Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[OrphanPip]

The idea that Christianity in general or the Bible in particular “lacks any reasoned argument” is ludicrous. The arguments reasoned from (and in) the Bible fill thousands upon thousands of volumes. Your prejudices are showing. Perhaps you think no argument with which you disagree is “reasoned”, but that’s mere hubris. Any philosophical or theological “reasoned argument” must begin with certain premises that cannot be proved. The Bible (and Christian theology) is no different.

Yes, and when someone chooses to actually engage in a reasoned defense of the ethical argument they are trying to make they should be called on to defend them. When we are given a book like the Bible where people can not agree, even amongst believers, what exactly it is trying to say as a moral guide, I think we'll find it falls short as a defense for a moral argument. Pointing to the Bible and merely expecting it to stand as a moral guide in and of itself is clearly not a reasoned argument. If someone wants to reason why something is morally right or wrong, they should be able to defend that position in a way that is not an appeal to authority, which is what the Biblical argument is. Neither is a bulk of literature on a subject any testament to the worth of that subject.

My argument is not “tautological”. I’m simply saying that most people are interested in what makes us what we are – and the Bible and Christianity are a big part of that. This is not tautological, it’s “egotistical”, in a normal, healthy sort of way. We’re all interested in ourselves. I’ll grant that some people reject that approach, and are more interested in Buddhism or Native American Religion. That’s fine. But I think it’s easier to gain a depth of understanding about Western thought than about modes of thinking with which we are less familiar. At least we know the basic grammar of Western thought.

None of this is justification for thinking the Bible is somehow a worthwhile source of any special insight into humanity. Nor does it in anyway justify the Bible's use in justifying political decisions, as it so often is. Do you think your personal interest in the Bible somehow justifies the Catholic Church's endorsement of life imprisonment for homosexuals in Uganda?

In addition, we do NOT find identical moral values everywhere – your assertion that we do is simply incorrect. Loving one’s enemy is not a virtue for the Yanamamo.

I disagree, we even find this behavior amongst bonobo chimpanzees. We just like to think we're special and different.

Obviously, you think that you can “explain” all aspects of your morals without a Christian framework. Perhaps you can – but explanations that ignore the cultural and historical underpinnings on which your (and every other Western person’s) morals are based are surely more limited than those that do not.

This isn't even an attempt to address what I said. You just restated that my morals must be of a Christian source, it's outright begging the question. Neither is Christianity's influence even a testament to it's worth in itself for anything.

In addition, the notion that we can reason our way to a moral code is limited. Why is deducing a moral code somehow superior to discovering one through (for example) analogical reasoning?

Because it allows room for debate and rapprochement. Moreover, I would go beyond that to say a moral code that respects individual autonomy is far superior to anything found in the Bible.

One more thing: stylistically, The Bible (although diverse) has some sections that are paragons of simplicity in story telling. Tolstoy thought the story of Joseph and his brothers the idea work of prose -- although, of course, Thomas Mann took the 2 page story and reworked into a many volume book.

So? For the purposes of its worth as a moral guide, I don't care if the Bible is well written.

[DanielBenoit]

I think I am going to say this and then I'll be done: The Bible does not particuarly have to be a moral guide in order for it to have value. As a moral guide, yes, I would take extremely little of what is said in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus etc. as ways to govern my life. That is why we can't just do what fundamentalists do and say "everything in the Bible is Absolute Truth and the word of God." You have to pick and choose and rely on your own judgement because the Bible is anything but a complete text written by authors with the same opinion.

As for the argument concerning Christian morals as being the foundation of Western civilization: I would first argue that since the Old Testament is not a Christian text(s) then we should refer to Biblical morals as Judeo-Christian morals. Secondly, the Bible is so vast and so diverse that there is indeed great reason in this argument because philosophers, politicians (for good or for bad), and just the basic mass of time has received an inheritance of various, often contradictory elements from the Bible (just take the controversy over divorce which divided Catholics and Protestants). I certainly think that our society today is far more influenced by Proverbs and Matthew than Leviticus or Revelations (thank God), though all four have been immensely influential throughout our history.

I'm not going to argue that the Bible (at least the Hebrew Bible) is a democratic or egalitarian text. Our liberal democratic values we have today come more from Greece than from the Bible, which is our second major inheritance (we must remember that the Founding Fathers of the US studied Athenian democracy).

I think Christianity is an interesting case because more and more often I believe Nietzsche was right when he said "The last Christian died on the cross", for Christ's "legacy" has been so immensely distorted, edited and redone that he is an enigma. We can't even trust the supposed writers of the four Gospels who came very late after Christ had died for none of them write in the language of Christ, Aramaic (there has never been found an "Armaic Gospel). Besides only a random quote of Aramaic here and there, the Christ of the gospels speaks in Greek, which only puts more doubt in the accuracy of their texts because certainly one would think that if one was writing quotes from the Messiah that you would at least write what he said in his very own words.

