Horus and Jesus: mythological plagiarism?
Bill Maher's film Religulous redeploys the claim, often made, that the biblical story of Jesus is a re-run of the Egyptian myth of Horus.
Did the writers of the New Testament 'borrow' from a older myth? Is the gospel account a kind of mthological plagiarism? It's said that Horus, like Jesus -- or Jesus, like Horus -- was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, delivered a 'sermon on the mount', performed mircles, was executed beside two thieves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
We'll be exploring the similarities between Horus and Jesus on Sunday morning, with an Egyptologist, a humanist and a Christian theologian.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Uh-oh - I detect a hint of "Zeitgeist". The myth of Jesus in the bible didn't owe that much to Horus, but subsequent theological developments certainly did. The Trinity owes a lot to the various triads in Egyptian religion, principally Amun, Mut and Khonsu. The notion of the "baby Jesus" does stem directly from Horus-Shed (the saviour), and the imagery of various little "cippi" (devotional stelae of Horus-the-Saviour) showing the child Horus trampling snakes is VERY suggestive of the imagery of the son-of-the-woman bruising the head of the snake in Genesis. Is the link direct? Possibly not, but it confirms that such concepts were familiar at the time in the region. Icons of the (alleged) Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus stem *directly* from similar images of Mut and Khnonsu and Isis and Horus. They were first produced in Alexandria, of course. The so-called "Latin Cross" (the now-standard Christian cross) derived from the Egyptian ankh symbol, first used as a "cross" by Coptic Christians, and co-opted from Egyptian religion. The real cross of Jesus would have been a T-bar, not a "cross" as we have it today. Do these link the "historical" Jesus with Horus? Probably not.
Horus was NOT crucified; he did NOT have 12 disciples. His father Osiris did rise from the dead, kinda, so there may be some link there, although resurrections were as common as dirt in near eastern religions (all the more reason to regard Christianity's version as yet another myth).
There are therefore extensive borrowings of Christian theology from Egyptian religion, but directly linking Jesus with Horus, at least at the time the *biblical* mythology was forming, is not quite accurate.
Sorry, Bill.
Complain about this comment
BTW, who's the Egyptologist? Please tell!
Complain about this comment
As they have mentioned,it should be Osiris,not Horus.Zoroastrianism has a similar story.
I agree with Clement Atlee ref Jesus;beleive the ethics,not the mumbo jumbo.
Complain about this comment
I did a wee bit more research.The same applies to Mithras,and Dionysus.
The essential message of Jesus stands up even if you take the Resurrection away. It's how he lived & what he taught that matters, not how he died
Complain about this comment
"The same applies to Mithras,and Dionysus."
These myths of beings having virgin mothers etc. must have come cheap at the time, because I can add a few more with some strong similarities: Attis and Krishna.
Does anyone know if there is a comprehensive list?
Complain about this comment
It strikes me as an example of early Christianity taking over rival myths,much as they did with Eostre & Saturnalia
Complain about this comment
Well, they did that for sure - my suspicion however is that the *biblical* story was not a Horus re-run (Moses - that's another story - Sargon was in on the bullrushes thing too, and you could argue that the massacre of the innocents was simply that old device all over again - there is no historical basis for it).
Oddly enough, the name "Mary" derives from "Miriam" in the Old Testament, which is often thought to be a hebraicisation of Meret-Amun ("beloved of Amun") - a common Egyptian name. Funny that the son of Yahweh could be the son of the beloved of Amun, isn't it?
The problem of course is that the Near & Middle East at the time was a melting pot of all sorts of ideas, myths, tales, etc. It was a brim-full box of religious Lego. It's not surprising to see various elements crop up over and over again.
Will - ask your Egyptologist whether "Nazarene" derives from "Netjer-ankh" (I think not, but it's worth considering) - living god. Maybe Matthew did get something "out of Egypt" after all!
Complain about this comment
"BTW, who's the Egyptologist? Please tell!"
Ach, drat, Helio, I was hoping it was you.
PK, "Does anyone know if there is a comprehensive list?"
Who cares, all I'm wondering is if there is another Christian who can be arsed having the debate again. Just look up the recent archives.
Professor, where are you doing your research?
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk
Complain about this comment
Ok, if we're now down to posting YouTube clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo
Complain about this comment
Peter, I was hoping it was me too, but it's not :-(
Maybe next time... (anyway, I'm off to Donegal for the weekend, so forget it :-)
Complain about this comment
Peter
The youtube clips are irrelevant, but not unknown on this blog.
What I said was:
Who cares, all I'm wondering is if there is another Christian who can be arsed having the debate again. Just look up the recent archives.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Enjoy your weekend.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Horus in the picture above is tapping the guy in front on the shoulder saying, "And tonight Matthew I'm going to be Jesus."
Complain about this comment
Except of course, you know, that Jesus was a real person, really was a "baby Jesus" and it matters a hell of a lot how he died and rose from the dead. The others were just stories.
Complain about this comment
Quite a comprehensive demolition of the borrowed myth argument on SS this morning. Good stuff!
The antiquarian in me, however, will be a little disappointed if it ends the rehashing of tired nineteenth century arguments on the blog. (If...)!
I see little point in searching for spurious connections of the Christ story with other ancient myths when the really interesting point is the one raised by Roddy Cowrie on the blog sometime ago - the incredible meshing of the Christ with human need, the points of connection between the life and living of Jesus and the completion of our being. That point has been the subject of considerale reflection for me since I read it.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne, mccamlyc
When will Christians on this blog realise that EVERY religion on the face of this earth claims that it is special.
Somehow or other you seem to think that Christianity has an added dimension which the others lack. They are just 'stories', whereas the Jesus myth succeeds in creating "the incredible meshing of the Christ with human need, the points of connection between the life and living of Jesus and the completion of our being".
A Muslim could substitute 'Mohammed' for Jesus in this sentence, a Buddhist the Buddha and a Zoroastrian Zoroaster. So what? Would any of you have the faintest idea what it really means?
Complain about this comment
I don't actually think so Brian - I don't think the mythic character of the founder's life is particularly important in any of the religions you cite.
I am very happy to accept that there are many valid understandings of the path to God. I do feel, however, that Roddy makes a point which requires serious consideration.
Finally, yes, I do understand the power of myth and have some appreciation of how it plays in the psyche.
Complain about this comment
Brian - well done for missing the point. Muhammud, Buddha and Zoroaster were real people, like Jesus. The mythical characters mentined earlier e.g. Horus weren't real. The reason Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are important is that they are based on real people. The reason Chistianity is most important is that Jesus was also the Son of God and he died for us and rose from the dead. Luckily for you there's purgatory so you might have a chance. Unless you're a protestant atheist who doesn't disbelieve in purgatory.
Complain about this comment
Peter Morrow, Portwyne
fyi
I have posted a response to you on Christianity vs fundamentalism thread.
OT
Complain about this comment
mccamleyc (19):
Your comment is a good example of dogmatic Christianity (which of course reglarly accuses atheism of being dogmatic). Most atheists do not have the dogmatism of religious faith.
Horus and Osiris MAY have been based on historical figures, as may have Tammuz, Mithras and Dionysos. If they did exist, then they were later mythologised and god-like qualities were ascribed to them. You missed out Hinduism and Krishna. Hindus believe that Krishna definitely existed, and they MAY be right.
As for the Buddha, there is no doubt that much myth has been piled on a figure who probably, but not certainly, existed. A word of caution is needed, though. Neither the Buddha nor Buddhism appears in the art, archeology or written record of ancient India until the first century A.D, about 500 years after his alleged lifetime.
Jesus MAY have been an historical figure too, in which case the same process happened with Christianity as happened with all the others; namely, that a mountain of myth was piled on top of a molehill of reality.
Complain about this comment
Except that the word of caution you offered in relation to Buddha doesn't apply to Christianity, given that the "mountain of myth" was fairly well established within one or two decades of his death.
You forgot to mention that, Brian!
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
The myth of Jesus as god incarnate was only officially pronounced about 300 years after his alleged death.
Complain about this comment
Who pronounced it Brian?
Complain about this comment
The Council of Nicaea. Mind you, many Christians before and since didn't (don't) believe it.
Complain about this comment
Brian
The Word became flesh, John, late 1st century.
This Word we saw with our eyes, we touched with our hands, John, again, late 1st century.
Became like men and was born a human being, Paul mid 1st century.
He (Jesus) shared in their humanity, writer of Hebrews, circa AD70
Seems the rumours began a bit earlier.
At least we're now agreed that Jesus wasn't Horace.
Portwyne, would you like to expand on what it is you have been reflecting on?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
You know or ought to know that there is no single biblical text in which Jesus claimed explicitly to be God incarnate. Nor is there any implicit text which can be interpreted exclusively to mean a claim of divinity. On the contrary, there are numerous clear and direct texts in which Jesus denies equality with a God or possessing any of a Gods divine attributes:
John 8: 28-29: As my father hath taught me...
John 14: 10: and the word ye hear is not mine, but the Fathers which sent me.
John 14: 31: But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.
Mark 13: 32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
And of course two clinchers:
Mark 10: 18 And Jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
Matthew 27: 46: My God, my God. why hast thou forsaken me?
Of course, you believe that Jesus was both human and divine. So you wriggle out of it by claiming that he is speaking sometimes as a human and sometimes as divine. He was both omnipotent as god and, at least partly, weak, as a human being. He was both ominiscient as alleged of the Christian god but also ignorant, like all of us. In other words, you believe in a self-contradiction. It is all really rather confusing.
For example, when he is tempted, which part of him made the final decision: man or god? Did the 100% human and the 100% divine interfere with each other? Did Jesus have a normal childhood? Did he wet the bed? Did he have fights with other boys? And why on earth does the divine one have to have a genealogy going back to David (Matthew and Luke, though they dont agree)? This does seem to be stretching it a bit, if he was really divine.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian,
Subtle shift in the emphasis of the debate again I see! :-)
I know that no one verse of the bible should ever be taken to stand alone; whatever you and I think of the stories themselves, the chapters and verses are definitely inventions. I think Jesus knew a bit about rhetoric too. (Helio pointed that out a while back referring to camels and needles)
Interesting debate of course, who did Jesus think he was, what does it mean to be God and human, did God die on the cross, was Wesley right, "tis mystery all the immortal dies." Personally I think he got that bit of his song wrong, but there's nothing new in your questions, nothing new at all. And no need for wriggling either!
Complain about this comment
Hi folks,
Well, had a great time in Donegal; missed the discussion, but caught up with the SunSeqSegment on iPlayer. Bit of a damp squib really, but don't say I didn't warn you at the top of the thread :-)
My own view is that the Egyptian mythology (the Trinity, the particular cross symbol used, the iconography, particularly of Jesus and Mary, the various "our lady of x, y, z, and even mccamleyc's funny "purgatory", and many other bits & bobs) that suffuses Christianity came *later*, well after the biblical texts had been dreamt up, and during the time that Christianity was being championed and formed in places like Alexandria.
Of course there are a lot of similarities with other religions - Christianity is just another example of what the fertile human imagination can come up with, and of course it addresses the issues of importance to people at the time - they all do.
I don't think that drawing *false* parallels is really helpful, though. Horus pre-dates Jesus by about 3000 years, but the mythology surrounding him developed over the centuries until we get these lovely little examples of the healing stelae (cippi) from the 18th dynasty onwards, and particularly in the Late Period. People are people; they are creative. They will fill their religious thought with the issues that matter to them, and religion being religion, there will always be a way to do this.
Some of us are just that picky that we want to find out what is *true*, and that's where all religions, including Christianity, fall flat.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Glad you had a good weekend.
Complain about this comment
PeterM
Commenting on Prof Cowie's address to Christians in Science I asked the following question: "To what extent might he consider any functional religious myth of a 'Good God' imbuing the universe with meaning/purpose and fostering love as the preferred dynamic of human interaction would work in just the same way as Christianity?"
The professor, or at any rate his avatar, responded: "There are very few genuinely functional religious myths, and that's surely significant. They have to mesh with a lot of facts about the world and features of the human mind. Those that pass that test deserve respect - there must be some sense in which they give a valid picture. What obviously distinguishes Christianity is the claim that the relationship between humanity and divinity is so intimate that a human could be - and was - indistinguishable from God. If that claim is true, then Christianity is a better picture than others: it includes something critical that they don't. I don't pretend I can prove the claim is true, but all in all, I think it is".
That Peter is something I have considered worth mulling over for some months indeed now.
Helio
Just interested. How do you define true? How would you know it when/if you find it? Do you expect to find it in/with science? Is truth what science is about? Is it the attainment or the quest that is important, or both?
Complain about this comment
Right, let's deal with the nonsense. Once more, this will be a long post. But all the same, I'd like the arguments dealt with and not skipped over before we return to Dan Brown-lite waffle.
First of all, the idea that Jesus was only put on the same footing as YHWH in the third and fourth centuries.
A careful study of the Judaism of Jesus day (Second Temple Judaism as it is known to the scholars) explains how first century Jews could confess Jesus as God, yet also view him as God the Son and not God the father, without lapsing into contradiction.
For one thing, Jews of the period, like most ancients, did not hold the same concept of individuality as moderns. We tend to think that individuals are defined as separate units, each possessing its own free-will, unique personality, and its own set of desires and abilities. We also consider it a virtue to be self sufficient, and encourage each person to find an identity of their own. The ancients viewed a person in a very different light. No human was an individual in their own right, in separation from others. A person could not define themselves, but rather was defined by the relationships they had with other human beings. Humans were defined by their family, their social connections, and who they associated with. I could not exist without those connections, so those connections were essential in creating me, in making me who I am. They were much more than just a part of me I could not exist without them.
If I am deeply and essentially connected to those closest to me, at points it will be difficult to tell where my identity ends, and theirs begin. We cannot understand a son without understanding his father, for, in 1st Century Palestine, the son will inherit the fathers way of life, his beliefs, the family name and whatever honour (or shame) that goes with that name. Neither can we understand the father without observing his relationship to his sons. How his sons behave will reflect on who he is as a parent, and as a man. Will they bring honour to his name, or will they shame him? How effective a father has he been? A fathers community would pay close attention to these questions, and judge him on the answers.
With this in mind in becomes much easier to see how the Father and the Son could both be different in important ways, and yet both be the unique God. Neither is a separate concrete individual that could exist by himself. Each is dependant on the other; neither could be who he is without the other. You cannot understand the Father without understanding the Son, and vice-versa, not because they are the same person far from it- but because they are deeply, intimately and essentially connected. The two may not be the same, but they cannot be separated. And this would have made perfect sense to the minds of Jesus disciples.
God was certainly unique, unlike any other thing. There was a huge, impassable gulf between Him and His creation. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deut 6v4, or the Shema as it is commonly known). The faithful Jew recited this daily, promising to serve him with everything they were and had. They also recited the 10 commandments, which viewed God as the only object worthy of worship, and insisted that no human image or creation could reflect who he was. The God of Israel was different from all other gods of the time, in that he and he alone, was the sole creator and ruler of all things. (Isaiah 48 v 12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. 13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together is but one example of a multitude of verses that could be quoted to illustrate this.) The Lord is God and there is no one like him, is the constant refrain of the Hebrew Bible.
But God was not only unique, totally other from his creation. He was at work within it, and intimately connected with his people Israel. Judaism saw God at work in his world and people in at least five different ways, and commonly used five related terms to talk about God. They saw his Wisdom and Word at work in creation, his presence (shekinah) in their Temple, his Law guiding his people, and his Spirit watching over the world and Israel. These were five different ways of referring to the one God, of identifying him, and understanding his work.
God had to be viewed as both infinitely removed from his creation, and intimately at work within it. It was difficult to conceive exactly how God could be both, but it was certainly possible that he could be. It was not self-contradiction to affirm these twin truths. What Judaism was certain of was that this was who God was. He was both unfathomably beyond us, yet at work in this world right beside us. Fail to mention both and you dont see who God is. Abstract speculation was largely left aside, and theorising about God was abandoned as a hopeless project. Judaism just got on with the job of worshipping and preaching the God who was like no other.
While capable of highly sophisticated argument, the Judaism of Jesus day was, for the most part, not interested in abstract philosophical argument after the manner of the Greek scholars. They did not argue about essences or properties, substances or hypostases, or any other highly abstract theories. What was important was trying to discern how best to worship this unique God, and how to live as his unique people. They were more interested in who God was than what he was. The Gospel writers were convinced that we must speak of God as three whos Father, Son and Spirit precisely because the witness of Jesus Christ forced them to. They were not interested in the metaphysics that made this possible. (The Church was forced to talk about Gods essence and properties, and the all important difference between a substance and a hypostasis, only when it moved into a Greek and Roman culture). They did not set out to explain how this was possible; they just knew that it was possible.
