Bad Arguments

 I am sick of bad arguments. So much so, that it's distracting me from other productive things I could be doing. It's not so much bad arguments per se, but the way they get repeated ad nauseum and proliferate throughout the masses of people who fail to see the weaknesses or simply don't want to acknowledge the weaknesses. Also, the way they are wielded while discussing contentious topics; as if they are beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately confirm the broader ideology from which it came. One thing that really bothers me among certain conservatives and Christian nationalists is when they claim that enlightenment values are somehow rooted in the Bible, despite enlightenment thinkers explicitly rejecting biblical principles. They will try to argue that “the Bible or Christianity provided the seeds for these principles to blossom” which to me is hilarious, because it's clear rhetoric that understates the actual total evidence. The claim that Enlightenment values (like individual liberty, secular governance, scientific rationalism, freedom of conscience, etc.) are “rooted in the Bible” or “sprung from Christianity” is a kind of post-hoc rationalization that often ignores the actual antagonism between Enlightenment thinkers and Christian orthodoxy. On its face, the argument is nonsense. As I'll show later, using this logic, its easy to construct a counter argument that shows Christianity planted the seeds for future fascist movements.

Figures like Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, and even Jefferson were often overtly critical of organized religion, particularly Christianity as practiced by the Church. Voltaire mocked the Church relentlessly (“Écrasez l'infâme!” – crush the infamous thing). Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, ridiculed Christian doctrine. David Hume argued against miracles and questioned religion's epistemic foundation. John Locke, though more religious than others, still argued for tolerance and the separation of church and state; ideas the Church often opposed. Claiming these values came from Christianity strains credulity. Enlightenment values developed in direct response to centuries of religious dogmatism, including inquisitions, witch hunts, censorship, and political theocracy. It also crucially ignores the fact that enlightenment values emerged shortly after the renaissance and reintroduction of classical Greek texts into the intellectual sphere, not after the 1700 year history of religious dominance. If Enlightenment values were intrinsically part of Christian doctrine, why didn’t they emerge earlier? Why were their advocates persecuted, exiled, or burned alive by Church authorities? It's absurd to think that this belief system "planted seeds" that took 1700 years to blossom, especially after centuries of active repression of those very ideas. 

The idea that Christianity “planted the seeds” of Enlightenment thought is often little more than a vague metaphor. It's historically shallow and rhetorically slippery. If mere presence in the cultural soil qualifies something as a “seed,” then yes; anything can be said to plant the seed for anything else. If we were being consistent, this logic works both ways. Christianity also planted the seeds for authoritarian theocracies in medieval Europe, divine right monarchies, crusades, religious wars, anti-scientific persecution, witch trials, heresy hunts, colonialism justified through missionary work, and antisemitism (something with deep Christian theological roots). By the “seed” standard, these are equally valid (if not more direct) products of Christianity. You can very plausibly argue that Christian doctrines about hierarchy, submission, and moral absolutism underpinned later fascist and nationalist ideologies far more cleanly than they did liberal democracy. Enlightenment values typically emphasize autonomy (vs obedience), rationalism (vs faith), tolerance (vs exclusivist truth claims), and human rights (vs divine commandments which can supersede any intrinsic worth of a human). While some Christians have reinterpreted their faith in light of Enlightenment values (e.g. liberal theology), that’s not the same as Christianity being their source. It’s more accurate to say that Christianity adapted under pressure.

Lets be charitable and construct an argument in premise-form from their perspective; showing potential supporting evidence. We will identify hidden assumptions linking the premises to the conclusion, the generic argument scheme, and potential evidence supporting each premise; after which we will show it's incredible weakness. 