Anyway, our Christian inheritance is virtually Pauline Christianity and it has indeed had a significant impact on our society.

In the end I would argue that due to the seeming universality of certain fundamental morals, ones that basically hold together all civilizations, that whatever is found in the Bible can easily be replaced by what is found in the Tao Te Ching, not because they are any means the same, but because both religions ended up teaching much of the same morals (with very different metaphysical systems though).

Like I said, our democratic moral come from our Greek inheritance as is evidenced by the immense influence of Greek thought on philosophy in general. Rousseau, Locke, Marx, Mill are children of the Greeks and not of the Hebrews.

[BienvenuJDC]

Daniel, while I'm not in total agreement of everything said here, I do appreciate your openness and respect of the subject. It seems that there are many who show a complete intolerance of a vast religion based on what a few fundamentalists have done or said. I'm not sure what defines a fundamentalist, but anyone who would force or oppress another based on their own belief system should be stopped. But that goes for anyone...even those who want to eradicate religion because it disagrees with their lifestyle. You have expressed yourself in a very respectful and mature manner. Thank you.

[The Atheist]

Anyway, our Christian inheritance is virtually Pauline Christianity and it has indeed had a significant impact on our society.

Bingo!

I often refer to people as Paulians rather than christians, because I see so little of Jesus' teachings used by the vast majority of those who would call themselves christian.

[Ecurb]

Obviously, a great many moral rules are shared by a great many cultures. In addition, I agree with DBenoit that the Jewish and Christian moral precepts were not developed in a vacuum, and owe much to other Mediterranean and Babylonian cultures. The Yanamamo are a good example of a society that differs because, as Benoit points out, they have been so isolated.

However, there are major differences as well as similarities between moral codes . In particular, one distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that the former was a tribal religion, and the latter a world religion. To many tribal people, "thou shalt not kill" means, "thou shalt not kill your relatives (everyone in the tribe being related)." Christainity (as is not surprising given Roman influence and an increasingly global economy) made some of these precepts more universal, as well as positing that the very nature of one's humanity was more universal.

OrphanPip appears to be arguing against a naive and literalistic view of Christianity. No, I don't think gay people should be imprisoned for life. But he continues to misunderstand my point. He says, "None of this is justification for thinking the Bible is somehow a worthwhile source of any special insight into humanity.' But surely a book that has profoundly influenced so many people IS a worthwhile source of special insight into humanity. If we are intereted in humans, we can learn about them by studying what they have found to be important. Heck, I'd even say that Mein Kampf provides insight into human nature, because it was so influential (although far, far less influential than the Bible, as well as of far less literary merit).

"Moral guides' need not be logical arguments or sets of moral rules. They can be (for example) stories. Are the stories (which we were discussing in another thread) of King Arthur "moral guides"? Of course they are. That's what I was getting at when I suggested that analogical reasoning can help direct our moral compass just as logical reasoning can.

[YesNo]

In particular, one distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that the former was a tribal religion, and the latter a world religion. To many tribal people, "thou shalt not kill" means, "thou shalt not kill your relatives (everyone in the tribe being related)." Christainity (as is not surprising given Roman influence and an increasingly global economy) made some of these precepts more universal, as well as positing that the very nature of one's humanity was more universal.

If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade?

And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?

[The Atheist]

If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade?

And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?

That's exactly what I meant when I said that most self-proclaimed christians do not follow the rules Jesus allegedly gave them.

[DanielBenoit]

If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade?

And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?

I think you misunderstood. What Ecurb was saying is that compared to isolated tribal religions like Yanamamo for example, Christianity expanded its grasp because of its political power in post-Constantine Europe, hence its moral and metaphysical notions became more universal. But I think that this in itself is a testament to the fact that even though a moral code is accepted and revered all throughout a continent, doesn't mean that it's going to be obeyed.

Also one must remember that such moral laws like "thou shalt not kill" have been interpreted and reinterpreted endlessly since their creation. One could argue that "thou shalt not kill" referred to the Israelites and only the Israelites, since they were Mosaic law. Theologists have for centuries justified wars because they argue that "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not do murder" and thus killing can be justified if you're not the belligerent.

Constantine was known to have said something like "Christianity is the perfect state religion" and indeed it is because its law is much more open-ended than Hebrew law because Christ was such an ambiguous character and loved speaking in parables and obscure phrases; hence his character could easily be manipulated into a man of religious war, as it of course has and still is to this day.

[Ecurb]

If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade?

I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

(I was suggesting that Christianity made moral rules more universal not because there are no exceptions or nuances to the rules of Christian ethics, but because everyone qualifies as "human", which wasn't always the case in tribal religions. That's what allowed the so called "world religions" like Christianity and Islam to spread so rapidly. Judaism, as a tribal religion, did not proselytize)

The sins of the prophet, by the way, have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the prophecy.