Simply put they wanted to know how we identify God. And the answer was that if you wanted to know who God was, you must identify him as Father and Son (and Spirit, but it will take a different essay to explain and justify that claim). Take away the Father, and you are no longer talking about God as he truly is. Take away the Son, and youve stopped understanding the creator. Each is essential to making God who he is. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other. They are inextricably linked, and yet different. If it was possible for God to be at once vastly removed from his world, and yet always at work within it, then it was just as easy to believe that he was at once Father and Son. And if it was common sense to view people as deeply connected and inseparable from one another, then it was certainly possible to believe that Jesus was God, that he had a Father who was also God, (and that they sent a Spirit who also was God) for Father and Son defined each other, and could not be without each other. If the one God could work in different but compatible ways within his world (as Wisdom, as Law, as his presence in the Temple etc.) then the one God could certainly be different but complementary persons.
The Testimony of the Gospels
Read against the background of the Old Testament, it is strikingly clear that the Gospel writers thought of Jesus as God. Without a careful study of the Old Testament, it is easy to miss these claims (this is why Jehovahs Witnesses interpretation of the New Testament is so disappointing, despite their thorough knowledge of the text).
Jesus rarely comes straight out with the claim that he is God incarnate (apart from anything else, this would have led people to believe that he was identical to the Father). But we should not expect him to, as that is not how Jesus taught. He taught in parables and allusions, he made hints and gave clues about his mission. He never came straight out and said Im the Messiah, by the way but rather expected the disciples to work this out for themselves (who do people say that I am?. He never gave a point by point sermon that explained exactly what he meant by the Kingdom of God. Rather he taught in a series of parables, a performed a number of miracles that explained what he meant by the Kingdom. He expected his followers to reflect on who he was and what he was saying and doing, and if they were open to Gods guidance, they would form the correct conclusions. In short, he expected his followers to think, and think hard. He demanded effort, and humility. He that has an ear let him hear. So it is not surprising that Jesus never comes straight out with a claim to deity. He never came straight out with a claim to anything else of importance.
In the gospels how does Jesus claim to be God? First we will look at a series of miracles in which Jesus acts in a way that only God can act. It is important to notice that he does not ask God to perform these miracles on his behalf (like Elijah or Elishah, nor does God talk to him to tell him how to perform these miracles (as he did with Moses). Rather, Jesus performs his miracles on his own authority on every occasion. This alone makes him unique in the Scriptures.
Nevertheless, it is what Jesus did, rather than how he did it that demonstrates who he is. We will focus on just two examples.
Mark Chapter 4- Jesus Calms the Storm
35That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." 36Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"
39He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
41They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!"
Why would the disciples be terrified after being saved from certain death? Were the Israelites described as terrified after being led through the Red Sea? The disciples were terrified as they had just seen Jesus do what the Old Testament do what only God could do. Apart from the other quotations we will look at, Jesus has just re-enacted a scenario described in Psalm 107.
Psalm 107
23 Others went out on the sea in ships;
they were merchants on the mighty waters.
24 They saw the works of the LORD,
his wonderful deeds in the deep.
25 For he spoke and stirred up a tempest
that lifted high the waves.
26 They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths;
in their peril their courage melted away.
27 They reeled and staggered like drunken men;
they were at their wits' end.
28 Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble,
and he brought them out of their distress.
29 He stilled the storm to a whisper;
the waves of the sea were hushed.
30 They were glad when it grew calm,
and he guided them to their desired haven.
31 Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love
and his wonderful deeds for men.
Only God could save the sailors caught in the storm. And yet the disciples had just been saved by crying out to Jesus, and he had just calmed the storm on his own authority, without praying to God himself, or seeking Gods help ("Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!").
A few other Old Testament texts should show that Jesus was clearly demonstrating an authority that only the creator possessed. No angel or other divine being could share this authority according to the Old Testament, and the Gospels portray this authority as properly belonging to Jesus. The Father had not delegated it to him for a period.
Psalm 89
8 O LORD God Almighty, who is like you?
You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you.
9 You rule over the surging sea;
when its waves mount up, you still them.
Psalm 65
6 who formed the mountains by your power,
having armed yourself with strength,
7 who stilled the roaring of the seas,
the roaring of their waves,
and the turmoil of the nations.
Psalm 93
3 The seas have lifted up, O LORD,
the seas have lifted up their voice;
the seas have lifted up their pounding waves.
4 Mightier than the thunder of the great waters,
mightier than the breakers of the sea-
the LORD on high is mighty.
Job 38
"Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
It is clear from these passages that God alone has control of the sea, and the authority over the waves. This is part and parcel of Gods rights as creator of the sea. As such this authority can be shared with no other. Jesus, by calming the storm, put himself on an equal footing with the creator. Another miracle, which appears in all four Gospels, that clearly demonstrates Jesus identity with the God of Israel, is Jesus walking on the water. Compare the description in Marks gospel with the two Old Testament texts that follow.
Mark 4 - Jesus Walks on the Water
47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.
51Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed.
Job 9
7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.
8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.
Psalm 77
18 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,
your lightning lit up the world;
the earth trembled and quaked.
19 Your path led through the sea,
your way through the mighty waters,
though your footprints were not seen.
What is impressive about the miracle of Treading the Waves is not that the miracle merely established Jesus authority over the storm and the ocean, but rather that it identifies Jesus with the God who led Israel through the Red Sea to freedom with Egypt. (Both Old Testament texts allude to this incident). In any case the quotation from Job clearly establishes that Jesus was doing as a man what only God could do as creator.
Jesus Parables not only outlined his teaching on Gods kingdom, or on Gods love, but on whom Jesus was. For example Jesus told the parable of the Lost Sheep to explain why he fellowshipped with the sinful and not the righteous. Jesus clearly plays the part of the shepherd in the parable. It is those parables that focus on Jesus as the Good Shepherd that we will now focus on. In the Old Testament God describes himself to the prophets in many occasions as Israels true Shepherd (Psalm 23 being the obvious example). In his parables Jesus not only identifies himself as a good shepherd, but the Good Shepherd. By comparing his parables with relevant Old Testament texts, we can see quite clearly that Jesus is identifying himself with Israels unique God.
Luke 15
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
1Now the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him. 2But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
3Then Jesus told them this parable: 4"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbours together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Now as we have said, Jesus is defending his own actions in welcoming sinners, so he is comparing himself to a trustworthy shepherd. Compare the actions of Jesus in this parable with Gods actions in the two texts following.
Psalm 28
8 The LORD is the strength of his people,
a fortress of salvation for his anointed one.
9 Save your people and bless your inheritance;
be their shepherd and carry them forever.
Isaiah 40
10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power,
and his arm rules for him.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.
11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.
Jesus tells a similar parable in Matthew 18.
Matthew 18 - The Parable of the Lost Sheep
12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.
John 10 - The Shepherd and His Flock
1"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
Again compare Jesus roles in these passages with the description of God as a Shepherd in the Old Testament. What becomes clear is that Jesus describes himself as a Shepherd who performs the same role as God the Shepherd, by searching for the lost sheep of Israel, bearing them in his arms, carrying them home, or leading them along the way. Especially compare Gods words in Ezekiel 34 v11, and Ezekiel 34 v 16 with Jesus words about himself in Luke 19v10, which is also quoted below.
Psalm 80
1 Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel,
you who lead Joseph like a flock;
you who sit enthroned between the cherubim, shine forth
2 before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh.
Awaken your might;
come and save us.
Ezekiel 34
11 " 'For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
Luke 19 v 9+10
Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
The Old Testament prophets believed that God himself was coming to rescue his people, that he personally would be their shepherd, a better shepherd than the religious leaders who had led his people astray in the past. He would then establish Davids heir, the Son of David as King, a sort of sub-shepherd to keep his people safe. What seems amazing about these texts is that Jesus was not only identifying himself with the Davidic character that the prophets expected to rescue his people. Jesus was clearly identifying himself with God in his saving role as Israels shepherd. He viewed himself as the one who fulfilled the prophets promise that one day God himself would come like a shepherd and rescue his people Israel. Jesus was fulfilling Israels expectations and Gods promises in a way that no-one could have expected.
It is also instructive to compare the passage in Ezekiel reproduced below, with Jesus parable of the Sheep and the Goats. There Jesus not only compares himself to God the Shepherd, but also claims to be able to do what only God will do in the last day Judge the world. In fact Jesus uses precisely the same imagery for himself that God uses for himself.
Matthew 25The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Ezekiel 34
17 And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats.
So finally we will examine Jesus conviction that one day he personally would return to judge the world. Of course, the Old Testament and Jewish were agreed that this was a right that God alone owned. Yet Jesus not only claimed the right to judge the world, when he described how he would do this he used language that clearly identifies himself with Israels only God. A perfect example of this is found in Jesus description of himself as Son of Man, and more specifically the Son of Man who would come on the clouds to judge the whole world.
This image is found in every Gospel and in verses unique to each gospel. It was not used by any Jewish text or teacher, nor was it an image that the Early Church referred to much outside the Gospels. (It would not have made much sense to those outside a Jewish culture.) So it is unlikely that the first Christians would invent Jesus saying this sort of thing. It can be assumed therefore that the image was found in all of the sources that the Gospel writer used, and that the image goes back to Jesus himself. Even the most critical scholar should accept some of these sayings as authentic, as they pass the most stringent of criteria for authenticity. Yet many scholars refuse to accept that Jesus said anything like this, simply because they refuse to accept that Jesus could have thought of himself as equal with God. The implications of a Jesus who believed he was identified with God would be too much for many critical scholars to cope with even when their own methods imply this belief.
It will be helpful, therefore, to compare the coming Son of Man sayings with their Old Testament counterparts. The Son of Man imagery is clearly gleaned from Daniel 7 -13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. When that imagery is combined with the prerogative to judge the nations, and when we see what the imagery of the clouds implies, it becomes quite clear that Jesus saw his identity as being inseparable from Gods.
As the Old Testament texts that follow make clear and they are only a small sample God, and only God, in the Old Testament scriptures is pictured as dwelling among clouds, and coming on the clouds to judge the whole earth. Furthermore it is important to realise that only God can judge the Earth, for he is the only one who created it. In the texts below we see both Jesus and the God of the Old Testament described as surrounded by clouds and coming to judge the world. The conclusion seems inescapable. Jesus thought that he would fulfil these Old Testament texts as he was God the Messiah, God the King, God the Son.
Matthew 24v30
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Mark 14
61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Deuteronomy 33
26 "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun,
who rides on the heavens to help you
and on the clouds in his majesty.
2 Samuel 22
10 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
Psalm 18
9 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
Psalm 104
2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
4 He makes winds his messengers,
flames of fire his servants.
Ezekiel 1
27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD . When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
Ezekiel 30
2 "Son of man, prophesy and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'Wail and say,
"Alas for that day!"
3 For the day is near,
the day of the LORD is near-
a day of clouds,
a time of doom for the nations.
Zephaniah 1
14 "The great day of the LORD is near-
near and coming quickly.
Listen! The cry on the day of the LORD will be bitter,
the shouting of the warrior there.
15 That day will be a day of wrath,
a day of distress and anguish,
a day of trouble and ruin,
a day of darkness and gloom,
a day of clouds and blackness,
16 a day of trumpet and battle cry
against the fortified cities
and against the corner towers
If there is any further doubt about Jesus beliefs about himself in the Gospels, compare Ezekiel 36 8-9, Jeremiah 24 v 6-7, or Hosea 2v21-21 with the parables that compare Jesus to a sower. Compare Ezekiel 16v8-14, or Hosea 2 to the parables were Jesus describes himself as a bride groom. Compare Zephaniah 1v3 with Matthew 13v41. Read Joel 4 and then read Matthew 25. Ask why Jesus can forgive Sins in Mark 2. Ask why he never once says Thus says the Lord, or goes up a mountain like Moses to receive commandments, but rather teaches on his own authority. And then ask yourself, from a purely historical point of view if every gospel contains passages that strongly imply that Jesus is to be with God, and if every Gospel uses images both in common with others, and unique to themselves - then isnt it highly probable that in every source that was used to prepare the gospels (which would have included eyewitness accounts, remember) Jesus spoke of himself as one equal with God? And if that is the case surely Jesus did speak of himself as one equal with and identified with God? This is hardly the sort of teaching Jews would invent if they wanted to make their Rabbi popular among other Jews. And finally ask yourself, what sort of man makes this sort of claim? A mad man (for a while his own family thought so)? A charlatan and blasphemer (nearly every credible Jewish religious authority said so)? Or some one who is telling the truth.
It is plain in any case that the Gospels portray a Jesus who considers himself as owning the rights and prerogatives of God, and whose identity is an essential part of the identity of the God of Israel. And we have only scratched the surface of the evidence for example we have not looked at the teaching of Paul, or of the book of Revelation. The New Testament is clear on the identity of Jesus, so long as you are prepared to read it with knowledge of the Old Testament and this is always how it was meant to be read. How did Orthodox First Century Jews, with their firm belief in the uniqueness of God and his superiority to all creation (especially human beings) come to believe that a crucified and shamed man was not only Messiah, but equal to and identified with God? I will leave that question to the reader to decide for themselves. Those who knew Jesus, who memorised his teachings, and passed on the traditions that he had given to them were in no doubt however. That in Jesus Christ God was not only at work God had come down from heaven to be fully human, and take up his place as Israels true king.
Now that's just the Gospel evidence. Next we have to look at Paul.
GV
Complain about this comment
Early Judaism could personify attributes of YHWH (Wisdom, for example), so it is not as great a leap to Trinitarianism as might be imagined.
SO examining Paul's arguments
1 Corinthians 8:6. Notice that in that verse there is a Jewish-style monotheistic argument. Paul adapts the Shema itself, placing Jesus within it: For us there is one Godthe Father, from whom are all things and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him. Compare with the Shema YHWH our God, YHWH is one, and remember that creation is YHWHs task, not the messiahs.
Philippians 2:5-11 declares that at Jesus name every knee will bow. Paul is drawing on Isaiah 45. Verses 22-23 read 22Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear
Joel 2v32 says And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved. Compare this with Romans 10 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentilethe same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Go through Pauls letters and highlight every time the Day of YHWH is replaced by the Day of Christ. Then highlight every time Jesus is referred to as creator of the cosmos. For example read Colossians 1 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Then compare this with his description of YHWH in Ephesians 4 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 3 also notes that the heavenly powers derived their name from YHWH. That is, he created them. But Colossians 1 attributes this role to Christ.
The "Myth" that Jesus shared in YHWH's unique identity started circulating within Jesus' life time. It was accepted in Pauline, Johannine communities, and communitiesa associated with the Gospels. There is NO evidence of Early Christian communities with a low Christology.
And I'm only getting started.
GV
Complain about this comment
Yes, Graham, very nice. It does undermine somewhat the claim made (I think by PeterM) that these really observant and inflexibly orthodox C1CE Jewish disciples would have resisted the notion of a resurrection unless it had really definitely happened (we know that the disciples and Jesus were distinctly NOT orthodox, and indeed that would mirror C1CE society at large). None of this happened in a vacuum - in the region at the time there were zillions of religious concepts, some isolated, some integrated into a wider corpus, zinging around all over the place. Saul Paulus, the architect of Christianity, chose the story of Jesus to hang a lot of these onto, and this has been embellished over the years, and cross-referenced back to the various prophets in the OT.
But Graham, I would suggest that your arguments that Jesus was viewed AS god, as opposed to god's very bestest frend, are weak, and beg the question. You are right to hark back to the earliest gospel narratives, but they do not prove your case, and as Brian says, there are important counter-arguments. The "don't call me good" (see The Gruffalo for more discussion on this point) one is perhaps striking, because in this Jesus is clearly drawing a *distinction* between himself and his god, AND at the same time declaring that he is also a sinner.
Anyway, we can pick this up elsewhere. I think we've established that the BIBLICAL (as opposed to the later theological) myths of Jesus owe little if anything to the mythology of the Egyptian god Horus.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Graham, one little thing to pick you up on:
The "Myth" that Jesus shared in YHWH's unique identity started circulating within Jesus' life time.
Given that we have precisely ZERO records of Jesus that date to his lifetime (indeed, no evidence at all for the existence of Jesus, outside the NT, some of which we know to be fake), and ALL the references come when he had been dead for quite a few years, how do you justify this statement? There is a tendency in some quarters to equate "Christ" with "Jesus", but the relationship of these two concepts appears somewhat more complex in the writings attributed to Saul Paulus.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Really? First of all, I'm claiming that the earliest Christians believed that (A)Jesus shared YHWHs unique identity and authority (B) that this explained Jesus who Jesus was (C) to understand YHWH you had to understand Jesus (D) to worship YHWH properly you had to worship Jesus and (E) to follow YHWH you had to follow Jesus.
Nothing above suggests that Jesus *exhausts* the identity of YHWH - just that he shares in it.
SO Brian has only one piece of counter-evidence - Mark 10: 18 "And Jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." And in that text we have the Rabbinic strategy of answering a question with a question. It was not intended to be a clear statement about Jesus identity. It was meant to provoke thought. The Rich Ruler claims to be good. Jesus questions what the word good means. It's a problem text, but not an insuperable problem.
