Talk:Christianity in Medieval Scotland

History or religious bias?
I have zero expertise on this subject, so I will not press for any particular change, but I would like to raise the matter of the following, taken from the introduction:

"Historians have discerned a decline in traditional monastic life in the late Middle Ages, but the mendicant orders of friars grew, particularly in the expanding burghs, to meet the spiritual needs of the population."

The phrase "to meet the spiritual needs of the population" assumes the population had "spiritual needs", whatever those might be. This seems to me to be more religious bias than historical fact. It rather implies that the rise of these mendicant orders was caused by a grass-roots demand for them, and that they could not have risen for other, more pragmatic reasons than to "meet the spiritual needs of the population". I, for one, am not sure there is such a thing as a "spiritual need", and there is certainly no evidence given in this article to support this assertion. At the very least, anyone using this phrase "spiritual need" ought to give a proper definition of it. In an historical article I would also expect some connecting of dots to show how these dubious "spiritual needs" were the causative factor in the rise of mendicant orders (which is what this statement implies), and some discussion of why these mendicants were able to fulfill the populations "spiritual needs" while the more traditional monasteries failed to do so. In effect, the quoted statement seems to me to be more a research hypothesis than a reliable bit of information. To treat the rise of the mendicant orders as if some sort of market mechanism was in play seems simple-minded at best. I don't think we should apply 21st century market ideology to medieval history, but if those with more expertise say this is, in fact, the case, I shall certainly stand down and respect their opinion.

Baon (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is actually a pretty innocuous phrase, but I have changed it to something more obviously in line with the main text, of which this is a summary.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether it is innocuous or not, but I think that's irrelevant. I am not complaining that a phrase may be offensive, I am questioning whether a statement is meaningful and accurate. You removed the casual implication, which I think is great since I think it is indefensible. But I'm not absolutely certain of that. Alternatively, I would have been happy with an explanation and evidence of its truth. If it is, in fact, true, I would be much happier knowing that (!) than with simply mooting the matter.


 * But if you see the problem I am trying to point out, I suggest you take a look at similar language used in the section entitled "Popular religion". In particular, "...more recent research has indicated the ways in which it [the Medieval Scottish church] met the spiritual needs of different social groups." There are two citations to that quotation that I examined through Google books and neither of them produce a hit on the phrase "spiritual needs"... so if evidence supporting the assertion exists in the cited works, it is not easy to find without a close reading. And without knowing what the phrase "spiritual needs" means, which is in no way obvious, even the most painstaking reading may be futile. As I said, I have no historical expertise in this area. But I do have a sense that if the church incites fear in a population with a doctrine such as hell or purgatory, and then turns around and offers solace and redemption, it is misleading to characterize that as "meeting people's spiritual needs", unless the church's role in first creating those "needs" is emphasized.


 * I am not saying there are no social benefits to religion, which is perhaps what those cited works intend to describe. I am questioning language that seems to assert that "spiritual needs" are inherent needs of human beings, which create a demand for what we might call 'spiritual services' which religions then attempt to deliver in the same way that your grocer attempts to meet your inherent need for nourishment. The competing theory that religion is a means of social control imposed from the top down to serve the interest of rulers, not a benign response to the inherent needs of the masses, is preemptively dismissed by such market based language. In any event, assertions about "spiritual needs" do not seem to me to be historical assertions so much as philosophical (or theological) ones, and so, from my point of view, do not belong in an historical article unless they are accompanied by lucid definitions and strong historical evidence. I am not so much objecting to the phrase "spiritual needs" as to its decontextualization and the resulting theological implications of the statements containing it. The point is not to remove offense, it is to remove errors of fact and supply sufficient supporting evidence for historical propositions. Baon (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)