[OrphanPip]

Obviously, a great many moral rules are shared by a great many cultures. In addition, I agree with DBenoit that the Jewish and Christian moral precepts were not developed in a vacuum, and owe much to other Mediterranean and Babylonian cultures. The Yanamamo are a good example of a society that differs because, as Benoit points out, they have been so isolated.

However, there are major differences as well as similarities between moral codes . In particular, one distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that the former was a tribal religion, and the latter a world religion. To many tribal people, "thou shalt not kill" means, "thou shalt not kill your relatives (everyone in the tribe being related)." Christainity (as is not surprising given Roman influence and an increasingly global economy) made some of these precepts more universal, as well as positing that the very nature of one's humanity was more universal.

Not to mention the fact that Shadow's reading of the story of Noah a couple weeks back in our Bible studies thread would suggest that the Hebrews certainly did have a conception of the worth of non-Hebrews.

It means nothing at all it's all babel on top of what is essentially a universal biologically determined moral code. For example, in a recent study of chimps, a chimp was given the option between pushing a button that would give just itself a treat, or a giving itself and another chimp a smaller treat. Chimps naturally favour sharing, they also naturally favour compassion for other members of their group, and caring for the elderly, and not arbitrarily killing members of their group.

I say let's look at Christian society and see without all the grand talk how they really have behaved. They have killed and enslaved foreign populations with a fervour just as any other human society has, and they have punished unnecessary killing (when not by those in a position of power) just like any other society.

There is nothing special about Christian morality.

Besides my point wasn't that all moral systems are identical, it was they are practically identical. You find more variety around things which are completely arbitrary and likely not related to any biological factors. Thus, why killing is almost universally prohibited within group, but prohibiting eating shellfish seems unique to the Jews.

OrphanPip appears to be arguing against a naive and literalistic view of Christianity. No, I don't think gay people should be imprisoned for life. But he continues to misunderstand my point.

Hardly, Christianity has been used to do this just this year in Uganda. I'm not taking any sort of literalistic view because the text itself is taken in such arbitrary fashion that it is practically irrelevant to determining how Christians behave. I need not look at the text at all to understand why Christianity needs to be kept away from the state, I just need to look at what is happening in Central Africa, and what Southern Evangelicals attempt in the US. Or even the recent rise of the harshly conservative nationalist groups in Austria and France, which also have close ties to traditional Christian groups. Mine is not a complaint against the naive and literalistic view of Christianity, it is a complaint against the real harm and threat of the religion. Are moderate allegorical traditions of Christianity doing anything to stop this plague of rising fundamentalism? The answer is no, instead they are whittling away bit by bit. I also don't think its unfair to complain about these Christian groups, especially when they contain the Catholic church and its near 1 billion parishioners. The Catholics don't even take the Bible literally, yet they still continue to do harm through their resistance to condom distribution and their tacit support of criminalizing homosexuality. Don't get me started on the abortion thing either.

He says, "None of this is justification for thinking the Bible is somehow a worthwhile source of any special insight into humanity.' But surely a book that has profoundly influenced so many people IS a worthwhile source of special insight into humanity. If we are intereted in humans, we can learn about them by studying what they have found to be important. Heck, I'd even say that Mein Kampf provides insight into human nature, because it was so influential (although far, far less influential than the Bible, as well as of far less literary merit).

Ha, yet psychological insight from a study of human anthropology is quite different from the insight people usually claim for the Bible. Even so, your own statement of Mein Kampf's ability to provide insight into human psychology testifies to why there is nothing special about the Bible. Other than the political power structures that have propagated it and continue to propagate a mythos of its innate value.

"Moral guides' need not be logical arguments or sets of moral rules. They can be (for example) stories. Are the stories (which we were discussing in another thread) of King Arthur "moral guides"? Of course they are. That's what I was getting at when I suggested that analogical reasoning can help direct our moral compass just as logical reasoning can.

Bad moral guides certainly can be. Obviously the Bible attempts to be a moral guide, the problem is that it is a bad one, especially in a society which values any principles of liberty.

A moral argument should be reasoned, otherwise you've got a moral proclamation, and a proclamation lies on a logical fallacy, the argument to authority.

[Ecurb]

It means nothing at all it's all babel on top of what is essentially a universal biologically determined moral code. For example, in a recent study of chimps, a chimp was given the option between pushing a button that would give just itself a treat, or a giving itself and another chimp a smaller treat. Chimps naturally favour sharing, they also naturally favour compassion for other members of their group, and caring for the elderly, and not arbitrarily killing members of their group.
.