1. The Bible teaches that all humans are created in the image of God (Imago Dei), implying inherent human dignity and equality.
   • Genesis 1:27 explicitly declares this.
   • The idea is widely cited in Christian theology to argue for intrinsic human dignity (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin).
   • Modern rights theorists (e.g. Jacques Maritain) claimed this biblical concept influenced the idea of universal rights.
2. Christianity introduced moral universals such as the equality of souls, moral accountability, and individual conscience.
   • Paul’s epistle in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
   • Martin Luther emphasized the “priesthood of all believers,” which could be construed as a seed for egalitarianism.
   • The idea of individual judgment before God can be linked to the concept of personal conscience and moral autonomy.
3. These theological concepts laid the cultural and intellectual groundwork for ideas like human rights, liberty, and democracy.
   • Early Protestant reformers encouraged literacy and education, which supported individual inquiry and self-determination.
   • John Locke, often cited as a bridge between Christianity and liberalism, argued for natural rights while invoking Christian ideas.
   • Christian political resistance theory (e.g. Vindiciae contra tyrannos, Protestant resistance) prefigured later liberal arguments.
4. The Enlightenment emerged in historically Christian societies shaped over centuries by biblical values.
   • Enlightenment occurred largely in post-Reformation Europe, not in Confucian, Islamic, or Hindu civilizations.
   • Many Enlightenment thinkers were educated in Christian institutions (even if they later rebelled).
   • Christian theology dominated the intellectual vocabulary for centuries; any new idea had to engage it.
5. Therefore, Enlightenment values are rooted in biblical Christianity and could not have emerged without it.

The argument follows a causal/foundational scheme: "If X laid the foundation for Y, and Y developed from X, then Y is rooted in X". Below are the hidden assumptions required for this argument to make sense:

• HA1: Cultural continuity means causal dependence (i.e., if Enlightenment thinkers lived in Christian cultures, their ideas must derive from Christian doctrine).
• HA2: The presence of a concept in both the Bible and Enlightenment thought implies a causal or formative relationship.
• HA3: Positive Enlightenment values cannot emerge independently from biblical or religious frameworks.
• HA4: Earlier Christian thinkers (e.g. Aquinas, Augustine) gradually developed ideas that evolved into Enlightenment concepts.
• HA5: Opposition to the Church doesn’t negate deeper reliance on Christian metaphysics.

The argument doesn't claim the Bible explicitly teaches Enlightenment values, but that key preconditions (e.g. moral equality, dignity, personal conscience) were incubated within Christian theology and culture. The conclusion rests on the idea that without centuries of Christian formation, Enlightenment ideals wouldn’t have taken root in the same way.

Let’s now construct a parallel argument using the same logical structure, assumptions, and rhetorical framing; but this time concluding that Christianity laid the foundation for fascism. This reversal is meant not just to challenge the initial argument, but to expose how ambiguous causal “seed” language can justify almost any ideological lineage with equal plausibility.

1. The Bible and Christian tradition promote hierarchy, obedience to authority, and divinely ordained order.
   • Romans 13:1–7: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
   • The Church developed strict hierarchies: popes, bishops, priests, laity; mirrored in authoritarian political systems.
   • The Divine Right of Kings was justified through Christian theology; authority from God, not the people.
2. Christianity historically fused religion with state power, suppressing dissent and enforcing moral and ideological conformity.
   • The Inquisition, Index of Forbidden Books, and suppression of heresies (e.g., Cathars, Protestants) institutionalized conformity.
   • The Byzantine symphonia, Catholic monarchies, and later Lutheran state churches exemplify the fusion of throne and altar.
   • Witch hunts, persecution of Jews, and suppression of Enlightenment thinkers show the repression of ideological plurality.
3. These doctrines and institutions normalized authoritarianism and subordinated individual conscience to higher authority.
   • Christianity demanded obedience to divine law over personal judgment.
   • The Church disciplined not just action but belief and speech; a model for totalitarian control.
   • Augustine’s City of God posits a cosmic battle between obedience and rebellion; framing dissent as sinful.
4. Fascist regimes drew on similar structures: rigid hierarchy, sacralized authority, collectivist identity, and suppression of pluralism.
   • Fascism idolizes strong leaders, sacred tradition, and nationalist unity; echoes of religious order.
   • Mussolini and Franco embraced Catholic imagery; Hitler made concordats with the Church.
   • Fascist aesthetics—ritual, unity, discipline—were consonant with centuries of Christian ceremonialism and moral absolutism.
5. Therefore, Christianity laid the cultural and ideological groundwork for the development of fascist ideologies.

