Disastrous Thinking

I heard a religious figure on the radio arguing that the most harmful natural disasters tend to happen in countries that don't follow Judeo-Christian principles. He wasn't making a Pat Robertson argument that hurricanes and earthquake prefer heathens. He meant that J/C-based societies value human life more than others, and are more capable of responding to big problems.

It's common these day, in fact, for conservatives to argue that Christianity (with an assist from Judaism) made the West what it is today. But does the historical record support this claim?

I agree that Western societies have many advantages and probably can respond better to serious crises. But I would be wary of claiming it's due to religious principles underlying these societies.

In its earliest days, Christianity was too small to have much effect on the "West" (and was millennial anyway, so how much were they worrying about this world?). But when they took over, did things improve that much? (I'm not talking about the truth of the religion involved, but the outward signs of success that conservatives refer to today.) Indeed, there are those who claim that this new religion led to the downfall of the glories of the ancient world.

Then around the 600s you've got the rise of Islam. In short order it created societies that for centuries were arguably more open and thriving then those of Christendom.

It was only after a thousand years or so of Christian dominance that the West starting rising to its modern prominence. In fact, some might claim it was principles of openness opposed to Christian rule that helped lead to the Renaissance and the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and that's what leads to the superiority of the West today that conservatives trumpet.

Isn't it the liberal tradition, then, that makes the difference? If it were simply Christianity (or Judaism) that made the West what it is today, it sure took a long time for those qualities to manifest.