Hacker News Reader

Comment by Red_Tarsius | Hacker News Reader

My pet theory is that Jewish culture didn't suffer from the generational drain of monastic orders. In Medieval times, a smart Jewish kid – especially future Rabbis – would be expected to "be fruitful and multiply". A smart Catholic kid would more often become a celibate cog of the Church, thus ending their line.

View on HN

Protestant priests have married since the reformation (Luther married). So in the mostly protestant Northern and Western Europe, and in the mostly protestant US, there was no celibacy requirements for 4-500 centuries.

> 4-500 centuries.

that would be 500 years

Almost, yes. It happened gradually over decades, and I would assume that all unmarried priests weren't replaced right away.

> Protestant

this article is about hapsburg empire - direct line to the holy roman empire & 100% catholic officially

But the comment I replied to was not.

In practice I'd say that a lot of priests did father children. Made of flesh and blood...

And those 'bastards' were often treated horrifically for the mother's crimes. This lasted well up into the last century.

Even today children of single mothers are at a large disadvantage, but at least it's not quite as institutional and savage.

> Even today children of single mothers are at a large disadvantage,

Except that today, with few exceptions, the decision to have that child rests entirely with the mother.

With respect to family matters, females, especially in modern societies, have many more options than any other demographic of that society, or indeed, in all of history.

It's not quite comparable to how bastard children and their mothers were treated in the past.

Except except coerced sex.

Most likely their mom's husband was "daddy" and they were raised like their half-siblings, as peasants.

Is there evidence that monastic orders selected kids for intelligence? This effect should have then stopped with the protestant reformation in parts of europe. Maybe it is part of the reason why protestant heritage countries are more successful than catholic ones.

It's more likely to have selected younger sons, who did not inherit, and were more likely to seek a monastic or otherwise religious life.

Aren't younger sons less risk averse and thus more likely to bring forth societal change?

I think Jewish culture has a tendency of making the cleverest man marry the richest woman — and overall pay close attention to discovering talent within their communities.

It is an interesting theory. Makes even more sense when you consider that Islamic law of inheritance served as an impetus behind the development of algebra!

Wow, someone should explain the history of algebra to Diophantus of Alexandria.

Diophhntus certainly is the father of Algebra, but he only laid a concrete foundation that al-Khwarizmi solidified into a distinct field and built into the castle its become today. A lot more than that simple foundation, but you're point is taken.

Honestly Catholicism doesn't have a stellar history with smart people in general. Or kids, for that matter.

When I mention anti-intellectualism in Catholic doctrine, people often retort "Well, St. Augustine...". Guys, if you need to go back 1,700 years for a counter-example your argument might not be on the firmest ground.

Yes, there are many smart Catholics. I'm not saying Catholics are lesser people. This isn't bait, or flaming Catholics. I'm adding to the guy above's pet theory, which at first glance looks pretty compelling, when you add up the effect of those very real and well documented trends over generations.

A more recent (fairly famous) example, the Big Bang theory was formulated by a Catholic priest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

That's actually a good illustration of my point - he believed science and religion shouldn't mix.

Contrast with Judaism, or Buddhism, where integration of the spiritual and scientific is often encouraged.

Jesuits definitely look at science as a way of discovering the beauty of the world created by God.

Have you heard the phrase, "the exception that proves the rule" before?

Then the litany of Christian scientists will disprove you.

Scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power - https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Compound that effect over generations.

It might just be shifting degrees of intellectual challenge.

St Augustine came to shine as part as a response to the threat of competing movements such as pelagianism and arianism.

(As a side-note, reading the Confessions I came off thinking St Augustine felt really anti-intellectual; especially in contrast to someone like Boethius)

Then the church went largely intellectually unchallenged for a thousand years, and that's never great for bringing out the best and the brightest. A lot of what made for example the philosophers of antiquity so sharp was the fierce competition between rival schools.

Later when the church came under real pressure from the reformation, you had counter-reformation groups like the Jesuits form as a response which was a huge step up intellectually.

I also think we sort of tend to unfairly view the church through the writings of its critics; both reformists and later the enlightenment had a lot to say that we just seem to take as true without consideration of the source. A lot of stuff, even bad stuff like the inquisition, wasn't as bad as we tend to think. Against the background of what legal systems in general looked in the period, the inquisition was almost gentle.

> A lot of stuff, even bad stuff like the inquisition, wasn't as bad as we tend to think. Against the background of what legal systems in general looked in the period, the inquisition was almost gentle.

The Inquisition, in places, was every bit as bad as it was rumored. You are correct that the inquisition was supposed to be "gentle" up until it pleased the Holy Spirit to have the heretic burned who did not change their beliefs.

----

And in some places, the program went more according to plan:

Inquisitor: Yo dude, do you believe the $CATHLOC_TRUTH

If dude say yes, dude goes free, otherwise continue.

Inquisitor: Yo, here's fifty reasons that $CATHLOC_TRUTH is true. Do you believe now?

If dude say yes, dude goes free, otherwise continue.

Inquisitor: Yo, I'm locking you up for six months to think about it.

Inquisitor: Yo dude, do you believe the $CATHLOC_TRUTH, if not you are going to burn.

If dude say yes, dude goes free, otherwise dude gets burnt.

----

So at each step of the process there is an "escape hatch" if someone is willing to renounce what they believed and submit.

---

But in Spain, it was different. The Spanish style went with the theory that the worst heretics would try to hide their heresy, and therefor agreeing with the $CATHLOC_TRUTH was actually a sign of hidden evil. So in Spain:

Inquisitor: Yo dude, you are a HERITIC!

Dude: I believe the $CATHLOC_TRUTH.

Inquisitor: That's just what a hectic would say! We are going to torture you until you say you don't really believe the $CATHLOC_TRUTH and you tell us the names of at least six of your friends and relative who are also secret heritcs. Then we will burn you. Lastly, once you are dead I'll keep all your money and lands, and then go arrest your friends/family and repeat.

----

Again, in theory, the inquisition was supposed to use only very gentle forms of torture, like waterboarding, but the actual practice in southern Spain was even worse.

I think our views of the inquisition largely are in agreement. I'm not trying to whitewash the inquisition. Things did go overboard, especially in Spain, and I'm not denying that.

The public conception of the inquisition is only of the horrors. That just isn't correct; and it's especially not something that the pope intended to happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com