Notice that it leverages the same assumptions:

• HA1: Cultural continuity implies causal influence.
• HA2: Conceptual resemblance implies ideological descent.
• HA3: Values internal to a tradition may evolve in unintended directions without external influence.
• HA4: Long-term institutional structures condition later political developments.

This argument doesn’t claim Christianity intended fascism, just as the original argument doesn’t claim it intended liberalism. Instead, it argues that Christianity normalized authoritarian structures and sacralized political authority; making fascism more culturally intelligible and socially acceptable when it appeared. Both arguments use ambiguous causal metaphors, rely on historical arcs/cultural embeddedness, connect moral or structural features of Christianity to later ideologies. That makes them equally structurally valid, but also vulnerable to the same criticisms such as selective historical emphasis, oversimplification of complex traditions, and ignoring competing causes or mediating factors. 

Let’s take this to its logical conclusion and turn the “seed” argument against itself, now applying it to Christianity. If we accept that ideological or cultural descent is established by loose continuities, indirect influence, or long-term proximity, then we can very plausibly argue that Christianity itself was not a divine revelation or a wholly original religion, but the outgrowth of earlier Hellenistic, Persian (Zoroastrian), and Mesopotamian traditions. This is not a fringe idea; historians of religion routinely trace Christian concepts to older religious systems. While not dependent on the "seed" metaphor, and much more structurally sound, this argument is analogous to what the Christian is attempting to do with Secularism. Funny enough, the evidence is actually overwhelming for this argument. There is a rich and well-documented body of textual, archaeological, and historical evidence showing that Judaism, and by extension, Christianity; developed within a matrix of Near Eastern, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman influences. Let’s lay out a parallel argument in the same formal structure “If X influenced Y, and Y developed out of X, then Y is rooted in X.”

1. P1: Ancient Mediterranean, Persian, and Mesopotamian religions contained core ideas later found in Christianity; such as dying-and-rising gods, apocalyptic dualism, divine judgment, sacred texts, and moral law. Pre-Christian religions had core Christian-like themes.
   • Zoroastrianism: Dualism: good vs. evil (Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu); Final judgment, resurrection of the dead, heaven and hell; Influence on post-exilic Jewish theology and apocalypticism. This entered Jewish thought most visibly after the Babylonian exile, when Jews came under Persian rule.
   • Hellenistic Mystery Religions  (Mithraism, Dionysian cults): Dying and rising gods; Initiation rites symbolizing spiritual rebirth; Sacred meals / communal rites ( Eucharist).
   • Sacramental motifs like baptism, sacred meals, and resurrection were present in cults like those of Dionysus, Mithras, and Osiris.
   • Egyptian religion: Osiris myth involves death, resurrection, and salvation.
   • Mesopotamian influence: Flood myths ( Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh); Divine kingship, law from gods (Hammurabi).
   • The Genesis flood story parallels the Epic of Gilgamesh; themes of divine kingship, covenant, and cosmic law appear in Sumerian and Akkadian texts long before Israelite religion.
2. P2: Judaism, the direct predecessor of Christianity, evolved under the influence of these cultures, especially during exile, conquest, and Hellenization. It evolved under foreign influence.
   • During the Babylonian exile, Judaism absorbed: Apocalyptic themes (afterlife, cosmic dualism), Satan as a personalized evil figure.
   • Under Persian rule, Judaism likely absorbed Zoroastrian eschatology.
   • Under Hellenistic influence (esp. after Alexander): Greek language, philosophical concepts, and cultural norms permeated Judea. Philo of Alexandria merges Hebrew scripture with Platonic ideas.
3. P3: Early Christianity inherited and reinterpreted these cultural and theological elements within a Jewish apocalyptic framework and Hellenistic philosophical tradition.
   • The Gospels and Paul’s epistles recast Jewish messianism using Hellenistic literary styles and Greco-Roman rhetorical norms.
   • Jesus is presented in ways strikingly similar to divine savior figures.
   • Christian theology, especially in later creeds, uses Greek metaphysics (e.g., logos, ousia).
   • The concept of the Logos in John 1:1 is deeply influenced by Stoic and Platonic thought, especially through Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew.
4. P4: Therefore, Christianity is a syncretic product of preexisting pagan, Zoroastrian, and Near Eastern religious traditions.
   • Christianity adopted Jewish monotheism, Zoroastrian eschatology, Hellenistic ethics, and mystery cult sacramentality.
   • This cultural and theological fusion is what gave Christianity its distinctive shape.
5. C: Thus, these earlier traditions laid the groundwork or “planted the seeds” for the emergence of Christianity.

