Is religion good or bad for human civilization? | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses the role of religion in the East Roman Empire's success, arguing that while Orthodox Christianity was deeply intertwined with Roman identity, they were not identical and remained analytically distinct. He presents the empire as a unique historical laboratory where Roman, Christian, and Greek identities coexisted in various combinations, allowing individuals to emphasize different aspects according to their choices.
Summary
In this conversation with Lex Fridman, historian Anthony Kaldellis addresses whether religion was constructive or destructive for the East Roman Empire. He argues that Orthodox Christianity contributed positively to the empire's historical success, though not without costs. Citizens were willing to pay these costs—including taxation burdens and governance constraints—because religion mattered deeply to them.
Kaldellis emphasizes that while religion and Roman identity were deeply intertwined, they should not be conflated as identical. He distinguishes between cultural/religious elements and pragmatic state operations, noting that governmental functions often intersected with religion only at the level of terminology and vocabulary rather than in actual functioning. He argues against colleagues who subsume all aspects of Byzantine society within Orthodoxy.
A key insight is that Romans and Christians were not perfectly overlapping categories. There were Christians who were not Roman (Bulgarians, Rus, etc.) whom Romans did not consider Roman, and there were pre-Christian Romans whom Byzantines remembered through weekly celebrations of Christian martyrs killed by Roman emperors. This historical awareness prevented these identities from being treated as synonymous.
Kaldellis presents the East Roman Empire as unique in history—a society simultaneously Roman, Christian, and Greek in different ways. Individuals had options to emphasize different aspects: some focused on Christian monasticism, others on Roman governance, and still others on Greek language and literature. He describes this as a "laboratory" of three coexisting elements in various combinations, with some people attempting to be purists in one dimension while most navigated combinations of all three.
The discussion concludes by acknowledging the analytical impossibility of isolating variables to determine which factor—taxation systems, religion, or Greek language—contributed most to the empire's remarkable longevity and stability, since these elements were fundamentally integrated into what made the empire what it was.
Key Insights
- Kaldellis argues that religion contributed to the East Roman Empire's historical success but with costs, and citizens were explicitly willing to pay that price—choosing Turkish rule that would respect their faith over Catholic Western rule that would compromise it
- Roman and Christian identities were not perfectly overlapping categories—there were Christians who were not Roman and pre-Christian Romans that Byzantines remembered through weekly celebrations of Christian martyrs killed by Roman emperors
- Kaldellis positions state operations as largely pragmatic and distinct from religion, intersecting primarily in terminology and vocabulary rather than in actual governmental functioning
- The East Roman Empire was unique in history as the only society simultaneously Roman, Christian, and Greek in different ways, functioning as a laboratory where individuals could emphasize different identity aspects
- It is analytically impossible to determine whether removing taxation systems, religion, or the Greek language would have made the empire more or less successful because these elements were fundamentally integrated into what the empire was
Topics
Transcript
[0:02] The impossible question and I apologize for asking it, but maybe it's just worthwhile to to to try to think about it as on the grand scale of centuries of the East Roman Empire is religion a constructive or a destructive force for the empire. Did it help it flourish or did it hold it back? >> This society identified itself increasingly with what it saw as orthodoxy. Orthodoxy just means correct [0:33] belief. I mean like every religion ultimately thinks it's orthodox, right? Let's >> [laughter] >> But that's the conventional name, right? Orthodoxy today might be called Greek Orthodoxy um and I mean it's such an essential part of the culture. It really is. I I can't…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Lex Clips
Do antipsychotic drugs work? | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses the efficacy and serious side effects of antipsychotic drugs, explaining that while they help some patients, many are non-responders, and the medications carry substantial risks including tardive dyskinesia, weight gain, metabolic syndrome, and cognitive dulling. The landmark CATIE study revealed that newer, expensive second-generation antipsychotics are no more effective than older first-generation drugs, with 67-82% of patients dropping out due to inefficacy or intolerable side effects.
Surprising origin of antipsychotic drugs | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull explains how chlorpromazine, an antihistamine synthesized in the 1880s, was accidentally discovered to have psychiatric applications in the 1950s through French Navy lieutenant Alain Laborit's experiments. The drug's rapid adoption was driven by pharmaceutical companies' aggressive marketing to politicians and hospital administrators rather than by psychiatrists' initial enthusiasm, transforming it from a 'major tranquilizer' into the first 'antipsychotic' drug.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) vs Psychoanalysis | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses how clinical psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) emerged after WWII as alternatives to psychoanalysis, becoming dominant through better empirical evidence, shorter treatment duration, and federal funding advantages. CBT's symptom-focused approach proved more measurable and reproducible than psychoanalytic theory, though its effectiveness remains limited for serious mental disorders.
Do anti-depressant drugs work? | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses the history and efficacy of antidepressants, particularly SSRIs like Prozac, explaining that while they statistically outperform placebo, the clinical improvement is often marginal and comes with significant side effects including sexual dysfunction and withdrawal difficulties. He also addresses 'diagnostic creep' in psychiatry, where conditions become increasingly broadly defined and diagnosed over time.
How drugs and psycho-pharmacology changed mental health | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull traces the accidental discovery of psychopharmacology, beginning with chlorpromazine's unexpected psychiatric effects in the 1950s, and discusses how pharmaceutical companies transformed mental health treatment while also introducing serious side effects like tardive dyskinesia and metabolic complications that remain inadequately addressed.