Oh! Not to mention Eastern Philosophy has spoken much about love. Say, Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Sure, we have to have an a wide scope in intro curricula. Foucault and Derrida should be taught, I'm just saying that Christian philosophers shouldn't be *excluded* from the intro classes, given that they have been much more influential than any postmodernists. Postmodernism is the belief system of a small group of cleverer-than-thou sophist intellectuals, Christianity of about a third of the world's population.

First, one of the points that Duffy makes in the book I mentioned is that the religion of the middle ages wasn't irrational or superstitious (that's pure Protestant propaganda) and neither is Christianity. The Church Fathers were well aware of Greek philosophy -- and are you calling Athens a society without reason? In the model you wrote, rightly speaking, the mythic age ended around the time of the rise of Athenian culture. The ancient Greeks and Romans were hardly a people without reason or learning, and neither were those alive in the middle-ages. Usually the term "mythic age" refers to the pre-historical time of the epics like the "Illiad" and "Odyssey."

Moreover, the Church is not an ideology, or an organization that denounces science and reason. A (perhaps somewhat unconvincing) example is that Vatican runs one of the world's oldest astronomical research centers, the Vatican Observatory. More to the point, read the pope's recent speech (the one which has caused so much controversy because of a quotation about Islam that was basically an aside to the main point) where he acknowledges the benefits of technology but says that faith is a necessary adjunct to reason to fill the spiritual void left in those living in a society addicted to technology. Much of the furor of Muslims was caused by the pope's suggestion that *they* give priority to faith over reason (or at least have at certain points in history). Christianity has taught from the start that faith and reason work in harmony. As Augustine said in the 4th c. "One must first think in order to [authentically] believe." (Authentically, i.e. truly hold something to be correct *with conviction and reason* rather than merely happening to believe it, which is more mimicry or obedience than it is belief.) Here's the text of the pope's speech: www.guardian.co.uk/pope/sto...7,00.html

Cultural relativism is basically just another version of Sartre's idea that we must make moral choices but have no grounds on which to make them. If all cultures are equal, then our choice of culture is purely arbitrary. It is therefore a denial of the existence of human reason and right or wrong. We might as well join the Nazis as join the Red Cross. While it may have served some purpose during the period of European empires, it is now just another marketing tool: "Nothing really matters, so you might as well just revel in material pleasures."

As for "modern," I consider it to be one of those words like "cool" or "hip" that is used to prop up an idea, and that has no real meaning in and of itself (maybe aside from the neutral one of "current" or "contemporary"). Physics demonstrates that the basic facts of existence have not changed since the premodern or mythic age, and therefore investigations into the basic facts of existence of any age are no less relevant than those of today.

I would suggest that this rough sketch of history is more accurate (the Jews are a major but probably the only exception to this model, although it is based mostly on Europe and the game Civilization, but I hope you'll see the point I'm trying to make)

GOVERNMENT
tribal -> theocracy -> monarchy -> democracy -> plutocracy

CULTURAL
oral epics and poems -> theater -> the novel -> regression to bacchanalian mystery cults

ARTISTIC
cave paintings -> pagan art -> Christian religious art -> experimental art (e.g. surrealism) -> the art market

INTELLECTUAL
mythic -> philosophical -> Christian -> existentialism -> postmodernism -> "what the fuck is going on?" (postmodernism is over)

ECONOMIC
hunter/gatherer -> farming -> guilds -> industrial revolution -> corporations/globalization/trade wars

GENERAL HUMAN EXPERIENCE
closely knit family-based communities -> rise of cities & population density leading to more contacts outside the tribe -> an increasing emphasis on the "individual" and the importance of self-determination -> extreme individualism (USA esp.)


As that rough sketch shows, we are in for some tough times. The reason I stressed the active destruction of the Church in my previous post was to show that, usually, shifts from Christianity to other systems have come from the top rather than the bottom and through violence rather than conviction. Also, the consequences are usually disastrous, and we Westerners (I don't use the phrase to imply that everyone here is from the West, instead I use it to indicate to whom I am primarily speaking) have apparently not learned anything from the previous century, the century of disasters, you might call it. On every front, *time-tested* systems that create authentic communities while allowing for the right amount of individual difference, competition and self-expression, are under assault by the usual suspects: those seeking wealth and power far beyond what is necessary for a comfortable life and those of unsound minds who revel in chaos. Christianity, and other religions, (although, IMHO, Christianity is the best one -- just being honest ;-] ), have *already figured out* how to solve most of the problems that baffle the secular intellectuals and make life in the US so grim for people who see things clearly.

Consider that the places where Christianity is growing the fastest are the poorest and most chaotic regions of the world: Africa, and the less developed parts of Asia. Christianity (or, more precisely, Christ) provides hope, stability and justice for these people, it gives them a powerful indictment of their cruel dictators, shows why and how to keep the peace in times of famine, has emboldened women to speak with a voice of their own. Does Nietzsche or Heidegger -- or any secular humanist for that matter -- offer anything like this?? When they have become rich and jaded will the poor and oppressed forget Christ, the one who brought them nourishment and peace in times of trouble, as the West has? I can only hope not.

You seem to suggest with your model that historical developments are always positive, and that we shouldn't "revert" back to an older way of life. How can you say this, when the last 200 years are strewn with destruction in the name of Progress? Unfettered capitalism, non-sustainable industrialization, the Soviet Union (talk about totalizing narratives, tyranny, and the lack of individuality!), these were considered positive developments, and all I may note are strongly opposed to Christianity. What's more, the our entire species and thousand of others are on the brink of destruction, whether through nuclear war, or global warming. This is progress? The period in Europe about 1300-1580, whatever you want to call it (the middle-ages, a somewhat derisive term, is it not? or the Renaissance), when Christianity was at its height, may have had its problems and injustices, but there were no attempts at genocide, no labor camps, no ideologies nearly as evil as those espoused by Stalin and Mao, and certainly no kinds of "scientific progress" that threatened to end humanity itself.

In a recent book, popular historian Thomas Cahill argues that much of what we still admire about Western Civilization began in the middle ages, the book is called "Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe." Christian society produced Shakespeare, Dante, Michelangelo, some of the world's most beautiful cities ... secular multiculturalism has produced .... the Beatles? designer babies? nursing homes? "By their fruits shall you know them" - Matthew 7:16.

What, then, are the "crucial perspectives that must be taken into account," but about which the Church has said nothing?