Same hidden assumptions:

• HA1: Cultural transmission over time implies ideological dependence.
• HA2: Similarities in doctrine or myth suggest inheritance.
• HA3: No religious or philosophical system arises in a vacuum.
• HA4: Foundational ideas can persist through indirect transmission.

This argument simply applies the same rhetorical structure used to claim Christianity birthed the Enlightenment or fascism. If deep cultural influence and shared themes over time imply descent or "seeding," then Christianity was undeniably “seeded” by Zoroastrianism, pagan mystery religions, and ancient Near Eastern cosmologies. In fact, this argument is probably stronger than either of the prior ones because the chronological proximity is tighter, the cultural transmission is well-documented, and the theological concepts are strikingly analogous. If we accept the argument structure, the evidence supports this argument stronger than the latter two.

Now that we have shown the absurdity of the argument structure, let’s see how to evaluate or refute all of these arguments symmetrically. There is a deep fundamental weakness present in all three formulations based on this "seed planting" metaphor. All three arguments (Christianity → Enlightenment, Christianity → Fascism, Paganism → Christianity) rely on similar assumptions and structures. This makes them susceptible to shared weaknesses, which we can target generically. Here is the generic structure of the "seed" argument:

Form:

1. X contains some ideas A, B, C.
2. Later, Y contains ideas A’, B’, C’.
3. Therefore, X “planted the seeds” for Y.

Hidden Assumptions:

1. Similarity implies lineage or causation.
2. Temporal/cultural proximity implies influence.
3. Institutional or doctrinal continuity = ideological inheritance.
4. Absence of X would mean absence of Y.
5. X’s core ideas are necessary or sufficient causes of Y’s emergence.

Step by step, let’s walk through the argument and identify the defeaters:

P1: “X had ideas that resemble Y.”

• Similarity ≠ causality. Many belief systems independently develop similar ideas (e.g., golden rule, afterlife).
• Convergent cultural evolution is real; different societies facing similar problems often develop similar tools.
• Example: The existence of flood myths in Mesopotamia and the Bible doesn’t prove descent, just shared environmental anxieties.

P2: “X transmitted ideas to intermediary systems.”

• Transmission ≠ adoption. Cultures often encounter, resist, reinterpret, or suppress foreign ideas.
• Judaism under Persian or Greek influence also rejected or modified those ideas; e.g., radical monotheism versus dualism.
• Cultural interaction is complex and contested, not linear inheritance.

P3: “Y developed in a context shaped by X.”

• This is a post hoc fallacy: existing in a context does not mean being caused by it.
• Many Enlightenment thinkers actively rejected Christianity; historical context does not equal ideological dependence.
• Christianity emerged in a Roman-Hellenistic world but often defined itself against it (e.g., rejecting polytheism).

P4: “Y has features that resemble X’s features.”

• Superficial resemblances mask deep differences. Christian “equality before God” ≠ political egalitarianism.
• Ideas are reframed in radically different conceptual universes; even when terms overlap (e.g., “kingdom,” “salvation”).

Conclusion: “Therefore, X laid the foundation for Y.”