Now I just want to reinforce what I've said about Jesus sharing in YHWHs identity, because it might seem to be a strange way of discussing the issue. But this is how Jews approached discussion of YHWH. They were more interested in identity than metaphysical issues about his nature.
Now a good example would be YHWHs "Wisdom". Jewish writers reflected a lot on this, as it was one way that a transcendent God could also be immanent within the world.
SO this attribute of YHWH was obviously identifed with YHWH. It was his *wisdom* at the end of the day. But Wisdom was also personified, and abstracted from YHWH. So Wisdom can almost sound like a Person it it's own right at times. It was a part of YHWH we could draw close to.
Here's the crunch. Wisdom was part of YHWH. It was *part* of his *unique* identity. But there is more to YHWH than his Wisdom. YHWH also remains radically different from his creation.
*SO Wisdom was part of who YHWH was, but there was more to who YHWH was than his Wisdom*.
Now Jews could refer to Wisdom as YHWH's "word" or "logos". Just just transfer the word "Jesus" for "Wisdom" in the sentences above and you'll see how a Jewish mind could see Jesus as YHWH, yet also see that there's more to YHWH than Jesus. SO he could pray to his Father without contradiction in early JEWISH-CHRISTIAN thought.
Now there's a wealth of evidence that Jesus was worshipped on a par with YHWH *FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH* and that can't be explained in terms of Graeco-Roman parallels. SO what's the explanation?
GV
PS Thanks for the help with Natural Selection.
Complain about this comment
As for your claim that C1st Jews wern't Orthodox. Well, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding at work here. Judaism wasn't as monolithic prior to Jamnia as it was after the fall of Jerusalem. But there were still common beliefs that marked out all strands of Judaism. These include the Shema, Torah and Temple.
Various groups in Palestine had added extras. SO the Essenes at Qumran rejected the Temple in Jerusalem as authentic. But they awaited another. The ideal of Temple worship was not rejected. Sadducess and Pharisees could disagree with each other and *amongst themselves* as to what it meant to be faithful to Torah. But they still viewed Torah as a boundary marker.
Now some isolated Jewish communities (eg at Elephantine) tended to syncretism. But this is long before the NT era. By the time of the NT, polytheism was an abomination to the Jews. A quick reading of Jospehus shows that even votive shields at the Temple could cause a war, and when Caligula wanted to erect an idol of himself in the Temple the Jews of Palestine were ready to revolt, and Philo in Alexandria was horrified. Herod's idolatry meant that the Jews viewed him as an outsider, even though he rebuilt the Temple.
Those Jewish groups that did believe in Resurrection had set beliefs on the topic, so Peter M was quite correct in what he said.
The idea that Saul created the Church ignores all the evidence that we have surrounding the importance of James and the Jerusalem circle, and the importance of traditions that preceded Paul (and that Paul defers to), and of Petrine and Johannine traditions that followed.
I think Ehrman's memes aren't good for you H.
GV
Complain about this comment
Oddly I don't even see it as a problem text - Jesus, seeking to provoke thought as you suggest, may simply have meant - "If you call me good you are calling me God, do you realise what you're saying?". He was not necessarily repudiating the epithet rather illuminating the implications.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
You seem to conflate Jesus's alleged claims with the veracity of such claims, which of course are two entirely different things. But what is sauce for the goose...
MIRACLES
Lets dispose of miracles first. What about Ezekiel who is said to have raised many more dead bodies than Jesus ever did. Indeed, he is said to have raised a whole city from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9).
If we are looking for miracles as proof of godliness then what about Joshua, who is said to have stopped the sun and moon for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13)? Can anyone but God Almighty do this?
Elisha is said to have raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11.)
Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil inexhaustible for many days (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)
FATHER-SON
There are many references in the Old Testament to similar God Father-son relationships.
"Israel (Jacob) is my son, even my firstborn"; Exodus 4:22.
"He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son"" (God about Solomon, 2 Samuel 7:13-14)
"Adam, which was the son of God" (Luke 3:38)
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Psalm 2:7)
NOT GOD
The God of the Old Testament said he was God on innumerable occasions. Jesus never said the three words, "I am God". What he is quoted as saying include:
"Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me'" (John 7:16)
"He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's which sent me" (John 14:24)
"For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49)
"Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to accomplish His work'"
(John 4:34)
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me" (John 6:38)
"...saying, 'Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from me; nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done'" (Luke 22:42)
"I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me" (John 5:30)
"I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, neither he that is sent greater than the one that sent him" (John 13:16)
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you'. If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)
"Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; I came not of my own accord, but He sent me'" (John 8:42)
"To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" (Matthew 20:23)
"So Jesus answered them, 'My teaching is not mine, but His that sent me'" (John 7:16)
"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'" (Mark 10:18)
"And I do not seek my own glory; there is One Who seeks and judges" (John 8:50)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34)
"Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Colossians 3:1).
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)
4. Muslims, Jews and many Christians (including learned Bishops of the Church of England) reject the notion that Jesus was God incarnate. So too did many of the early Christian sects, such as the Ebionites, the Apologists, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, the Hypisistarians, the Arians, the Paulicians and the Goths. Presumably, they are all guilty of Da Vinci code-like fantasies, whereas only fundamentalist Christians avoid fantasy and know the truth. Dear, oh dear.
Complain about this comment
Brian
The point I am making is about what the earliest Christians confessed about Jesus. We don't find evidence of Gnostics and Ebionites until mid second century. So what explains these Early Confessions?
The apologists weren't a sect.
There are miracles in the OT. Wow. Who knew. That must be why the Early Church depends on Horus.
The texts from John in no way undermine what I said about Wisdom and YHWHs identity. You skipped by that. And all the other evidence that I offered. Dear, oh dear.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Contrary to what you imagine, it isn't clear what Paul thought. What other 'earliest' Christians do you mean? You skipped over crucial quotes like the 'why have you forsaken me one', "I am not good, only God is good' and many others above.
Why are you so certain about what Jesus meant? Or what he did? This is what really gets on my wick about some Christian attitudes. You are forever accusing agnostics and atheists of arrogance and dogmatism, yet you are the ones who seem to know it all here. Any other view is incoherent or ignores the texts. And, of course, when you call in aid of 'scholars' they are always the ones who agree with you, whereas the ones who don't are 'mavericks' or 'discredited' or 'Da Vinci code-like fantasists, or whatever.
It must be great to have all scholarship and all certainty on your side.
It seems to me that you need to listen not only to fellow evangelicals but also some of the other Christians who don't share your blinding insights.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I've never claimed that all scholarship is on my side, and I have repeatedly pointed to scholars like Thiessen, Crossan, Borg and Sanders, and recommended websites like James Tabor's. I don't find that Ehrman has a lot of interest to say, but that hardly means that I'm ignoring scholars that hold to contrary viewspoints. The pagan parallels don't do any explanatory work, and this has been nearly universally acknowledged in NT scholarship so far as I can see.
I've never accused you of arrogance or dogmatism. I just feel that there are better arguments [re.the Gospels] on offer to the skeptic, and find it ironic that I'm more familiar with these than many of the skeptics that post.(And yes, that means that I've read the Scholars in question, and not just *about* the scholars in question. And no, that doesn't make me clever or an expert. It just gives me a library card and an Amazon account. And too many free periods, but that's an occupational hazard.)
As for certainty, I've said that I can doubt. But that's just part of being human. Anyone can doubt anything. I just happen to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true. I've also strong religious, existential and experiential reasons for believing the Gospel.(I put it in those terms, because I don't what to start testifying - I doubt you'd appreciate it.)So I'm not going to back down because someone calls me names!! (-:
But I do find it odd that your skepticism stops as soon as Christianity is refuted - any theory that performs this function isn't subjected to skeptical scrutiny itself. And that *seems* inconsistent. Is it arrogant to point that out? When I've been accused of nothing less than *hatred* on the blog? Ah well, I suppose spite and arrogance go hand in hand.
As for the texts you say that I've ignored - I actually spent quite a bit of time discussing Jewish Wisdom theology on this thread, so that I could show that the texts you offer don't even come close to refuting the High Christology I've proposed. Only Mark 10v18 offers a problem, but I explained why it was not insuperable.
Now, how do I know what Jesus thought? Well, I don't know *everything* he thought. Just a few thoughts that he shared in his teaching preserved in the Gospels. And I know what the first Christians confessed (confessions quoted by Paul in , 1 Cor 11 and 15. All un-Pauline language, all confessional language. Also the hymns in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1. Plus the Sermon on the Mount and the Apocalyptic discourse known to Paul, the former to James, the latter to Peter, in versions that were not used in the Gospels. And so forth...) We're looking for information that Paul gives unintentionally; and part of that is his dependence on a prior tradition. Also his dependence on James and the Jerusalem circle.
So what I think can be reconstructed by historical methods about the historical Jesus is explained by Early Christian confession. SO I think I've good evidence for my belief. And then I've my religious, personal reasons for believing the Gospels. And I put the two together and that's why *I'm* so certain.
But of course, as in every walk of life, other people will ,intelligently and in good conscience, look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.
What I take objection to is the idea that Christianity is obviously false, or has been refuted and idiots like me aren't in on the secret. I'll confess to idiocy. But many who haven't been inflicted with the condition of idiocy are convinced that Christianity is true. And they share a prominent place in the academy with skeptics.
GV
There's a free period I'll never get back. It's easier when I can copy and paste responses from my notes. Ah well.
Complain about this comment
Come on Brian;
it's pretty bad form to end an argument with "you people think you know everything".
This is a debate; an argument; a discussion. It doesn't matter who thinks they know everything, it's who best expresses what they know in the most cogent manner.
Because Graham cites a number of sources and explanatory hypotheses, it's no good just crying "you think you know everything, don't you!"
Come on.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I thought that might awaken you from your cloistered slumbers.
It definitely does matter who thinks they know everything, especially about events that allegedly happened 2,000 years ago. It is not scholarly from a historian's point of view to claim definite knowledge of the divinity of a figure whom no contemporary historian even records as having existed as a human being, let alone as a god. A little bit of humility about such claims is called for, surely? Indeed, we could go further and suggest that a true seeker after knowledge would approach such stories with a heavy dose of scepticism. Just as you would about anything else.
And what is the point about debating or discussing things with closed minds? I am prepared to be persuaded that a man called Jesus existed if someone can give me solid evidence. But I haven't seen any evidence that is not special pleading by believers, whether dressed up in scholarly garb or not.
Graham:
I didn't say that you claimed 'all scholarship was on your side". This is misrepresenting what I wrote. We are talking about Jesus's alleged claim of divinity. Name me a single scholar who rejects this claim whom you have 'called in aid' ON THIS ISSUE.
What kind of statement is: "I do find it odd that your skepticism stops as soon as Christianity is refuted". Are you referring to your particular brand of Christianity or all Christianity? I thought I had already made it clear that I thought the pacifist, compassionate elements of the message of the character called Jesus was a good one. It is primarily his divinity I reject. Are you saying that one cannot be a Christian and reject Jesus's divinity? If so, this is yet another example of the arrogance of evangelical fundamentalists of which I am complaining. They seem to know exactly what 'Christianity' is and those who reject the myth of God incarnate cannot be Christians in their 'infallible' view. I have already pointed out that any belief system is subjective: there is no objective definition of a 'Christian'. Someone who believes that he/she follows the ethical teachings of the man called Jesus is quite entitled to call themselves 'Christian' even if they reject divine claims. But evangelical fundamentalists can't stomach this because they are slaves to the Word, even when it contradicts itself.
Complain about this comment
Helio and Brian are unimpressed with the evidence so far. That gives me an excuse to present more.
Now whatever else 1st Century Judaism affirmed, it affirmed three things of YHWH. Only YHWH created everything. Only YHWH redeems. Only YHWH can be worshipped.
Now Paul, a Pharisee, can affirm these of Jesus without blinking an eye. He feels no need to cite the approval of the Jerusalem circle. Yet he had to do this when confronting opponents on other issues at Galatia and Corinth. In other words, there was no controversy about this in the Earliest Churches. All the evidence points to the fact that it was assumed by all.
Yet Paul can cite a hymn in Col 1: "For by him all things were created... all things were created by him and for him" that not only make Jesus the creator. It paralells what Paul himself says elsewhere about YHWH> Romans 11: 36 "For from him and through him and to him are all things."
Paul can also pray to Jesus, putting his power to answer on a par with YHWH's.
So in 1 Thessalonians 3 - verse 11 "Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you." And in 2 Thessalonians 2: 16 "May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word".
In 1 Corinthians 1: 2 Paul describes Christians as "those who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ".
"To call on the name of the Lord" is a regular OT formula for worship and prayer offered to God (Gen. 4: 26; 13: 4; Ps. 105: 1; Jer. 10: 25; Joel 2: 32, etc.)
What is remarkable is that Paul can pray to Jesus *without having to justify his prayer.* These are just throw-away comments. Paulworks under the assumption that his audience can make sense of what he's saying. The presupposition is that the churches and Paul hold this in common. And while we have evidence that Paul's view of Justification and the Torah, (or his views on the end of the World) faced opposition there is not the slightest evidence that any Early Church believed that praying to Jesus was inappropriate.
Christianity spread through the synagogues of the Diaspora, and the monotheism and morality of the synangogue attracted many gentiles. However those Gentiles would still attend "pagan" temples for social reasons. When James "allowed" Gentiles into Christian communities without circumcision, he insisted that they give up all practices that Jews associated with idolatry. That was a huge sacrifice for Gentiles to make. These temples weren't just social centres, they underpinned society.Now why would fanatically monotheistic Jews who insisted that Gentiles dissociate from idols (not just the worship of idols, but even familial and social activities associated with them)have no difficulty with prayers to *a man?*
Now this cries out for explanation. And the answer seems to be that it many of Jesus' teachings, Jesus took on the role ascribed to YHWH. We find this in Mark 13 for example. So it seems more economical to believe that Jesus did and said things that caused his followers to attribute YHWHs properties to him, than to believe that cross-pollination with cults most Jews wouldn't have heard of mysteriously produced prayers to Jesus in every strata of the Early Church. That doesn't seem to be an explanation at all. It just seems to be saying that it happened by accident.
In any case, I hope that it's clear that the first Churches treated Jesus as being on a par with YHWH.
GV
Complain about this comment
Brian
With the best will and all the respect in the world - sincerely offered.
If you still doubt that Jesus existed, then I think you've the very definition of a closed mind on this issue. After GA Wells, no-one in the academy would take that suggestion seriously. I'm sorry to be so blunt. But if the Jesus Seminar and James Tabor can accept this without blinking an eye - and they define the radical wing of scholarship - then it is not the case that *Christians* are offering special pleading.
Paula Friedrickson would be an excellent example of a Jewish scholar who accepts Jesus existence. Geza Vermes would be another. Jacob Neusner another.
And if everything is subjective, then why are we bothering? Portwyne will be delighted that you've joined the ranks of the postmodernists, but I'm stunned.
I've offered arguments and evidence which has been ignored, to be honest, and in response I've been labelled an Evangelical Fundamentalist who wants to impose his definition of Christianity on others.
Well, no, not really. I think that there are certain essentials. The Earliest Churches agreed. I stand in that tradition. I think that there are good reasons to.
Now I offered the historical reasons. I specifically refused to preach. As a result I get a bit wordy. But there you are. It seems I can't win. If I offer an argument I'm a dogmatic fundamentalist. If I don't I have a blind irrational faith.
A few other points.
I never cited any scholars in my defence on this thread.
Tabor's website offers contrary points of view ON THIS ISSUE.
Yes, to be a Christian in the sense articulated by Paul and the Apostles you have to believe certain things about Jesus. Like, "he existed"
Are you now a Christian?
Can I be a secular humanist? And contribute articles to your magazine that argue that God exists, and that humans shouldn't seek to live without dependence on him?
Isn't it awful that some humanists would want to define humanism in such a way that I couldn't do this?
G Veale
Complain about this comment
If there's no such thing as objective definitions, can I call anyone who disagrees with me a Nazi? Or a serial-killer? Can I call myself a Buddhist? And is Bernard a Hindu under one interpretation?
Complain about this comment
Brian, for the record, I'm not arguing that we should discuss with closed minds, or that Christians know everything and therefore don't need argument.
I'm only making the point that Graham isn't simply saying "I know and you don't...he's offering a lot of historical evidence, and in my opinion a lot of insight into the mode of thought of those who wrote the New Testament.
Just saying "you think you know everything, don't you" adds nothing.
The points that you further make don't seem to add anything either.
"What kind of statement is: "I do find it odd that your skepticism stops as soon as Christianity is refuted". Are you referring to your particular brand of Christianity or all Christianity? I thought I had already made it clear that I thought the pacifist, compassionate elements of the message of the character called Jesus was a good one."
I think Graham's point point was that, although you are extremely sceptical about all evidence offered in favour of Christianity, you are willing to accept evidence to the contrary from seemingly any source...gnostics writing 300 years later, Dan Brown, you name it. So I think you completely misunderstood that statement.
