firstly, seventeenth century despotic regimes maintained their power by
appealing to the Divine Right of Kings, a mandate which validated their political power as
authority given to them by God and thus their subjects had a religious obligation to follow their
rule without question. The monarch, not the individual, possessed the right to assume property
rights and require military or economic service to the state. The restriction of freedom and
human rights was authorized by a religious doctrine maintained by the Catholic Church. Thus
Christianity acted to stifle economic and political freedoms, rather than support them.
Additionally, early capitalism faced opposition from Christianity for its condemnation of
interest. Offering interest based loans was declared a sin of usury and forbidden on religious
Baker 13
grounds. Although profits were morally legitimate, the accumulation of capital at the expense of
ones neighbor was an avaricious behavior. For this reason moneylenders were primarily Jews as
they were not under the same religious inhibitions. (Dumain) Though modern Christian teaching
promotes capitalism, this has not always been the case.
Marxist ideology is in opposition to Starks exaltation of capitalism, and to the contrary
points to the alienation it causes. Marxism depicts capitalism as an enslaving system wherein
producers are wage laborers whose tools as well as products are not their own but are the
property of an employer. The worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien object
(Marx [2] 70). Marx reveals the relation of worker to capital as one wherein the more the laborer
invests himself in a product he does not ultimately own, the poorer he becomes in relation to it.
The capitalist profits from the surplus of the sale of the product and increases his capital, while
the worker receives only a wage respective to his labor and his productive powers remain
unchanged. Marx continues Labour is external to the worker, i.e. it does not belong to his
essential being; in his work therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself (Marx
[2] 72). If the process of labor produces alienation, then production itself is an action of active
alienation as the through his own exertion he strengthens an external agent against himself, and
receives no accumulation of capital unto himself for his efforts. Marx rebukes capitalism for
enslaving the working class by forcing them to submit to the product of their own estrangement.
Rather than promoting innovation and empower liberty, capitalism as analyzed by Marx impedes
progress and ensnares the working class by continually strengthening the bourgeoisie and further
dividing them from the proletariat.
Stark heralds Christianity as the primary cause of the technological revolutions and rise
of capitalism found in Europe. As evidence to this claim, Stark declares that Christianity is the
Baker 14
only theological platform which sufficiently emphasizes reason. From this basis comes a
religious duty to pursue science in order to discover the attributes of God and steward His
creation. Based on this platform Stark argues that a Christian worldview provides the best
foundation for scientific inquiry. However Christianity historically has not consistently
supported scientific discovery and has impeded its progress by rejecting scientific theories on
religious grounds. Treating technology as a productive force under Marxism reveals that industry
and commerce are more effective sources for the promotion of science than religious forces.
Additionally Marxist technological determinism reveals that the same productive forces may
arise under a completely different means as evidenced by the technological revolutions of the
Soviet Union. Moreover the notion that Christianity has always incurred a mindset of progress
and innovation is not warranted, for man has not always viewed time dialectically over the
course of history. Stark also argues that capitalism is a product of Christian influences and attests
the rise of individualism and human liberation to Christian teachings. However under the Divine
Right of Kings the church validated the oppression of human freedoms and the suppression of
democracy on religious grounds. Finally Stark does not adequately explain how religious
motivations induced socioeconomic factors as these decisions are based on the subjective free
will of the people and their behavior is not specifically determined by their religion. Marxist
teachings show that capitalism does not best empower men to their productive potential, but
rather alienates them by alienating them from their labor.
Faced with these historical accounts discrediting his arguments, Stark would likely
dismiss them as examples from men who did not well practice the Christian faith, and that
Christianity should be judged generally as a trending theme and that the number of cases
supporting his arguments outweigh those opposing it. This response may be justified, but this
Baker 15
then marks Christianity as an inconsistent platform and certainly not the most efficient. However
this does nothing to reconcile Starks views with the Marxist theory of productive forces,
technological determinism, and theory of alienation. While Stark has some interesting
observations and his notion of the consequences of causal efficacy attributed to God is
intriguing, he remains trapped by the parameters of Marxist sociology which demonstrate that
Christianity is not necessarily the most efficient ideology for the promotion of science and
human freedom.



Baker 16
Works Cited
Bendor-Samuel, Paul. "Marx and Nietzsche: Christianity as the Disease of Man." Web
blog post. Evolution and Revolution: Philosophy in the 19th Century. N.p., 11 Apr. 2010. Web.
15 Sept. 2012. <http://evolutionrevolutionatrhodes.blogspot.com/2010/04/marx-and-nietzsche-
christianity-as.html>.
Dumain, Ralph. "Stark Naked Sociology of Religion." Web blog post. Reason & Society.
N.p., 12 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://reasonsociety.blogspot.com/2011/03/stark-
naked-sociology-of-religion.html>.
Eisenman, Peter. "The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the
End."Perspecta 21 (1984): 154-73. JSTOR. Yale School of Architecture, 20 Mar. 2007. Web. 1
June 2012. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0079-
0958%281984%2921%3C154%3ATEOTCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B>.
Froese, Paul. "Assertion 5." The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in
Secularization. Berkeley: University of California, 2008. 32-35. Print.
Marx [1], Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology. Ed. C. J. Arthur. New York:
International, 1970. Print.
Marx [2], Karl. Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Trans. Martin Milligan.
Ed. Dirk J. Struik, Andy Blunden, and Matthew Carmody. Moscow: Progress, 1959.Marxists
Internet Archive. 2009. Web.
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-
Manuscripts-1844.pdf>.
Wood, Allen W. Karl Marx. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.