• This overstates continuity, understates rupture.
• Intellectual history involves disruption, contradiction, and reinvention—not just evolution.
• You can almost always construct symmetrical counter-arguments, as we’ve seen, which undermines the claim’s uniqueness or necessity.

Claim	Generic Defeater
Similarity = causation	Correlation ≠ causation; convergent development
Proximity = influence	Contact ≠ adoption; ideological resistance matters
Historical context = source	Development can happen despite a tradition
Doctrinal overlap = descent	Concepts mutate across traditions
Foundational = necessary	Many paths can lead to similar outcomes

We can honestly make this argument better. There is something to it, but when grounded in some vague metaphorical concept such as "seed", it is pathetically weak. To avoid the flaws of “seed” metaphors and construct real historical explanations, we need a framework grounded in causal inference, not loose analogy. Here are the features of a strong causal framework needed to justify this kind of claim:

1. Causal Necessity, Sufficiency, or Contribution: Show that without X, Y would be highly improbable. Use counterfactual reasoning: If Christianity had never existed, would liberal democracy have emerged? Show that X is adequate to produce Y under relevant conditions. Most historical causes are neither fully necessary nor fully sufficient—they're contributory or enabling.
2. Mechanistic Clarity/specificity: Identify how ideas were transmitted, institutionalized, and reinterpreted. Which texts, thinkers, schools, or policies carried and transformed the ideas? What actors, institutions, texts, or events carried the ideas?
3. Disentangle Conceptual Content: Don't lump together abstract “values”—break them down. E.g., “human dignity” in Christianity ≠ “autonomy” in Kant.
4. Track Intellectual Lineages: Use citations, schools of thought, explicit references. Be historically precise. E.g., Locke cites Hooker and the Bible—but also Hobbes and reason. Deconstruct abstract ideas into their components and trace their transformations. Show how a term like “freedom” or “authority” changed meaning over time. For example, Christian freedom (freedom from sin) → Reformation-era liberty of conscience → Enlightenment political liberty.
5. Account for Contestation: Strong arguments show that ideas were contested, debated, and transformed, not merely handed down. E.g., Protestantism and Catholicism had radically different understandings of authority and conscience. Progress often arises through conflict, reform, or rejection. Cultures and institutions do not absorb ideas passively. They selectively adopt, distort, or suppress them based on internal dynamics.
6. Control for Multiple Causation: Recognize multiple origins—no grand single parent. Enlightenment = Greek philosophy + Christian theology + scientific revolution + political upheaval
7. Counterfactual Sensitivity: Would Y have emerged without X? Causal explanations should alter the outcome in counterfactual scenarios. For example, Without Zoroastrian apocalyptic dualism, Jewish eschatology may not have evolved as it did.
8. Intermediate Variables / Causal Chains: Trace multi-step causal sequences, not just X → Y. Include mediators and feedback loops. For example, Greek metaphysics → adopted by Hellenized Jews like Philo → influenced Christian Logos theology → shaped early Christology.
9. Temporal Proximity and Timing: Historical causation needs tight temporal alignment. Watch for anachronism: retroactively projecting ideas where they didn’t yet exist.
10. Textual and Doctrinal Evidence: Rely on primary sources, citations, and references to show influence. Which thinkers or institutions explicitly invoked earlier doctrines or rejected them?
11. Asymmetry of Influence: Causal claims should be directional and non-reversible. If every A → B claim can be flipped to B → A, it’s likely vacuous.
12. Scope Conditions and Limits: Clarify the range within which your causal claim applies. Is it regional? Temporal? Class specific? For example, Protestant literacy reforms shaped Northern Europe civic culture, but not Mediterranean political life.

We can reconstruct the argument into a non-monocausal structure that specifies mechanisms, is falsifiable, acknowledges rupture/contestation, and cannot be mirrored by equally strong counterclaims without adjusting the evidence base and causal explanation. For example: "Certain strands of Christian thought (e.g. Protestant emphasis on conscience and reading Scripture) created educational and theological structures that enabled some Enlightenment values; especially in contexts like early modern Northern Europe. However, Enlightenment ideas also developed through tension with, and often in opposition to, Christian authority structures."