"Are you saying that one cannot be a Christian and reject Jesus's divinity? If so, this is yet another example of the arrogance of evangelical fundamentalists of which I am complaining."
It is accepted meanings of words, not arrogance. The generally accepted view of Christianity agreed upon by most groups who call themselves Christians is that Christ was divine.
If people want to hold that Christ isn't divine but that they still follow him, so be it. It just doesn't fit the historically applied term "Christian". That is not arrogant, it is just fact.
"Someone who believes that he/she follows the ethical teachings of the man called Jesus is quite entitled to call themselves 'Christian' even if they reject divine claims."
True, they are quite entitled to do so. But if so they are opening themselves up to being confused with the "historically-occuring" Christian....that body of believers that has accepted in common the doctrines affirmed by the church.
Of course, people can call themselves whatever they like...but if one wants to understand groups, lumping "Christians" who don't believe in Christ's divinity with those who do is akin to lumping, say, in Biology, all invertrebrates together. You can do if you want...it sdoesn't do much for biological understanding though.
Complain about this comment
Graham got there before me on the nonsense issue of definitions.
People can call themselves what they want. In fact, we Christians are more warranted to call ourselves humanists, given the long history of Christian humanism
Complain about this comment
I can only hope to fouter around by way of response given that so much has been said, but sure, why not!
Helio. First up, maybe I did say what you think I said, I don't know, I can't remember, sometimes I can't remember what I did this morning; but even if I did say what you think I said then Graham appears to have it covered and I'm happy to accept that I didn't contradict him nor he me. Now I've forgotten what you said you thought I'd said, never mind forgotten what you think I wrote in the first place, are we clear? :-)
Second, you see this business, "don't call me good" is that actually the quote from Mark 10:18? It's a bit like the "don't go to Galilee" quote/misquote you gave at Easter. That's not really what it said, is it?
And it is of course the biblical 'myths' of Jesus I am concerned with. It's one of the things makes me a Prod! At least there'll be no more talk of Horace, good.
Brian
The last time I heard so many 'proof' texts I was in a gospel hall, and that was a while back!
I'll let Graham deal with all the miracle, father son and 'not God' stuff save to make a petty little point. Joshua? I think if you read whole the section (without paying attention to verse divisions, which sometimes split up sentences!) you'll find that it was God who was doing the miracle thingy.
What really interests me however is what gets on your wick, this doubt certainty business. I've tried to raise this before to no avail, but I'll try again. Christian certainty gets on this wick of yours, yes, we've heard this before. But we've also been told that faith isn't certain enough, that you're all after truth or something like that. So, which is it, are you rejecting faith, or are you rejecting certainty? Do you take anything on faith. Are you sure about your certainty, are you certain about anything?
However, in a way, whatever; here's the thing I really want to know, and I've never gotten an answer, just accusations of psyco babble - Doubt. Mmmm. OK let's doubt. Let's glory in it, let's revel in it, let's doubt the whole damn lot, ourselves included. Funny, no one wants to seem to go there, but doubting Shakespeare and Jesus is easy, so come on, let's doubt something closer to home, let's doubt our worth our value our achievements, the world view on which we have built our lives. I've already doubted all those things, so come on, I've been waiting a long time, but every time someone mentions doubt and certainty I'm going to bring it up. Can you tell me what is it you really doubt? What you are certain about? As I've said, like I offered before, if doubt is such a great thing then let's really doubt, let's take a walk on the wild side of doubt, I'm ready when you're ready.
Maybe though doubt isn't as much of a virtue as it's made out to be. Personally I've found doubt to be overrated. And I guess, with that, I've just joined, 'Christian certainty' on your wick.
And as for listening to other Christians, what weirder, off the wall, cooky, Christain could any of us hope to meet than Portwyne, and I listen to a lot of what he says, in fact Portwyne, having dismissed Horace, I'd like to follow up your thought on Jesus. Hopefully I'll get back to it soon.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
1. I didn't say that everything is subjective. I said that a belief system is subjective. There is no objective definition of belief systems like communism, liberalism, socialism, Hinduism, Christianity, Humanism etc, for the simple reason that they are concerned with values and visions of the world and philosophies of life and as such are interpreted differently in different times and places by their exponents. They are 'essentially contested concepts'. Isn't that why there are so many sects of Christianity?
2. Some Humanists have indeed argued that it is possible to be both a Christian and a Humanist. For example, I refer you to an article in the May-June 2008 issue of Humanism Ireland in which Roy Johnson explains why he is a Quaker and a Humanist. Of course, in the Renaissance most humanists - Erasmus, More, Shakespeare, Bacon - were Christian.
3. You ask: "If there's no such thing as objective definitions, can I call anyone who disagrees with me a Nazi".
This is really silly. Why be obsessed with calling anybody by any label? Surely it is more important to discover what the individual means and thinks rather than defining them by a label.
Bernard:
1. You say that I may be extremely sceptical about all evidence in favour of Christianity. By 'Christianity' here, presumably you are referring to belief in the divinity of Christ. Naturally, one is sceptical of evidence in favour of such an improbability? To me, it's on a par with believing that the moon is people with little green men all eating green cheese. Almost anything that argues to the contrary is, well, pretty likely to be on solid ground (though I have never quoted Dan Brown in support of anything!). Frankly, the onus is very much on someone believes that a human being was God incarnate to substantiate such an apparently ludicrous claim.
2. You say that the generally accepted view of most groups who call themselves Christians is that Christ was divine. This is true, but so what? It doesn't mean that they are right or that their interpretation is the only valid one. Are truth and right determined by counting heads? I would not presume to tell other Humanists what they MUST believe to consider themselves a Humanist. Nor am I overanxious to stick the label on them.
I prefer to listen to what they have to say.
3. The divinity of Jesus is a myth but it is neither here nor there. The key question is, as Plato put it, how we ought to live (and don't tell me, please, that belief in a divinity makes it better!)
Complain about this comment
Brian
1) You find an idea silly or improbable. What does that prove?
2) To know that an incarnation is improbable requires a lot of knowledge abou God's nature,God's motives, God's decisions, and the Universe. (Including knowledge about what God *would* be like *if* one exited, if you want to cite your atheism.) How did you come by such knowledge? I'm strictly agnostic about the prior probabilities.
3) I'm not reasoning to a "religious" conclusion from historical probabilities. I've "religious" reasons for believing in the incarnation. Historical knowledge supports my belief. It does not cause it.
4) It's much more dificult to explain the rise of Christianity given the falsehood of Christianity than many skeptics would realise. A few parallels with a few myths explains precisely nothing. You have to show causal connections etc.
That's all I'm trying to say.
GV
Complain about this comment
Of course, Plato needed supernatural forms to explain *and justify* the good life.
But I guess he was kind of dumb.
Complain about this comment
Brian, as usual, this argument has completely changed tack, and now amounts to very little.
Is your point that some people call themselves Christian but do not believe in the divinity of Christ? If so, then yes, you're right.
However, that argument took place a good 1600 years ago....must we rehash the arguments for the trinity again?
What does this have to do with Horus?
Complain about this comment
Ach, I don't know why I'm bothering, you'll probably change the argument to one about how authoritarian religions are, or how there's no room for dissent.
Yes, but what about Horus?
Ah, forget it.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
1. Precisely what I said about Bernard's assertions. The generally accepted view of Christians is that Jesus was divine. But most agnostics, atheists, sceptics, doubters would take such a claim with a massive pinch of salt, especially when it was a frequent claim beforehand in other myths (Greeks, Egyptians - Horus, Bernard). Was Horus divine? Was Horus god incarnate? Is Jesus a compound of Horus and Osiris?
2. Yes, the improbability of divinity derives not only from the scientific unlikelihood of such an occurrence but also from the assumptions made about the divinity (that he was perfect, omnipotent, omniscient etc etc - e.g. if he was omniscient, it makes no sense to presuppose that he waited millions of years to decide that man was sinning and something had to be done about it - other than drowning most of them, which was his imaginary previous 'solution').
3. You mistakenly THINK that historical knowledge supports your belief. It does nothing of the kind. You have not one shred of sound historical evidence that a Jesus existed, let alone that he was divine. Also, stop making out that G.A. Wells is alone. He is NOT. I listed some on another thread: Robert Price, Gerald Massey, J.M. Roberstson, Earl Doherty. "So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus" - Rudolf Bultmann. "Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it" - C. Dennis McKinsey: The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. Niow, I have already said many times that i don't know if McKinsey is correct. I don't know and it doesn't trouble that I don't. That is the way the world works or should work. If there insufficient evidence, don't believe but keep searching.
3. The rise of Christianity has a lot to with with Mr Constantine and his successors.
Bernard:
1. "The argument has completely changed tack". Well, is that anybody's fault? And why not redirect it?
2. The rejection of divinity is an important issue because it means that Christianity as an ethic would no longer be based on a lie. It would mean that dogma has been consigned to the dustbin of history in favour of the ethic. It would be progress. Some enlightened Christians (though not many in Ireland) realise this truth. Here Christians generally tend to cling on to old, outdated and discredited mythologies.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
"The generally accepted view of Christians is that Jesus was divine. But most agnostics, atheists, sceptics, doubters would take such a claim with a massive pinch of salt"
Obviously. But why?
"Yes, the improbability of divinity derives not only from the scientific unlikelihood of such an occurrence"
Sorry, the scientific unlikelihood of divinity?
Is that like the scientific unlikelihood of love and friendship, or like the scientific unlikelyhood of order and form?
and omniscience....by omniscience do you mean "what YOU would have done"...because otherwise, not being omniscient yourself, you are in no position to say whether waiting millions of years makes sense or not.
"The argument has completely changed tack". Well, is that anybody's fault? And why not redirect it?"
I've tried....what about Horus?
"The rejection of divinity is an important issue because it means that Christianity as an ethic would no longer be based on a lie"
And what WOULD it be based on. An ethic based on a good man? What was so good about him? In fact, you've argued on numerous occassions that, actually, he wasn't that good after all. So what kind of ethic is that?
The "Christian ethic" is subordinate to a conception of "good" in itself...(which is itself a consideration of divinity)..as is any ethic that actually has any ground other than personal preference.
So, the christian ethic is "good" because YOU think so?
Why?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Let me address your first question and then I may later return to the others. Why should I and other sceptics take the divinity of Jesus with a large pinch of salt? Well, let me explain with reference, not to Horus but - since we know more about this myth - to Hercules. Jim Walker in his Did a Historical Jesus Exist? mentions the parallels and I here summarise what he says.
The mortal and chaste Alcmene gave birth to Hercules from a union with God (Zeus). As with Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules travelled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules is perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshipped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Similarly, the evidence of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Just as the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so we have the epic stories of Homer, who depicts the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Josephus in his Antiquities, Josephus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals.
And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in an historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and because we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historical scholarship.
Some critics doubt that a historicised Jesus could develop from myth because they think there was no precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example - the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived (Euhemerism, from Euhemerus). Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicised mythologies, not least the propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.
We generally consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilisation dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, the media, education etc. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even sceptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical experts around the world who tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent sceptic.
The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. Historical review has yet to achieve the reliability of scientific investigation, (and in fact, many times ignores it). If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
thanks for the lengthy reply. A couple of things stand out in your post.
First;
"Just as the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so we have the epic stories of Homer, who depicts the life of Hercules"
there is a demonstrable difference in the types of narrative told by Homer and those of the Gospels. Whether or not you believe them, the Gospels do claim to speak about a person who lived very recently, not in some mythical past. Numerous times they even mention that many of the readers of the Gospels would have known or met Jesus. there are no such stylistic features in homer's epics. That is like comparing CS Lewis's Narnia stories with his autobiography. One is fairly obviously a story while the other is an account of what supposedly happened, in the recent past, within memory of the intended reader.
You completely refuse to accept that basic feature that must be borne in mind.
Secondly;
"And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay"
I'm not sure the first sentence totally squares with the second.
We have no eyewitnesses about jesus....apart from the many accounts written within years of his supposed death detailing his life, purporting to be from people who knew him. You mean "no eyewitness accounts that you believe"...surely.
"Some critics doubt that a historicised Jesus could develop from myth because they think there was no precedence for it"
I've never heard that argument before. What argument I have heard is that it would be extremely difficult for a mythical person to be invented and believed within years of the supposed death by people who supposedly knew him. there is no precedent for that.
homer's epics were not written within decades of the supposed events, and were not written with many allusions to people still living who had met and known Hercules. The Gospels were, and contain many many references to those still alive who knew him.
I'm not sure what point your making in your last paragraph. We are discussing the evidence of the Gospels...documents written to be distributed among an already existing community of followers. We can historically locate a group of "Christians" prior to any documents...giving lie to the idea that the documents made people believe.
We can historically locate a group of people claiming to follow the resurrected Christ within just a few years of his supposed ressurection....
If Christians only appeared in 400AD making claims about a supposed historical figure of 400 years ago, you may have a point. But Christians existed much earlier, and claimed that, just a few short years ago, Jesus, remember, that carpenter who used to hang about round here, died and was resurrected.
You may have reasons for not believing that, but I think it's disingenous to claim that they were mythical stories that arose from long years of storytelling and mythical development.
The fact is that, all of a sudden, people who talking about someone who lived just a few years ago, and whom many people would remember. That is the style of the gospels, and their historical placement fits in with that.
However, I am more interested in your view of the value of "the Christian ethic" without divinity.
What is so good about goodness?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
To address your second question, in the real world people love, have friendships, detect order and form. They have done so, as far far as we know from time immemorial. They are also mortal and die and we have every evidence in support of such an occurrence and none to the contrary. So immortality is on the basis of empirical evidence scientific unlikely, to put it mildly. Would you similarily discredit the claims of immortality for Horus, Hercules, Krishna etc, as I would. Is Jesus the only example of an immortal being, in your view?
Complain about this comment
Brian;
without wanting to get into trinitarian doctrine too much, I think that God, the transcendent Other, the absolute uniqueness beyond everything in the universe, that we have discussed many times, is beyond time and duration.
That such a unique Other is the prime analogue of "good" and "love" makes sense, metaphysically speaking.
That such a wholly "good" and "loving" Other would lower Himself to actually BECOME man in order to achieve salvation and communion with His creation also makes sense.
In that respect, Horus, Hercukles and Krishna are not in the same league. We are not talking about the possibility of a group of immortal "beings", or the empirical unlikelihood of a "man" being ressurected. We are speaking about the absolutely unique Other, and explanatory and rational accounts of His communion with his creation.
I hope that answers your question.
Complain about this comment
Okay, let's deal with the existence of Jesus. And why skepticism about his existence has been decisively falsified.
GA Wells is the last scholar of repute that denied Jesus' existence. Earl Doherty (luckily for him) did not submit his work for peer review. He makes elementary mistakes, and depends on something like conspiracy theories. Even GA Wells challenged his assumption that the Earliest Christians did not believe that Jesus was an historical figure! Bultmanns skepticism is considered too thoroughgoing to be maintained by conservatives - like JD Crossan, Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar. You may want to read something published by a NT scholar in the last 30 years before reaching a radical conclusion. If you're working under the illusion that my arguments are derived from apologetics manuals, you'll be diappointed. They are from mainstream NT scholarship.
Anyway, one objection I recall you making is that we don't know Jesus' Birthdate. Well, we don't know Pilate's. Or Shammai's, or Hillel's, or that of Matthaias Hashmonai. Or Boudicca's for that matter. (What sort of criteria is this anyway?!!)
We do know that the history of the region is inexplicable without them, and that there is no reason for the sources to mention such individuals unless they existed.
We know that Form Critics like Bultmann based their history on European examples of oral tradition, and not on oral cultures. So the presupposition that memory of the historical Jesus would inevitably be lost was shaky.
They assumed, against the evidence, that the Church was only interested in the post -Easter Jesus. They assumed, without evidence AND against all the available evidence that "prophets" in the Early Church could create sayings of Jesus. When those assumptions are challenged, as they have been from the 1950's onward, skepticism about the Historical Jesus vanishes. There are various portraits. They have a lot in common; there are significant differences also. There is no despair over how little we know.
Let's take the Jospehus' references to Jesus. That we have anything about Jesus from this period outside of internal sources is amazing. This was initially a small movement on the edge of the Roman Empire. There was no major political role for this movement for some time and that is what historians tended to write about. If we go to the early second century, then we begin to see more with Tacitus and Suetonius.
There is an allusion to "James the brother of the Christ" in Antiquities 20. This remark assumes a previous reference to the Christ earlier in Antiquities. The only place that could be is in Ant 18. So Jospehus said *something* about a Christ in 18. This is why the majority opinion is that the Church added some hagiography to the Testimonium Flavianium. But the whole Testimonium is hardly an insertion.
But even if it were, the reference to James shows no Christian embellishment. James is only mentioned to denigrate the Temple leadership in favour of the Romans. James the brother of Jesus is the only figure who meets this description. So we have confirmation of Jesus
existence in Ant 20.
The Early Christian Movement was a tight knit group centred on Jerusalem, whose leaders we know, and we know that even a charismatic leader like Paul had to refer back to that leadership. It is simply an assumption that Mid-2nd Century diversity was present in the Earliest Church.