I don’t dispute your facts: I dispute your reasoning. Given the example of chimps (which I haven’t read but I’ll take your word for it) why would you infer that the only possible reason for the chimp’s behavior is a “universal biologically determined moral code”? I’ll grant that without some selfless behavior, mammals could not propagate – all female mammal mothers routinely offer scarce resources to their offspring. Nonetheless, I wonder: would a chimp kept in complete isolation from birth exhibit the same behavior? If not, isn’t it likely there is a cultural component to the behavior? Mightn’t it vary from one group of chimps to another? In fact, among many mammals, females raised in isolation lack basic mothering skills -- so even these essential skills are partially culturally constituted (or at least learned from watching experienced mothers).

The one “universal” moral code sometimes cited for humans is the incest taboo. Freud wrote an entire book about it. Reductionists (like OrphanPip) often cite incest taboos as biologically determined, because they reduce the risk of birth defects. However, based on the best available evidence, this is incorrect. Although incest taboos do (slightly) reduce the risk of birth defects, that appears NOT to be an acceptable explanation for them.

The reason: in many cultures, the incest taboo takes the following form: a person may NOT marry his or her parallel cousin, but MUST marry his or her cross cousin. A parallel cousin is a mother’s sister’s child, or a father’s brother’s child. A cross cousin is a mother’s brother’s child, or a father’s sister’s child. What is going on here? Obviously, the biological disadvantages are identical regardless of which cousin is married.

Since this form of the incest taboo (often called marriage rules) is so common, it seems there must be some other reason for the rules. For those who have studied these societies, the reason seems clear. Parallel cousins are generally in the same clan. Cross cousins are members of different clans. By marrying between clans, cousins can create economic and political alliances that are almost surely helpful to the children the marriage produces, and almost surely increase the descendant-leaving success of the married couple. Given that the biological closeness of parallel and cross cousins is identical, this cultural, economic and political explanation is far more reasonable than the biological one, which is falsified by the facts.

A moral argument should be reasoned, otherwise you've got a moral proclamation, and a proclamation lies on a logical fallacy, the argument to authority.

Obviously, “arguments” should be reasoned. But there are ways of arriving at moral precepts other than argument. I offered one: analogical reasoning (in pop-culture-speak this would involve emulating “role models”). The Christian ethos specifically advocates this method, suggesting that believers “emulate Christ” (“What would Jesus do?”).

In addition, the fact that “argument from authority” is a “logical fallacy” does not mean that it is never acceptable to accept authority. Why would it? All of us often accept authority – which is why we think the speed of light is C (I don’t know about you, but I’ve never measured it). One good thing about Biblical authority is that it has, at least, stood the test of time. I may not trust Christianity implicitly, but I respect it more than I do Scientology.

[BienvenuJDC]

If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade?

And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?

The passage is better translated in the NKJ version as "You shall not murder." However, that particular passage was given to the Israelite nation. Jesus commented on this command in His sermon on the mount, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

The question posed however cannot be discussed properly since it would take this discussion into a political argument. But the actions in and about the war was to crush an oppressor, Saddam Hussein, which is very much a godly act...to overt oppression of the innocent (just as OP has considered to be important).

[The Atheist]

But the actions in and about the war was to crush an oppressor, Saddam Hussein, which is very much a godly act...

I don't recall Jesus saying it was ok to attack bad guys, so can you please point me to the passage where he agreed that starting a war can be a godly act?

I seem to recall Jesus more saying "if thine enemy smite thee, turn your other cheek and let him smite you again on that side".

[DanielBenoit]

The passage is better translated in the NKJ version as "You shall not murder."

The NKJ is really nothing more than a modernization of the KJV and is more the equvilent to the modernizations of Shakespeare since it can't be called a legitimate "new" translation because of its reliance on the outdated sources of the King James Version, not utilizing the new discoveries of the past 400 years in Biblical manuscripts.

Plus, like I said in my other post, normative theologists have for a while insisted that "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not murder". It is probably best if we go back to the Hebrew "original" (which isn't really an original, but closer to a original than KJV) instead of trusting re-translated English versions of an already imperfect English translation.

The question posed however cannot be discussed properly since it would take this discussion into a political argument. But the actions in and about the war was to crush an oppressor, Saddam Hussein, which is very much a godly act...to overt oppression of the innocent (just as OP has considered to be important).

Even though that oppressor was one that we supported and supplied with weapons for years. . .

[Ecurb]

I'm no expert on Bible translations -- but I sort of like the King James. Maybe the translators were divinely inspired (or at least just as divinely inspired as the original authors)! I'm not being anti-intellectual -- I do see the value of scholarship and more "correct" translations. However, I also think that old fashioned English might be more appropriate stylistically than modern English. It emphasizes the age of the text -- I'm sure the source text of the Bible is old fashioned to Greek and Hebrew speakers, too.

I'll grant that for devout Christians "correct" translations might be more important.