Using this framework, we can see why the argument that Christianity is the syncretic product of near east religion is very strong. What makes this argument especially robust (unlike vague “seed-planting” claims) is that it satisfies many of the criteria for rigorous causal history. This framework is not metaphorical or ambiguous. It identifies how, where, and through whom specific ideas were transmitted, adapted, or rejected:

Criterion	Christianity’s Predecessor Influences
Temporal proximity	Persian, Hellenistic, and Mesopotamian systems predate Christianity by centuries
Geographical proximity	All influences existed in the same or neighboring regions of the Near East
Transmission mechanisms	Jewish exile, Hellenistic conquest, Roman rule, diasporic syncretism
Primary textual evidence	Daniel, Enoch, Philo, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. reflect blended traditions
Conceptual genealogy	Core doctrines (resurrection, Satan, soul, judgment) traceable across systems
Contestation and adaptation	Christianity absorbed and reshaped pagan and Jewish ideas deliberately
Intermediate variables	Judaism (Second Temple) acts as an identifiable cultural and theological conduit
Falsifiability	Claims are based on linguistic, textual, and historical sources open to dispute

The view that Christianity emerged from earlier religious and philosophical traditions is not fringe because:

- The evidence is extensive, multidimensional, and corroborated across disciplines.

- The causal mechanisms are identifiable, historically traceable, and withstand scholarly scrutiny.

- The argument respects conceptual nuance, rather than flattening ideas into vague "seeds."

- It’s widely supported by scholars of religion, theology, ancient history, and comparative mythology.

For complex historical claims like the main argument, it's crucial to consider the total evidence. By narrowly selecting at a subset of the evidence, combined with a poor argument structure, we can construct conflicting arguments, ultimately leaving us at an impasse. With a stronger argument structure, based on a larger subset of the relevant data, we can see the original claim is embarrassingly ridiculous and there is sufficient reason to undermine the "authority" and "uniqueness" of Christianity itself. And yet, this does not stop people like Jordan Dumbfuck Peterson and apologists from proliferating the argument. But now that we can see what a good argument looks like, we must ask ourselves why these apologists and conservative culture warriors push such pathetic arguments. The argument that Christianity is the root of secular liberal values is often not made because it holds up to rigorous historical scrutiny, but because it serves strategic rhetorical and ideological purposes. For many conservative Christians and Christian nationalists, modern liberal societies (democracy, human rights, pluralism) feel ideologically alien, or even threatening. Saying “secularism is Christian in origin” helps preserve Christianity’s moral authority in a culture that increasingly operates outside its framework, frames modern liberalism as an extension of Christian civilization, not a break from it, and suggests that secularism owes Christianity a debt, and should thus “respect its roots.” Its shorthand for saying "You may have rejected God, but you still live in His house." In the context of the culture wars, especially in the U.S., this argument serves as a defensive move against secularism, atheism, or progressive ideologies. It blunts criticisms, reframes secular values as Christian values, undermining secularist critiques of religion, and it allows the religious to argue "We built this culture, and you are erasing it" or "You claim to value freedom, but where do you think it came from?" The political and apologetic circles tend to overlap, so this argument often serves to fortify belief so  Christians maintain identity. By showing that Christianity is not just about "personal faith" but has a civilizational impact, it protects believers from the charge that Christianity is anti-reason, anti-progress, or historically regressive. It constructs a narrative of the indispensable contribution; "Without Christ, there is no democracy, there are no human rights."

But this is simply a Just-So Story. It fits a pre-existing worldview and explains everything neatly, but it ignores contradictions, cherry-picks evidence, and romanticizes the past rather than analyzing it critically. It's comfortable and flattering to Christian audiences, but historically reductive. It's a strategic narrative, a kind of cultural apologetic technique that is ideologically motivated, selectively reasoned, and rhetorically loaded; not empirically plausible. But hey, when has that stopped them from pushing bullshit arguments.