The idea that Jesus never existed begs belief.
GV
Complain about this comment
And anyway, what happened to Mithras?
Wasn't that the trendy oh-so-devastating comparison to be made, or have I fallen behind the times?
:)
Complain about this comment
Hello Bernard,
"homer's epics were not written within decades of the supposed events, and were not written with many allusions to people still living who had met and known Hercules. The Gospels were, and contain many many references to those still alive who knew him."
Could you give me a short summary of when you thought various parts of the NT were written? I thought that parts of it dated from well over a 100 years after jesus' death. Perhaps apart from an indication of when they were written, you could also briefly indicate the sources of those dates? Very brief will do for now, please don't spend any length of time on it.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Bernard; Graham, Peter:
I have wandered away from this blog on a number of occasions recently because you three in particular don't give others sufficient time to respond to your points and it's impossible to keep up, especially when two or three of you are jumping in with imagined 'killer blows' and some of have other things to do. Multiple postings should be kept at a minimum, please, if you expect responses from non-believers. There's no rationale in complaining if your arguments are not answered when you don't give some of us time to consider a fraction of them. I don't want to imply that they are necessarily worth replying to, merely that if you expect answers you will need to ration your questions and your postings.
Complain about this comment
Brian, apologies. I generally tend to do one response at a time...I've only offered one response above, for example, followed by a flippant comment that didn't really warrant a reply.
Perhaps you means that only one person should make one response at a time?
Peter;
no doubt you'll debate this, but as far as I am aware at least one of the written Gospels can be traced to around 60AD....(is it Mark?...I'll admit I'm no expert on it, but I understand that that's the generally accepted view of the historians). Plus, of course, it's reasonable to take into account the high oral tradition of judaism at the time, which means that it's rational to suppose that a number of very similar texts are based on an earlier oral record. .
Many of Paul's letter can be traced to before that, and, of course, they were letters to already exisiting communities of believers, not made up myths hoping to attract followers.
The point is that there is evidence that communities of people who called themselves Christians existed very very shortly after the death of Christ. Nero blamed them for torching Rome, when was that, 30 yearsd after Christ.
So the idea that a story was written down and gradually, over centuries, became accepted as truth, does not account for the already existing communities of believers, many of whom would have been alive when the relevant events are purported to have taken place. As, indeed, would their detractors. Yet, although many argued that Jesus did not rise from the dead, none argued that he never existed. His existence was in the realms of living memory, which is completely unlike accounts of Horus, or hercules.
Complain about this comment
Hi Bernard,
I'm no expert on the age of the gospels either. The date you mention of one being from ~60 AD does coincide with what I know. It is however also one of the parts that are dated earliest as far as I know. As far as I know, the gospels date from around the date you mentioned to over a century later. What prompted my post was your line 'The gospels were...'. Well, parts of it were afaik, most of it not.
I know even less about the early christian communities. But do you (or others) know what those people believed exactly? That is important if their presence is to be a means of corroborating the NT. Christians being around, yeah sure. Does that make the NT story of jesus true? I'm highly doubtful about that.
Complain about this comment
Ok, now that's a different question.
What's at issue here is whether a mythological story could have been taken as truth within so few years of its apparent occurence.
I'll concede that it is debateable precisely what the early Christians believed of Christ (although clearly very convincing arguments can be made, based on their letters to each other, and the coalescing of authority in that community.
but the point is that the early Christians obviously didn;t consider Christ, Jesus, the person, to be a made up story. It is equally obvious that it wasn't just fictional, and became considered true in later years.
That "Christians" existed within decades of Christ's death, and that their letters and documents referred to the person who lived just some years ago, surely strongly suggests that they were talking about a person that they knew, and that their detractors also knew. It is quite clear that they were not talking about a fictional story which, over time, came to be considered true. they were talking about events that happened in the recent past, and that their readers would have actually remembered.
Again, completely unlike any accounts of Hercules or of Horus
Complain about this comment
Whether or not the narrative of the ressurection as outlined in the Gospels actually happened like that is a different question altogether.
the point being made here is that the story could not have originated as fiction, and then, over years, been considered true.
What is clear is that the writers of the Gospels, writing so few years after the event, BELIEVED it to be true.
It was not written as a fiction, but a true story. Whether or not you believe that it actually IS true is another matter. what is clear is that the story did not begin as myth.
Complain about this comment
Sorry chaps, been away at various things again & kinda lost the thread. Bernie, personally I think Jesus the Nazarene did exist. As an atheist I have no problem with that, or with much of the gospel tales. But reports of miracles and resurrections from this era, even if sincerely believed (and we have no reason to credit the gospel writers with too much sincerity) are not evidence that anything spectacular actually occurred. The gospels are at the start of a long tradition of embellishment, and from a time when virgin births, miracles and resurrections were commonplace elements of stories. It is an unnecessary hypothesis to assume that someone made the *whole* thing up, but even that is more likely than the resurrection.
As for complete falsehoods in the bible, there are many. We have discussed the amazing double donkey, but you could add the Egyptian snakes (with Moses' staff), "creation" itself, Baalam's donkey, Joshua's "long day", Noah's flood - these are things that no credible scholar maintains any more. The virgin birth is a clear embellishment; the resurrection is too. Whatever the facts of Jesus's life are, one thing is certain: he's still dead.
Mythology does NOT take long to attach to historical events - Elvis is one example. We know from the letters of Paul that communities of *Christians* did not believe in the resurrection - it had to be drummed into them using some pretty weak excuses, you'll agree.
And over time, the story accreted yet more myths and parables, and became the Christianity we know and love. Jesus would turn in his grave.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Elvis is alive? Ah hu hu, I'm all shook up.
Probably working in a chip shop in Dungannon.
BTW I think the point is Jesus did turn in his grave. :-)
Brian
I'm not trying to bombard you with posts, I just what to know how far this doubt thing goes with you?
Complain about this comment
Helio writes: "Whatever the facts of Jesus's life are, one thing is certain: he's still dead".
What utter, utter tosh! Jesus lives and I know he lives because he lives within my heart. The tritest little chorus can contain the greatest truth.
Hopkins (to whom LSV refers today on another thread) expressed the same truth more universally and much more elegantly: Christ plays in ten thousand places, / Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his / To the Father through the features of men's faces.
The same poet, in the wonderful The Blessed Virgin compared to the air we breathe, relates how Mary makes continually New Nazareths in us, / Where she shall yet conceive / Him, morning, noon, and eve. For in that Christ died, he died unto sin once: but in that we live unto God He yet lives.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I shall address two points.
1. ETHICS
You question an ethic 'based on a good man'. No; I've never suggested that. Not one man but several: Socrates, Confucius, the Buddha, Jesus etc; Hume, Russell, Singer etc etc. And not on the person per se but the teachings ascribed to them. After all, they themselves may not entirely live up to them (the Jesus of the Gospels didn't, as you suggest) or they themselves may be shadowy figures who may not even have existed.
A modern ethic is eclectic and is based ion the best principles and ideals that have evolved through history, like Lecky's expanding circle of moral concern. An ethic based on one man, or alleged person, is a slave ethic and is also inevitably inadequate. Some of Jesus's ethics is good, but certainly not all of it (I've said this before but am still being misrepresented).
2. MYTH OR ALLEGED HISTORY
You say that what is clear is that the Jesus story did not begin as myth. This is certainly not clear at all. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the myth developed first and then a biography was made to fit it. After all, in the Pauline Epistles, which preceded the Gospels, Jesus is precisely that: a spiritual being described in mythological terms, not a real person - not 'that carpenter who used to hang about round here, died and was resurrected' (that is real beyond satire!). Arguably, there was an evolution of belief, starting from a purely spiritual being to a human figure who embodied that spirit. (please don't imply that I am presenting this as fact, but it is possible. Who knows?)
Complain about this comment
Brian
"I have wandered away from this blog on a number of occasions recently because you three in particular don't give others sufficient time to respond to your points and it's impossible to keep up, especially when two or three of you are jumping in with imagined 'killer blows' and some of have other things to do. Multiple postings should be kept at a minimum, please, if you expect responses from non-believers. There's no rationale in complaining if your arguments are not answered when you don't give some of us time to consider a fraction of them. I don't want to imply that they are necessarily worth replying to, merely that if you expect answers you will need to ration your questions and your postings."
So now it feels like Peter, Bernard and I have become the Axis of Evil! Everyone's got the right to an outburst or three or four, but this is getting ridiculous! There's no substantial point in that post. Just insults and bluster - which is all I've been getting from some skeptics recently (Helio is one honorable exception to this rule. We might not agree, but he has obviously spent a lot of time considering counterarguments to his position). We used to have some really good exchanges Brian, and I learned a lot. What on earth happened?
I can post long replies very quickly because I've been reading about these things for a long time, and keep a lot of my notes on my laptop. And you can't refute some statements (Jesus never existed, you can explain Christianity by the model of Horus)or widely held assumptions (the Gospels are generally unreliable) without giving detailed arguments.
There aren't urls I can use. My notes are from articles or books. And if people don't reply, I don't assume that I've dealt a killer blow. I assume that they have something better to do (play with the kids, mow a lawn. I don't post at weekends or in the evening because I've better things to do). But at least I've had the opportunity to think an issue through.
Sheesh.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham:
"There are no substantial arguments in that post". Has Peter's post 71 any substance whatever beyond facetiousness? Or Bernard's post 63?
I try to make a point, and then I am faced with counter-arguments, screeds of script and a host of questions from you, Bernard and Peter. I am not superhuman, and I too have other things to do. Look back over this thread at the number of questions that Christians keep asking and how often the terms of the discussion are changed, followed by complaints because the earlier questions are not being answered. Let's have ONE question at a time from you folks, PLEASE! Otherwise, your assumption that we non-believers are avoiding issues becomes just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course, the irony in the question is that it appears from them that Christians are seeking the truth when of course you mistakably assume that you have already found it. The historicity of Jesus; the divinity of Jesus; plagiarism from pagan myths; the origin of the universe; the fate of humanity. You Christians have the answers to all these questions, whereas we sceptics don't know the answer to any of them. We are the ones who are still asking the questions!
Complain about this comment
Brian;
I see you've changed the argument yet again. Or didn't grasp it.
1. ETHICS.
I was not asking why you should have an ethics of one man as opposed to many men. I was asking about the basis of any ethic based on any man or group of men. What is good about Socrates, or Confucius, or Hume? why is following those men "ethical"? I know at least one person who would disagree, so you must explain your conception of good. what is "the good"? Why is Leckey's expanding circle of moral concern a "good thing"?
2. MYTH OR ALLEGED HISTORY
"After all, in the Pauline Epistles, which preceded the Gospels, Jesus is precisely that: a spiritual being described in mythological terms, not a real person"
Brian, the letters of Paul are clearly written to communities of believers who follow the risen Christ. Almost the entire purpose of the letters is to attempt to fully express the spiritual dimension of the person, Christ, that many people ALREADY followed.
Or are you suggesting that Paul wrote some nice stories about a mythological spirit, pretended to send those stories to non-existent communities of believers, in the hope that, in the future, people actually would begin to believe?
That really is clutching at straws. Still, who knows?
Complain about this comment
sorry if I'm asking too many questions. we all have other things to do, obviously, and you shouldn't feel compelled to answer everything.
But at the end of the day, some questions neccessarily lead on to others. It is no good you simply talking about ethics as if Socrates and hume are self-evidently "good" if you're not prepared to consider a question about the nature of goodness.
Complain about this comment
I believe Richard Dawkins questions the existence of Jesus (little wonder....His life is such a challenge to atheism!) - and quotes a learned professor in support of that view.
What he doesn't tell us is that he is a professor of German Literature! We don't seem to be able to find an ancient historian who shares that opinion...perhaps that is because he realizes he would be quickly laughed out of court, and have to take up another discipline!
People may continue to debate just Who Jesus was, but the reality of His life is well established historically. It seems to me that those who continue to dispute the facts betray a motive other than honest intellectual enquiry.
Complain about this comment
By the way, we Christians do continue to ask the questions....but every question must have a heuristic line of attack, otherwise question will pile on question on question, and, without answers to the first, none of the subsequent questions can be answered. but we find answers to questions all the time, Brian. even you.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
In Post 57 you wrote: "An ethic based on a good man? What was so good about him? In fact, you've argued on numerous occassions that, actually, he wasn't that good after all". This is specifically about an ethic based on one man, not about the basis of ethics in general. A little more precision might help, Bernard. Or perhaps a better memory of your own posts.
There isn't only one basis of ethics; that's the point. Our social nature, our rational minds, our ethical evolution are all contributors. Morals evolve as we we evolve. We have no essential nature and are capable of both good and bad actions. This has nothing to do with a 'fall from perfection'.
Of course, you do know what ethics are based on, i.e. one man! It is you who put all your ethical eggs in one imperfect basket.
Many of the earlier pagan myths on which Christianity was clearly based began as tall stories (like myths of gardens of Eden, perfect paradises etc) and then later added the flesh and bones, just like Hercules. Christianity is possibly no different in this respect.
As for straws, well: talking snakes, 900 year-old men, universal floods, sun stoppings, virgin births, water walkings, wine conversions, fish feasts, resurrections, ascensions... The bales are piled up in your barn.
Complain about this comment
Hello pastorphilip,
I strongly suspect that your post 78 is complete rubbish. At the very least it contradicts very much several statements I've ever heard from Dawkins regarding jesus. I've repeatedly heard him state that he much appreciates some of jesus' ideas as morally innovative. Always talking from a perspective that jesus was a real man. See e.g. his post 'Atheists for jesus' on his own website:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
That leads me to strongly suspect that some dishonest and dimheaded christian made up the story you uncritically posted (or made up yourself?). But I could be wrong. Tell you what pastorphilip, why don't you give us the source of that story? I'm calling you out over posting fabricated bullcrap, that being the best some christians can come up with. But I keep some reservation and you have the opportunity to show me entirely wrong.
Why don't you let us know which it is pastorphilip?
Complain about this comment
Brian;
in asking "what was so good about that one man", I really was asking precisely that. Now "why is THIS man good", but "what is good about Him (or any other).
You have still yet to answer. If we have no essential nature, how ARE THERE "both good and bad actions"?
What is "good" or "bad" about actions, if not that they conform or digress from some essential nature.
So;
What is good about one man?
What is good about many men?
What is good about a social nature, given that that keeps changing?
If what is "good" keeps changing, how can the word "good" have any sense at all?
You say "man is capable of both good and bad actions"...as if that explains what "good and bad" are. Surely all you can say is that man is capable of actions which differ?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Post 79 won't do. It's a slippery statement. THe point is that on the crucial questions on this blog, you think you know the answers. Let us list some again.
I. Jesus was an historical figure.
2. Jesus was god incarnate (unlike Horus, Hercules, Mithra etc, who were only fictions)
3. Jesus performed miracles.
4. Jesus was perfect.
5. Jesus rose from the dead.
6. God created the universe.
7. God is all good.
8. God is all-powerful.
9. God created man perfect and he fell from grace.
10. Man is essentially sinful.
11. When we die, we shall go to heaven; go to purgatory, or go to hell (although hell seems to be played down these days).
12. The earth will be destroyed in Armageddon.
The comments of most Christians on this blog assume certainty of belief in the above 12 propositions - no doubts whatsoever. And it is atheists who are accused of being dogmatic? If there are honest doubts, let's hear them for a change.
Complain about this comment
For the record, Christian Ethics isn't based on the actions of one man.
It is based on the notion of an objective, fundamental "good"...a prime analogue of the many ways in which different things are "good".
Just like God provides the prime analogue of the way in which disparate things exist, so He prwesents the prime analogue of the differing ways in which things are "good".
The term analogy is very important here.
So the idea that Christ embodies objective good is more a corrolary of the notion that there is an objective good in the first place....not the other way around.
I do not believe there is an objective good because Christ said that he embodies it. It is because I believe there is an objective good that I believe Christ embodies it.
How full is a loving goodness if it does not commune with its beloved? The fullness of "good" and "love" implies a complete giving in communion. Even God becoming Man
Complain about this comment
Brian;
All of those things you listed above....I don't KNOW any of them.
I think a lot of them make sense. a lot of them seem to be reasonable explanatory explanations of the position of existence as we encounter it.
I don't know anyone who claims to have absolute certainty about those things....they certainly have faith....and even a rational supposition. But certainty? As Lonergan says, "Formally unconditioned Judgement"?
not a chance. Rational suppositions and loving faith, that's what I have.
Why must you always accuse everyone of believing in certainty
Let me state again, I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN ANY OF THOSE THINGS, AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED I DO.
The only thing I have ever tried to claim on this blog it that it is possible to make rational suppositions about the above...indeed, that it is neccessary.
It is rational to SUPPOSE that the universe has a "cause" beyond it. In fact, in order to accept any kind of causality one has to accept a foundational cause.
It is rational to suppose that existence itself is "good"...in fact, in order to accept any kind of "good" one has to accept that bare existence is good.
It is rational to assume that a foundational basis of existence, encompassing all that is good, would be perfectly good. it is further rational to suppose that such a good creator would want to communicate to creation in the fullest way. It is rational to suppose that hundreds of poor uneducated fishermen did not willingly go to their deaths on the premise of a lie that they themselves invented.
It is rational, given all that we know of the universe, to admit non-physical emotional and loving forces and attractions at work within the universe.
All of those things are rational suppositions.
I do not know the nature of the universe. But, given all that i have seen of it, and all the mini-natures, it is rational to suppose that it has a nature.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Are you a Jesuit? Your twists and turns do rather suggest so. I don't claim to know exactly what 'good' is, unlike Christians who are sure they know. I am quite happy to be searching for it.
The Christian concept of 'good' to which you subscribe is, in any case, much too narrow and negative and based on restraint of natural impulses and desires. It's too preoccupied with matters of sex.
The Greek notion of 'good' is much broader and encompasses appreciation of culture, joy of discovery, search for knowledge, enjoyment of pleasure etc. Part of it of course is the quest for knowledge and the 'good life'. "the unexamined life is not worth living' implies that the search for knowledge and understanding is itself a great good. But Socrates made it clear that he didn't know. When he demolishes Meno's argument about virtue, he says: "Now that you know that you do not know, we can begin to make progress".
In this respect, Socrates is a much superior model to Jesus. The Delphic oracle had called Socrates the wiest of men, but that, he says, was because he knew that he knew nothing, whereas other men did not understand their own ignorance.
You can see how the Christian mindset crushes this spirit of inquiry by its closed dogmas and claims to have found answers to questions like: "what is good"? The quest, the life of striving, is important. That I think is part of what 'good' means. And why is it good? Because it makes us happy, content and better behaved towards our fellow humans - and animals.
The relevance of Socrates to the modern era should evident from the above. It is when the human race succumbs to dogmatic, totalitarian beliefs, whether political or religious, that it puts itself most at risk. This is what Maher was saying in Religulous. Let's have more doubt and less certainty and let's be proud of our ignorance.
So you asked me what 'good' is. I don't claim to know its essence. But I've briefly outlined one aspect. I'm sure there are many others, but that will do for a start.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
My point in asking you what "good" was was not to claim that I KNOW what it is.
We are always searching for good, but where do we go looking? Why is striving "good".
Marcus, for example, thinks that the examined life is not worth living. what do you say to him?
I know that we all keep searching for what is good, that there are many aspects, and even that it changes. But what makes anything good? what is the common feature?
I am not suggesting that I know what the common feature is...but it strikes me that it must involve some kind of fulfilment. What kind of fulfilment do you suggest? The fulfilment of just being a man? Is that good? Why?
Again, I am not suggesting that i know what "the good" is....
I am suggesting that there is something for us to look for....an objective good, the object of our striving. again, I don't know what the object of my striving is...had I known that I would have found it.
You're suggesting that our striving is good, but that it has no object....it is just continual movement and change.
But what's good about that. That seems to me to be the worst kind of striving...a blind striving that is directed by the wind, and searches here and there, but never finds anything.
I am suggesting that there IS an objective good. not that we have found it, but that we are striving for it. That is a striving for God.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
This is the point, isn't it? You're playing word games just as you did with the First Cause. Your insistence on an essential essence or basis of goodness is just the same as your insistence on an essential essence or basis of a First Cause. Of course, while you claim to be searching, you are really searching for God, as you say at the end, so therefore your answer, which doesn't require any further explanation, is always ... God. You pursue me for apparently copping out, whereas your god is really the ultimate cop out because there no further search is needed.
Complain about this comment
So, what are you searching for, Brian?
Interesting that this "word games" accusation seems to mean no more than "i don't understand!"
Let me put it in some other words. Why do you believe that some things are good and some things are bad? Is that entirely subjective, so that I can just dismiss it as one person's opinion?
If that's the case, is there any point in using the words?
Complain about this comment
and anyway, how does "searching for God" involve "no further search".
I'm constantly searching, Brian. the only thing i know is that what I am searching for is something different to what I have already found. Whereas you seem to be searching for more of the same. Another scientific theory to explain science itself. An evolution of goodness to explain "good" itself.
And, if all else fails, you can claim that, because I am searching for something different, I somehow think I've already found it.
Very good.
Complain about this comment
A few points.
I suppose maybe a Freudian could complain about a pre-occupation with sex in Christian ethics. Then an existentialist could disagree, and say that Christian Ethics hasn't the courage to choose. And so forth...I haven't felt preoccupied with sexual sin. I've my beliefs about sexual ethics, and they are unfashionable but I find them very liveable.
Now my inability to take up my cross. That's a problem. My idea of the good is found in 1 Cor 13 and the Passion Narratives. There's nothing sexual there, but I've hang-ups because I continually fall short of that standard. So maybe you could argue that my standards are too high, and irrational and unnecessarily burdensome.
AD68-70 is the ususal dating for Mark. Some put it slighlty before, some slightly after. That doesn't mean that every chapter wasn't committed to writing before 68-70. The Caligula crisis of the 40s gave the Church good motives to get some of the teachings of the Messiah written down. The "Apocalyptic Discourse" of Mark 13 seems to be a good candidate. This theory has been promoted by by non-conservatives like Gerd Thiessen.
The idea that a mythological Messiah would have meant anything to a Jewish Church is ludicrous. And the Jewish/Pagan polemic would have been - "Jesus did not exist". Not "Jesus was a magician".(In Celsus and the Talmud).
Now I'd better say nothing else. It isn't fair to reply to arguments with evidence.
GV
Complain about this comment
Oh, and Dawkins does believe that Jesus existed; he just has a very unusual take on Jesus' Ethics in the "God Delusion".
Complain about this comment
And I still have lots of unanswered questions.
But, in fairness, I think that Brian has hit on a good point here. A lot of Christian preaching and evangelism does convey the message that Christians have *all* the answers, and that they knwo these answers exhaustively.
That goes against key texts in Paul.
"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Fulfillment lies in the future. Not now. So I strive towards it. It makes the journey worthwhile, but that doesn't make it easy.
Paul certainly believed that he had some of the answers("We have the mind of Christ" 1 Cor 2). But *all* the answers?
Romans 11"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!"
In the context of the book of Romans, loosely translated "Look, I'm still trying to figure all this out".
SO it's clearly a mistake for the Church to preach as if it has *all* of the answers to all of the big questions all of the time. But it does. SO it's not surprising if we don't get heard because we tend to be too simplistic.
So, in retropsect, cheers Brian, there's actually a very good point behind the grouching. As usual.
GV
Complain about this comment
Dear me, chaps - I've gone and fallen behind again! Graham, you seem to view Saul Paulus as some sort of authority, although it goes against the very text you quote (glass darkly), where Saul (and therefore "the bible") admits that he/it does not know the full picture. This is one area where Saul is in fact correct - he is of course in error in many other areas.
That being the case, is this not a warning to treat everything Saul says with a certain dose of scepticism? Of course, we freethinkers reject authority anyway (and biblical authority in particular, of course), so there is little enough point in appealing to an ancient text which we know to be error-prone. But it's not even that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where the bible gets things right, and where there is evidence to confirm this, we're happy to accept that, but, like *any* text from ancient times, it contains errors, myths, fabrications, hyperbole, propaganda etc.
You're right - the church does not have all the answers, and I have argued that some of the answers it thinks it *does* have are flat wrong. This is not a reason to lower the bar for the evidential requirement for some of its fruitier claims (resurrections, miracles, virgin births, salvation, etc), but a reason to view the whole darned thing with a very sceptical eye. People CAN be fooled - look at Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Voodoo, Shintoism etc - people believing silly things is the *natural* state of humanity. The resurrection (for one) is a Silly Thing, and that's pretty much where the whole project should run into the sand. Except for the fact that people want to believe.
-H
Complain about this comment
Brian
I see I've become one of a trinity.
I was sort of ignoring the concerns that I don't give sufficient time for replies, or that I view my comments as killer blows but I got mentioned again in post 75. Now, at times I agree, I've been a bit eager, perhaps even over eager, but I actually thought we were all pretty eager on here, indeed there have been many times I have opted out too, but on this thread? I've hardly posted anything.
I actually began by suggesting I didn't much want to have the Jesus/Horace debate again, we all did it just a few weeks back. In fact we've had so many variations on the 'I'm Jesus' argument, that I had thought we could rename this thread, 'Whos Spartacus', or 'Who's Jesusacus'. Of course I'm being facetious again, but honestly when Jesus get linked with an Elvis myth, what do you expect?
As for questions, apart from Nicaea, I have really only asked you one on this thread, and I did so because you raised the issue of certainty again. Indeed you said some Christians were getting on your wick over it all. Now my question, which relates to doubt and certainty, is in post 50, I won't type it again, and yes, having read it again it's a bit curt, maybe even unnecessarily provocative, but I'm still interested in how far you take this doubt thing, why, because it relates to the general attitude of skepticism. In one sense whether you really doubt the existence of an historical Jesus is neither here nor there, doubting these things is relatively comfortable, especially when you don't want to believe anyway, but the extent of one's doubt, the degree to which one is prepared to act on an assumption of skepticism, that is an altogether different matter, I'm just wondering how far you are prepared to go?
In post 83 you have asked for honest doubts, I've already said what I doubted in post 50 and to that I'll add that I have and at times do doubt, the goodness of God, the faithfulness of God, I've wondered if he is actually a trickster, faith and doubt are not necessarily opposites, sometimes when I pray I tell God I don't trust him. You could also read the last paragraph of my post 92 on the Christianity and Fundamentalist thread.
Beyond that I've lost track of your conversation with Graham and Bernard.
On the other hand:
Helio, my old city of the sun beam (Did you know Jesus wants you for a sunbeam too!)
Flipping Nora, Elvis? Elvis Smelvis.
Question. How many donkeys had Baalam, or was he just talking out of his ass?
Anyway. Elvis? Good grief.
Actually, you're serious, aren't you. You do really, honestly think that the Jesus story could have arisen (sorry!) in the same way as people think Elly boy is alive and well in Texas or somewhere.
Gonny.
As for the NT letters and some christian communities believing or not believing stuff, well yes, that was sort of the point of the letters, the letters are, partly at least, about 'correcting', 'guiding' doctrine, like Jude said, "although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you."
Actually there's been quite a lot of objections raised recently which have already been taken account of in the bible, weird that.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
I do quite seriously suggest that the Jesus story (resurrection anyway) could have (and did) arise from the much the same psychological foibles that make people believe in Elvis, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. The post-resurrection stories have all the hallmarks of ghostie stories and wishful thinking. Elvis/Jesus/Horus - no big difference. What we are seeing in these stories are manifestations of human psychology. Not divine miracles, but human failings.
And that's the interesting thing - it's not just that the bible is full of errors - they are *interesting* errors. They reveal how people thought, and how people interpreted events - and this was no different in the century after the death of Jesus the Nazarene from how it is today.
-H
Complain about this comment
Wishful thinking, Helio?
Complain about this comment
And H, what makes you so sure you are not an hallucination?
It's this doubt thing, isn't it, how far do you take it?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I expected comments 88 and 89.
"Why do you believe that some things are good and some things are bad? Is that entirely subjective, so that I can just dismiss it as one person's opinion?".
You keep asking this question as if human beings did not live on this planet. Why is there farming? Why is there language? Why are there laws? Why did Elvis exist? Do moonbeamns exist? 'Good' and bad' aere subjective, just like every other f....ing thing we do and exist. There is nothing mysterious and other wordly about. An, yes, there is no objective standard for them. Eating shellfish was an abomination for Jews at one time. It was bad. Now, it's not bad. The rules are usually decided by elected governments (in a democracy) or a consensus. It might be right, it might be wrong, and that's the way it is. But there is no other way. And why should there be. Live with it man!
As already implied, like most most people I search for happiness, love, truth, justice. Lots of things. The search is part of the joy of living. The point is that you have 'found' God, so everything else has to fit into this divine prism. Your searches are for confirmation of already firmed up certainties: there is a god, he is good, he created the universe, he is the Transcend One et etc. I have no need of such a hypothesis and wiuld feel in any case that it would inhibit the real searches in the real world.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Apologies for ignoring your recent posts. Bernard would let me answer!
Complain about this comment
Brian;
As I suspected, you "value" search and striving, while simultaneously "devaluing" them by claiming that there is no object.
It is fairly obvious that the things that WE name good and bad are subjective. they change all the time.
But why would they change, if "good and bad" were totally subjective?
That people's ethics CHANGE and develop surely suggests an object. Why would elected governments or a consensus decide that anything was "right" or "wrong" if not to attempt to approximate an ideal of right and wrong?
That ethics change and develop, yet always attempt to seek the good and avoid the bad, merely proves that we never quite reach the good.
however, if there were no good to attempt to reach, none of us would try, and ethics would have remained in a stable though polymorphic infinte array of possibilities, none any better than the others.
That we change our ethics actually PROVES that ethics is a striving. It certainly doesn't show that it's a misguided satriving which has no object.
The rest of your post again goes back to the "all the answers" idea.
For "god" why not substitute "object of all rational desire for "good""
Positing an object of desire does not posit an absolute determination of that object. It doesn't posit "the nature of goodness"....It merely posits that that is what I'm searching for.
As I said, you have stated that you value the search, and the striving...but if you can't even SUPPOSE that that search has an object, you're simultaneously undermining its value.
Why bother searching, or striving, if all you will ever achieve is a subjective irrational gut preference? I already have that, I don't need to search for it.
What i need to search for is the answer to the quiestion "what do I REALLY want". Although i do not know the answer to that question, I do know that, whatever the answer is, it must be very great indeed if it is to live up to my striving.
If i find an answer that does not completely satisfy and complete my striving, I reject it and continue searching.
God is always beyond my grasp....that doesn't suggest that, beyond my grasp is NOTHING. it just suggests that that object of desire, which is always beyond my grasp, must be quite a lot greater than me, and greater than anything else i have ever encountered.
I don't need to strive for good manners, love, politeness, respect.
I already know how those things occur in the world. What I do need to strive for is a ground for their being good, I reason why I should prefer those actions to their opposites.
If you value striving, but admit that your striving is towards nothing other than your own preference, you simultaneously devalue the striving, and trap it within your own prejudices.
Complain about this comment
H
"But reports of miracles and resurrections from this era, even if sincerely believed (and we have no reason to credit the gospel writers with too much sincerity) are not evidence that anything spectacular actually occurred. The gospels are at the start of a long tradition of embellishment, and from a time when virgin births, miracles and resurrections were commonplace elements of stories. It is an unnecessary hypothesis to assume that someone made the *whole* thing up, but even that is more likely than the resurrection."
Well, miracle stories from 1st Century Palestine are few and far between. We've a few men of prayer (eg Honi) and exorcisms (described by Josephus and attested by archaeological finds).
The disanalogies between dying and rising gods and the resurrection are much stronger than the analogies.There are angelic figures like Melchizidek and Enoch and Yahoel in Jewish literature, and "divine" language is used to describe them. But they are clearly differentiated from YHWH. Early Christian writers didn't just associate Jesus and YHWH, they identified them. And Jewish reflections on God's "Wisdom" and "Word" made this possible. (This was pre-reflective. It was up to the Fathers to show that the Apostles belief system cohered.)
We've no historical or literary figure that comes close to Jesus.
"As an atheist I have no problem with that, or with much of the gospel tales. But reports of miracles and resurrections from this era, even if sincerely believed (and we have no reason to credit the gospel writers with too much sincerity) are not evidence that anything spectacular actually occurred."
That seems to be a very sensible position, to my mind. Reports of extraordinary events require a higher standard of evidence.Two points (i) I think that the Resurrection stories meet that high standard of evidence. (I'm not sure if this is based on the belief that the miraculous never happens, or if it does we can't have evidence for it. You do seem to rule it out as an explanation a priori.)
(ii) Healings (like Jairus' daughter) can be given a naturalistic explanation. I think that most scholars would believe that it's safe to conclude that Jesus had the *reputation* of being a wonder worker in his own lifetime. And I don't think anyone doubts that he performed many exorcisms.
If you agree with (ii) I think you hold to the "mainstream" view on the Gospels.
I think this leads you back to the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" Trilemma to be honest. The simplest explanation for the Earliest Church (I mean the Church centred on Jerusalem)and it's beliefs is that Jesus made claims that put him on a par with YHWH, and the Earliest Church carried this tradition on.
And we do have to explain how the Church could believe this about a crucified man in a "Honour/Shame" culture. So maybe there's a "Lord or Lunatics" dilemma about the Earliest Christians. (Be careful not to read the later diversity(itself overstated) of mid-second century Christianity into the Earliest Churches of the mid first century, which were centred on the Jerusalem circle. (Which held to a physical Resurrection- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/the_historical_jesus.html#P
post 175)
"the Egyptian snakes (with Moses' staff), "creation" itself, Baalam's donkey" I've always thought of the first and last as subjective visions. I gave my opinion on Genesis 1 on the Bertrand Russell thread. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/is_the_bible_antiintellectual.html#P
The flood? Haven't given it much thought. But aren't we heading back to a view of Christianity that assumes that Protestant Fundamentalism is the only interpretation worth believing in.
I hold to a very high view of Scripture's historical accuracy *because* I believe it follows from other, more central Christian beliefs. I don't start with inerrancy and then believe the incarnation. If Jericho be not razed, is my faith in vain? Nope.
"Mythology does NOT take long to attach to historical events - Elvis is one example. We know from the letters of Paul that communities of *Christians* did not believe in the resurrection - it had to be drummed into them using some pretty weak excuses, you'll agree."
Elvis is alive? That's one thing. Elvis is YHWH and demonstrated this by performing miracles in Tulsa? That's another. Tall tales and myths differ. As do myths and the attribution of divine attributes.
We have *one* example of a community that *contained* *gentile* members that did not have an understanding of the *nature of* the Resurrection that cohered with the *earliest Christian traditions we know of* - those described by Paul and contained in the gospels.
And we don't know what motivated their interpretation. Was it a sort of proto-Docetism? A fore-runner of the docetic teaching that Johannine literature counters? You need a fully human Christ for a Resurrection. One possibility is that the Corinthian Churches contained groups that said Jesus was all God with no humanity.
We simply do not have any evidence of Early Christian Churches who denied the Resurrection, or of Jews who thought of "Resurrection" as a non physical category. Sure, we can invent them. Or say, "well, it was bound to be like that". But we don't have the evidence to confirm the hypothesis.
Anyway, hope that explains why we differ. That, and I'm as nutty as a box of frogs.(Put that to my students and they agreed with you, funnily enough. Including the Christian students.)
BTW the stuff on Darwin was great. You're scarily clever, dude.
Have a good weekend.
GV
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the compliment (I think!). I think you are being a tad too credulous, and not taking several really important factors into account. We scientists call some of these esoteric entities the "bleedin' obvious".
Firstly, the resurrection itself. When Jesus was skipping around, people thought he was JtB risen from the dead. Or one of the olde prophets. People were primed in those days to believe such things. Yes, there are differences in how the beliefs worked out, but clearly there was a very widespread popular susceptibility to acceptance of such silliness, and faced with an empty tomb, a self-reinforcing belief in the resurrection is not surprising, nor are the contradictory stories that sprung up later.
Secondly, we know rather little about what the sect in Jerusalem *actually* believed - all the records we have were written by Greeks from beyond Jerusalem (and I include Paul in this). We *do* know that there was a rather wide spectrum of beliefs in general kicking around Jerusalem at the time (check out the Essenes, of course - what a pack of wierdos!). But Christianity did NOT develop in a pure
Thirdly, Jesus didn't *actually* do very many miracles at all (when you tot 'em up) - most were pretty small beer (I love the pigs though), and quite a few (as you say) weren't even miracles at all, just credulous reporting (like the kid with epilepsy or Jairus's daughter - this should tell you something about the mindset of people at the time).
Fourthly, I'm not arguing that "churches" (by which I assume we're meaning the various sectlets) denied that Jesus rose, but it's clear from Saul's epistles that not everyone was "on message", and that a great deal of weird stuff was going down. Revelations is another example demonstrating such effervescent mythmongering among the regional sectlets (although I think even you would agree it's a late fake, yes?).
The bottom line is this: in order to explain why people believe crazy stuff you do not need to posit anything special. It's nearly the default status for humanity.
Six impossible things before breakfast and all that. Don't fret - I absolutely bought into it for many years before my own road from Damascus. The view is a lot better from here, believe me :-)
Cheers,
-H
Complain about this comment
"in order to explain why people believe crazy stuff you do not need to posit anything special"
You do of course have to posit people.
BTW There's a guy works down a chip shop near me swears he's Jesus, maybe that should that be Jelvis?
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
Indeed. Perhaps you are coming round to my way of thinking, in realising how completely absurd the whole resurrection nonsense is.
You're caught in a trap.
-H
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
You say that I value search and striving while simultaneously devaluing them by claiming that there is no object. I dont like the use of the word object in this statement. However, your basic notion is mistaken. It is, on the contrary, religious believers of the Abrahamic religions who devalue values by endeavouring to make a humane ethic cohere with a sadistic and inhumane myth.
First, it is not true that in a humanist ethic there is no object. Humanists value truth, whether it is a truth of fact or a truth of value. The former are objective. For example, either there are green men on the moon or there arent. Truths of fact are important, not least because they may have practical value. Knowledge of the body helps us to cure diseases etc.
Truths of value are those which cohere with our general system of values. For example, most Humanists would argue that there should be less inequality of income because the existing extremes are unjust. Most Humanists would argue argue that it is wrong to discriminate against people on grounds of their sexual orientation because expression of sexuality between consenting adults is a fundamental freedom.
Ideas of truth, justice, goodness, etc are indeed ideals which can never be fully achieved because human beings are not perfect. Humanists generally do not have utopian visions of a perfect world but we do believe that it can be made a better and a happier place if we develop and enhance the more humane values and move closer to the ideals.
The real devaluing of searching and striving comes when we assume that these ideals will never be achieved on earth but only in some hereafter. This inevitably devalues a searching and striving in this life. If the main course is so much better than the starter, then we will want to get the starter over as quickly as possible. If this is acknowledged as the only life, then we will place a higher value on it.
Moreover, you as a Abrahamic believer are faced with the massive gulf between your own best principles of goodness, justice, humanity, kindness, etc and the, cruel, sadistic and inhumane ethics of much of the Abrahamic myth. For example, it is you who devalue goodness by trying reconcile it with a god who decides to drown most of the human race, and who supposedly orders Jewish leaders to slaughter their enemies.
You refer to my own preferences and my own prejudices. Most of the values I espouse were not devised by me alone but by the best and most humane minds. A recognition of the equal dignity of everyone, male or female, black or white, gay or straight is a humanist value which has developed over centuries and has received prominence DESPITE and not because of religious belief.
In Humanist ethics, autonomy is a basis of the good life, whereas for Abrahamic religions it is heteronomy, i.e. subordination to the laws of another. We say that the individual is responsible for achieving the good as a free memner of a community of free agents. You say that the individual achieves the good by obedience to an authority that tells him what his goals are and how he should live. We say that morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told; you say that morality is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Inevitably, your approach means that religious leaders will seek to exert control over others, to limit their freedom, to make them conform, obey, submit, follow where led, accept what is meted out to them, and resign themselves to their lot. That, Bernard, is perhaps the worst devaluation of all of the human desire to seek, to strive, and not to yield.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
First of all, I think your arguments about historical abuses of power mean nothing in this context. Imagine you are just arguing with me and not with a "system". I wasn't rsponsible for the inquisition, or the Magdalene laundries, or the trial of Galileo. Despite the fact that i value the historical continuity and guidance instantiated in the church, I am not advocating those things, nor would I.
I understand, of course, that you're claiming that my opinion of religion leads invariably to such abuses of power, and that that is important to recognise. H, it hasn't in my case. I have no wish to excuse any of those things, nor would I perpretate them were I elected Pope tomorrow.
So can we please stick to the theoretical points that I'm making. Historical arguments are valid...it is acceptable to argue "but look what happened the last time someone thought that way"...I just don't think it adds anything to this particular debate.
I think you still make a number of presuppositions concerning "value" and "good". You obviously think there are things of value, and I agree with you.
However, you presuppose that some of those things are valuable, whereas I strive to find a foundation of their value. A reason for their being valuable. That is what I mean when I say that I continue to strive, whereas you reject the asking of certain questions. Close-mindedness.
"First, it is not true that in a humanist ethic there is no object. Humanists value truth, whether it is a truth of fact or a truth of value."
First of all, why do you value truth, in any of its forms?
"Truths of fact are important, not least because they may have practical value. Knowledge of the body helps us to cure diseases etc"
What is practical value? I agree that curing diseases is a practical value, mainly because I think life in itself is good. Do you also think life in itself is good?
Why?
I think life in itself is good because it has a purpose - to become closer to its loving source. Why do you think life is valuable?
"Truths of value are those which cohere with our general system of values"
What? I'm still not sure what value is...an example of value is something that "coheres with values"??? What is value again?
"For example, most Humanists would argue that there should be less inequality of income because the existing extremes are unjust."
Now hold on, what's justice?
Is it valuable?
Why?
Because life's valuable?
Just your life, or everyone's life?
Why? what's valuable about YOU living?
"Most Humanists would argue argue that it is wrong to discriminate against people on grounds of their sexual orientation because expression of sexuality between consenting adults is a fundamental freedom."
Now hold on, freedom? what is that again? Is it valuable? why?
"Ideas of truth, justice, goodness, etc are indeed ideals which can never be fully achieved because human beings are not perfect."
No, yet we can still contemplate the ideals.
I think the two parts in the below sentence are contradictory;
"Humanists generally do not have utopian visions of a perfect world................................................................ but we do believe that it can be made a better and a happier place if we develop and enhance the more humane values and move closer to the ideals."
You don't know about utopia, but you know what would be better and happier?
Where did you get these ideals? Why are they better? What is good about them?
"The real devaluing of searching and striving comes when we assume that these ideals will never be achieved on earth"
Hold on....ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU'VE JUST DONE?
"Ideas of truth, justice, goodness, etc are indeed ideals which can never be fully achieved because human beings are not perfect"
So, to assume that the ideals will never be achieved on earh, but will be achieved in a spiritual realm, is that more or less devaluing than assuming that they will never be achieved at all, in any case, anywhere?
How do you establish an ideal that has no theoretic or hypothetical possibility of ever being achieved ever in any possibility?
"in the hereafter....This inevitably devalues a searching and striving in this life."
No, because we claim that the status of the hereafter depends very much on what is done in this life.
What inevitably devalues a searching and striving is assuming that the ideals can never ever be achieved, either in this life or the next. which is what you have said.
"Moreover, you as a Abrahamic believer are faced with the massive gulf between your own best principles of goodness, justice, humanity, kindness, etc and the, cruel, sadistic and inhumane ethics of much of the Abrahamic myth."
Now, cruel and sadisitic? Have we sorted out "good" and "bad" yet? How is it cruel and sadistic?
And please, don't just give me blood-curdling examples.
WHY are those examples cruel and sadistic? What is good about life, or humanity?
"For example, it is you who devalue goodness by trying reconcile it with a god who decides to drown most of the human race,"
Whereas you think that is NOT GOOD because....
why was it again?
Because you value human life?
Why was that again?
Do you see what I mean about you simply refusing to ask certain questions. You may think the answers are self-evident, but they are far from it.
What is the value of life, or of truth, or of humanity, or creation?
"A recognition of the equal dignity of everyone, male or female, black or white, gay or straight is a humanist value which has developed over centuries and has received prominence DESPITE and not because of religious belief."
Yet you can't say why this is a value? What is so good about equal dignity?
I think there is something good about it, of course, and I think that value is biblically based, but i will agree with you that it is one of the many ideals in the bible that has never been lived up to by many religious people.
However, I don't think humanists can ground that value. why is it good?
I think human equality is good because it allows loving creation to commune closer with its loving source, thus completing the reciprocal love that constitutes existence itself.
Why do you think it is good?
"In Humanist ethics, autonomy is a basis of the good life"
Why though? What is "good" about such a life...just the fact that it's autonomous? What is the point of autonomy unless it strives for something beyond itself?
I think that autonomy is valuable because it allows us to become moral beings, and thus come closer to communion with the total loving freedom of God. It allows us to freely choose the things that have objective value. Things that have objective value do so because they are an expression of loving creation.
Now, why do you think autonomy is good?
"whereas for Abrahamic religions it is heteronomy, i.e. subordination to the laws of another."
In the Abrahamic religions, autonomy is subject to the good. It allows us to do good, but also to do bad.
You sem to think that freedom is good in itself. Which would mean that ANY freely chosen act is good. Is that what you think?
"We say that the individual is responsible for achieving the good as a free memner of a community of free agents."
Indeed, the individual is responsible for achieving the good. Christians would agree with that.
What is the good though? I thoght you said it was the autonomy itself? If not, what is it?
"You say that the individual achieves the good by obedience to an authority that tells him what his goals are and how he should live."
No, the individual can either choose the good or the bad. The purpose of the authority is to provide guidance. Much like you take the guidance of "the best and most humane minds". So do I. But I find those in the church.
But first we must know what kind of thing we are searching for when searching for "the good". You have yet to explain why anything is good.
Again you seem to be claiming that any freely chosen action is good. I am claiming that some things are good, and some things are not.
Luckily, we have what we believe to be a divinely-inspired authority to guide us, but it is ultimately up to each individual whether or not to accept that authority
"We say that morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told;"
But you don't know what's right yet, or why anything's right! Maybe someone SHOULD tell you something?
"you say that morality is doing what you are told no matter what is right."
No. I say that some things are right and some things are wrong. The things that are right are so because they in some way fulfil or complete our communion with God, the source of good creation. I then say that I BELIEVE that the good God has ordained an organisation to provide guidance towards that object, even if swervingly.
I mean, you say "no matter what is right", even though you can't explain why anything is right. If you can't even come to a supposition about that, maybe YOU should do what you're told. It's probably for the "good". :)
"Inevitably, your approach means that religious leaders will seek to exert control over others, to limit their freedom, to make them conform, obey, submit, follow where led, accept what is meted out to them, and resign themselves to their lot. That, Bernard, is perhaps the worst devaluation of all of the human desire to seek, to strive, and not to yield."
Oh, I don't know.
As long as SOMEONE is striving to ask the questions about what is good - even if it's only a small elite of religious leaders - I still think that values the human desire to seek the good more than a presupposition that the seeking has no object that humans - or anything else - could ever possibly achieve.
Surely the worst devaluation of the human desire to strive is not the striving being directed by a group of thinkers, but the denial of any independent object of that striving. That is surely the worst possible degradation of human action and motivation.
Complain about this comment
Is there some reason spacs are not showing up between sentences in my post? Like this one? I have put a space in between each of these sentences. Test.
Complain about this comment
Ok, is it everytime I do a double space it doesn't show up? That is really silly. Double space. I don't like this new blog format at all.
Complain about this comment
Surely it's widespread publshing style to put a double space between sentences? Why would it show a space but not a double space? I'm so usedto double spacing between sentences that I don't think I'll be able to break the habit. Nor would i want to, in fact. Flip, sake what a needlessly irritating thing. We'll all just have to get used to reading sentences with no spaces between them.
Complain about this comment
I see it has somehow now been fixed.
Someone tell me I haven't just imagined that! It is quite early in the afternoon.
Complain about this comment
Ok, now I am confused. Space. Is there, or is there not, a space between these sentences?
Complain about this comment
No, there's not!
Complain about this comment
Now there is! I now realise it must be some kind of preview fuction or something like that. There are no spaces between sentences when you first post, but then when you refresh there are.
Sorry for clogging up this thread. :)
Complain about this comment
Hi Bernard,
You can use unicode encoding to put in as many consecutive blank spaces as you like. See e.g.
word1 � �� �� word2 � � � � � � � � � word3
Just type '&_#0000' but then without that underscore (which I had to put it, otherwise the server wouldn't show what I typed, but just turn it into a blank) where ever you want blank spaces.
Complain about this comment
Oh damn, it works in preview, but not in the actual post. :(
Let me see if it work with one less 0:
word1 � � � � word2
Complain about this comment
Ha, you know, i don't think I'll bother.
:)
Complain about this comment
last test, and then I'll stop mucking up this thread
word1     word2
Complain about this comment
OK, when you girls have finished playing... ;-)
Complain about this comment
Bernard (108):
Don't worry, its not quite as bad as that. I am not blaming you for the worst excesses of Christianity. But I am blaming you for accepting such a belief system that launched the Inquisition, the Crusades, that tried Galileo etc. You have a choice, and you have chosen wrongly. You have chosen an ideology with a rotten history. Now, I am not prepared to argue on the basis of ignoring this history, having been lectured by you and Graham that Jesus was definitely an historical figure and that it is crucial to establish his historicity. You cannot ignore history or ancient fable when it suits and bring it into play when you want. You cannot pick and choose the grounds upon which the discussion is based.
Secondly, in any case, theoretical points dont exist in a vacuum. They themselves have a history. The discussion of any concept is partly a debate about the history and location of its meaning. Liberalism meant something different to Adam Smith than it did to Lloyd George or it does to Nick Clegg; and it means something different to Barack Obama than it does to a Carolina redneck (or to Nick Clegg).
The closed-mindedness is entirely yours. How could it be otherwise if you believe that you know the foundation of all value, i.e. god? The point is: I DONT KNOW THE FOUNDATION OF VALUE partly because I dont believe that there is only ONE. Value has many foundations in other values. Is there a supervalue? I dont think so. Is justice more basic than freedom? Is truth more basic than happiness? I dont know. These are difficult questions and I always strive for answers. You pretend that you are seeking a foundation of all values when in fact you think you have already found it, but it is only a pretence.
Now, the rest of your posting reverts to your usual trick of bombarding me with questions. Lets see: how many are there? 1...2...3...29. Ive given up counting. Basically, I cant give an answer to you without your looking for an answer behind it. I say practical value and you say what it is based on... etc etc. It is, as I said, an ALMOST INFINITE REGRESS to the FIRST CAUSE, and then, bingo!, the God of the gaps of all language, all thought, all action, all life, pops up as THE answer to everything. HE is the basis of practical value. HE is the basis of justice. HE is the basis of good. HE is the basis of this, that and the other.
As if this answered ANYTHING whatsoever. What is freedom? Ah, ... God? What is justice? Ah...God? What is truth? Ah....God. So there you are. No need to think any more. Who really has a closed mind, Bernard?
Complain about this comment
Anyone out there who knows unicode character embedding in html better than I do?
Does other embedding stuff work?
bold
italics
strike through
Complain about this comment
unicode encoding?
character embedding?
html?
Where's Neo when you need him?
Maybe he's working in a chip shop with Elvis and Jesus!
BTW Bernard, "A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something." (Seemed appropriate enough for your earlier experiences on this new blog) Helio's right, we're caught in a trap.
Brian, I shall save your from more facetiousness, but only to ask you a question! I don't know which you currently find worse. You see this doubt and certainty thing?...
Complain about this comment
Brian....
again, you have taken my questions as an excuse for a daitribe.
you can say "you religious people think you know everything!" all you want, but it doesn't make it true.
I gave you examples of things that I REALLY DON'T KNOW,
but, in an attempt to pretend that YOU ASK THOSE QUESTIONS (ALTHOUGH YOU REALLY DON'T), you'd rather pretend that I'm so arrogant as to assume I know the answers.
Brian, can I tell you here now, again, that I DON'T know the answers.
Now, what are your answers?
What is good?
What is "practical value"?
Now, I can tell you that practical value is something I struggle with every day, and the best way in which my limited mind can make sense of it is as part of a wider cosmic PURPOSE. My inquiry seems to inevitably...and, I would say, legitimately...always move beyond itself, to seek some higher reason.
Now, how do you make sense of it?
and please, rather that say how bad christians are, can you tell us how YOU make sense of any notion of "good"... beyond your own ego?
Is "good" just whatever YOU say it is, at any given time?
If not, what is it?
Complain about this comment
Peter is right....this is all about the doubt thing.
On one hand you reject all basis for doubt, but you obviously don't see that through in your own life.
Your life is full of the very meaning whose existence you reject.
Performative contradiction...like the Vienna Circle in the early 20th C.
Complain about this comment
And by the way;
"theoretical points dont exist in a vacuum"
I know that....that's why my request that you leave them out was so long winded. I think your historical points are reasonable when it comes to discussions about the history and future of human action.
It is perfectly reasonable to bring up historical precedent when discussing religious belief in general, or any number of particular arguments related to religious belief.
I just think, on this occassion, when I'm personally, with no authority from any organisation or any other person but myself, trying to tease out what YOU mean by "good" and "bad", that it adds anything to his particular issue.
What do you mean by "good"?
That people who had similar views to mine were often unjust and wrong IS important, I agree...but not to this particular argument.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I have already suggested some meanings of good. Read my posts. What is good is what is right, what is true, what is beautiful, what is happy, what is pleasant, what is humane, what is free, what is equal, what is just, what is loving, what is kind, what is sweet, what is....
You are trying to tease out what I mean by good and bad? Really? I have been trying to tease out what you Christians mean by a God for the last 2 or 3 years and am none the wiser. All I am offered by you is the 'Transcendent One', an even more mysterious entity than 'good' I think you will agree. I mean: to tell me that God is the ultimate source of all the sources of good that I listed is a colossal cop-out, which means nothing and adds nothing to the sum of human wisdom. You might as well say 42.
Graham:
'History' before myth or myth before 'history'. I don't know which process came first in the Jesus story. I have been reading How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson, Professor of Humanities and Religious Studies at York University, Toronto. His basic thesis is not new - in broad outline I think Thomas Jefferson also subscribed to it. But he develops it in detail and quite persuasively (that doesn't mean I am persuaded!).
He suggests that the spiritual figure of Jesus which many Christians worship as the Son of God was, in fact, a Jewish Rabbi and revered teacher who obeyed and championed the Torah. He wanted to improve Jewish life, not abolish it and he did not proclaim himself to be a 'Christ' figure. Led by his brother James, his followers established the 'Jesus movement', and after his death in about AD 30 they waited for him to return to create the promised kingdom of God.
With James's death in the early 60s, the Jesus movement suffered a leadership crisis and was eventually 'hijacked' by the Christ movement launched by Paul. The two movements should have remained parallel and separate sects, but Paul stripped away the Jewish roots and created a new religion entirely - Wilson calls it 'Paulinity', a Hellenized religion about a Gentile Christ and cosmic redeemer. So it was not sufficient for some Gospels to distance Christianity from Judaism; they had to vilify it. Jews became equated with Satan and with the killers of Christ.
It seems sound reasoning to suggest that the religion of Jesus, the one he practised and taught, became transformed in a cult about the Christ. Isn't this what happened to Confucius, Lao Tzu and the Buddha. Perhaps in all four cases, what happened was that they were all human beings who preached 'wisdom' but developed into superstitious and idolatrous religions in which the founder is worshipped as a deity.
In other words, if any of the four returned to earth, they would not recognise their own philosophy. Perhaps that's what Nietzsche meant when he said that the last Christian died on the cross.
Why do we do this? Is it a longing for heroes and saviours who are superhuman? Is it a desire to turn a philosophy into a means of power over others?
Whatever the reason, if Wilson is correct, then Jesus joins the ranks of Confucius, Lao Tzu and the Buddha
as a moral teacher whose philosophy was turned into a mystical, superstitious religion with its founder worshipped as a god.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
Why are they good?
In positing "God" I'm not positing an answer to those questions....your point about what I'm adding to human knowledge is misguided.
I'm adding nothing to human knowledge...What I am doing is recognising that it has a transcendent source, and that the inquiry seeks SOMETHING. I am leaving open the possibility that my inquiry DOES have an answer, while recognising that I don't know it.
Why are those things you list good? Do you know?
I don't know, but I suspect the reason is something beyond themselves. I don't think that any thing is good in itself, isolated from the possibility of something higher.
Can you tell me why those things are good intrinsically? Pleasure? Yours or mine? Or anybody's? All kinds of pleasure?
Happy? just spontaneous happiness, or happiness caused by something else?
I'm suggesting that all those things must derive their goodness from something else. Why do you think they are intrinsically good in themselves.
Again, in pretending to ask questions what you actually do is presuppose a lot of answers.
Happy, pleasurable, beautiful things are good, because that's what good is? Something of a circularity there. I thought you had read some Plato?
Complain about this comment
Brian
Your post 126 makes me want to say all sorts of things, but you are right, sometimes there are too many discussions going on here at once, so I shall restrict myself to one comment.
Your list on what is good, is remarkably like this one, "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."
Complain about this comment
In his biography of Jesus, John wrote: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory - glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
In one of his letters, Paul wrote: "In Him (Jesus) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Jesus Himself said: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
Everything about Jesus sets Him apart from any other religious leader you can think of, and Christians affirm that - in Jesus Christ - God took human flesh, at a particular place on earth and at a particular time in history. Christianity's opponents have never come up with a single reason to make us doubt the fact.
(BTW this message was posted on 10th May 2009 A.D.!)
Complain about this comment
Bernie, you're complicating things. We recognise certain things as "good" because we're the descendants of organisms whose ability to attach the [psychological, not verbal!] label "good" to certain scenarios led to the propagation of the genes that rendered them so able to recognise those scenarios and make the relevant distinctions. There's no need to get more transcendent than that in order to explain the phenomenon - any more than you would need to to explain "sexy", "sweet", "funny" or "beautiful".
[Actually, this is a bit simplistic - it could of course be a by-product of selection for something *else*, but let's stick with the principle for now].
Of course, now that we are thinking critters, and seek to contemplate these things at a deeper level, we come up with formulations of rules that allow us to define these things and rationalise them and organise them into wider systems - and potentially recognise where our instincts might actually be *wrong* and in conflict with the wider scenario which we are perhaps less able to perceive when we're faced with it.
None of this requires a "higher source" of what it means for something to be "good". "Good" is not a property or attribute of things - it is a LABEL that humans apply to certain scenarios. And that, chaps, is the same with very very many things, and the source of all sorts of hilarious fallacies and pratfalls from Swinburne to Plantinga.
THINGS do not have ATTRIBUTES.
SYSTEMS have BEHAVIOURS.
Helio fixes Philosophy for ya. Turn the key, rev 'er up a wee bit, and see how that sounds.
Complain about this comment
"Turn the key, rev 'er up a wee bit, and see how that sounds."
I think she's about to backfire.
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip - minor correction - you wrote that on 10 May 2009 C.E. (Common Era).
["A.D." dating wasn't used until Jesus had been dead for nearly FIVE CENTURIES! And the dude got it wrong. But never mind.]
Complain about this comment
Peter, what is your justification for assigning Attributes to Things, instead of Behaviours to Systems?
Really. Because I do think it underlies a lot of crappy philosophical thinking, and I observed it in bucketloads when I attended some lectures from "leading philosophers" (OK, Swinburne and Leftow - hardly top flight, but still) recently.
-H
Complain about this comment
Helio,
Like it or not, AD points to the historic existence of Jesus.
And - by the way - He's alive! (1 Corithinans 15: 1-3)
Complain about this comment
Helio;
I think you perform a swerve there, and really just push the question back a little further.
In this context I'm not really arguing that attributes INHERE in things themselves. For the purposes of this argument i'm even willing to accept that what "good" is a function of having a particular label attached by human consciousness.
But why attach this label? Why call anything good?
Why would anyone, in the first palce, have formulated a label to attach to something completely arbitrarily?
Complain about this comment
You're right though, I am needlessly complicating things. There is an easier way of putting this, but I've never been good at concision
Complain about this comment
Hello Bernard,
"There is an easier way of putting this, but I've never been good at concision"
I think you're being needlessly hard on yourself, I think your posts are usually quite clear and concise.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I see that you don't wish to pursue Helio's route of questioning inherent qualities. Actually, neither do I. Nevertheless, you must accept that 'good' is a hold-all concept which means many things in different contexts. Is telling the truth always 'good'? The stock example: the Gestapo come to your door (in cloisters?) and ask if you are hiding Jews. You are, but you lie and say no because you want to save their lives. Was it 'good' to lie?
Or would it have been good to tell the truth? There is surely a conflict of 'goods' here and your approach in looking for an ultimate source of good is of no practical help whatsoever. I would say that saving the lies was 'better' than telling the truth in this case. Would you agree? Is this because life is a greater good than truth?
And is human life a greater 'good' than non-human life? What is the 'ultimate source' of value here. Last night I saw a polar bear on the TV attacking a walrus. The walrus used its sharp tusks to defend itself. Other walruses rushed to its defence - and beat off the bear which, hungry and exhausted, sat down to die. I have also seen film of lions attacking a buffalo and the other buffalo come to its defence and chase them away (you can that on Youtube).Was this a good thing or a bad thing? What's your answer, Bernard?
Social animals have a natural tendency to care for another of the same species. That is good because it preserves the species and because it makes them happy. A Humanist doesn't claim divine authorship of 'goodness', which is what you are trying, unsuccessfully, to do. Moreover, Abrahamic religions have a poor conception of what is good because they tend to view it negatively as 'avoiding bad things' rather than a positive mode of behaviour.
As I have already said, the sources of goodness are our compassionate nature ('moral sensitivity' in Hume's phrase), our reason, our desire for autonomy, our notions of justice, happiness and so on. To keep asking what is THEIR source would be reasonable if it weren't premised on the hidden agenda of putting a god as an end to a regress which has no end.
Complain about this comment
H
"When Jesus was skipping around, people thought he was JtB risen from the dead. Or one of the olde prophets."
Well, not exactly. As regarding "the olde prophets" they were looking for someone who could fulfill the *role* of one of these prophets. Or they were drawing on traditions that prophets like Elijah/Jeremiah had never died. Difficult to undergo a Resurrection in those circumstances. It is obvious that people believed that Jesus was the end-time prophet that would precede the Messiah. So Jesus had taken on John's mantle, as Elisha did for Elijah. Jesus was a disciple of John, prior to his own ministry.
"We know rather little about what the sect in Jerusalem *actually* believed - all the records we have were written by Greeks from beyond Jerusalem (and I include Paul in this). We *do* know that there was a rather wide spectrum of beliefs in general kicking around Jerusalem."
Not as wide a spectrum as you might think. It was once fashionable to talk about "Judaisms", as Judaism only became monolithic after the Jewish War. Scholars like Jacob Neusner and James Dunn have dropped such language as it gave the impression of more plurality than they meant to imply.
There is a tendency to read the syncretism of previous centuries, or later Christian pluralism into 1st Century Palestine. Strict monotheism, torah observance, loyalty to the true Temple and faithfulness to the covenant were all givens. Those groups that did believe in Resurrection believed in physical resurrection (which is more than risng from the deadBTW. It means rising to the eternal life of the "new age". ie. You don't never get dead again.)
As for the Jerusalem Church we do have very good evidence for what they believed, if we look at what Paul's letters unintentionally reveal. Paul, *seeking to establish his own authority* has to cite the approval of the leaders of the Jerusalem circle. He quotes traditions that he received from them. His advice in Corinthians is in keeping with James' instructions to the Gentile Christians in Acts.
Now this is doubly awkward for Paul in that he has had public disagreement with a former member of that circle, Peter. He is also tryng to establish his own authority to the Galatian and Corinthian Churches. So the fact that he has to cite Jerusalem's authority is revealing of Jerusalem's importance in the first decades of the Church.
Of course the Jerusalem circle could not micro-manage, and it was not a Rabbinic school. But it could set boundaries around what counted as central Christian beliefs. The Jerusalem circle was the first point of contact with the historical Jesus so it is natural that it would play this role.
The impact of the Jerusalem Church was the root cause of the first Churches. When Paul writes to these Churches (egRome)he can assume certain beliefs in common - including a belief in a High Christology and a Resurrection (it isn't surprising that Paul would have to correct Gentile misconceptions about Resurrection amongst *some* of the *small* group of house Churches in Corinth).
So if we take Paul's admission that he kept in line with the Jerusalem, and the presuppositions that all the Churches we have evidence of held in common, we have a very good idea of the beliefs of the Jerusalem Church. There's no real mystery about the core beliefs, in fact. The book of Acts also records "Awkward" details that reveal that at Jerusalem the Christians stayed faithful to the Temple (so they believed that they were faithful Jews) and had the authority to resolve disputes (why "invent" a dispute unless everyone knew that ther had been one? Why invent a letter from James, an incidental character in Acts, at the expense of Paul and Peter's authority?)
"Jesus didn't *actually* do very many miracles at all." I'm not sure who you're comparing him to. Uri Geller? In comparison with other wonder workers of that time and place he was positively prolific. He also out outperforms Elijah and Elisha.
"I'm not arguing that "churches" (by which I assume we're meaning the various sectlets) denied that Jesus rose, but it's clear from Saul's epistles that not everyone was "on message" "
In Corinthians Paul responds to a query about Resurrection, not a split. The Churches of Corinth could all fit into Gaius' house. So we are talking about queries (letters from Chloe etc) from one sub-group from one one small group of Gentile Christians about statements made by another small sub-group. The Thessalonian and Philppian Churches had no difficulty with the Jewish perspective on Resurrection (Paul assumes such a perspective, and does not feel the need to explain it when discussing future hope.)
Paul is concerned"how can *some* of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"& "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?". So it was a Gentile conception of the afterlife that was to be challenged, not a Corinthian denial of Jesus' empty tomb. Paul uses their confession of Jesus' Resurrection to force a reconsideration of the nature of the afterlife. If this is the evidence for heterodoxy in Early Christianity, the Orthodox can sleep soundly. Ehrman and Pagels ave massively overstated the case.
"Six impossible things before breakfast and all that"
But what's impossible, and what counts as crazy? The denial of an absolute frame of reference? That the unverse plays dice? It all depends.
Haven't gotten around to Wolpert's book yet. Have you seen his debate with Craig? It's fantastically entertaining! They just ignore each other, and therefore believe that they've won the debate. And John Humphries (the moderator) manages to misundertsand them both. He looks sublimely bewildered throughout. Although he did say that he wasn't used to protagonists wanting to answer the questions.
Graham
Complain about this comment
H
Swinburne and Leftow are both top flight. I've never read anything they've written on attributes, so I'm not sure what your point is. But a thoroughgoing nominalist (as WL Craig seems to want to be) could accept Swinburne's theistic arguments. Attributes would just be useful descriptions, but with no extra-mental reality.
I digress - what's your concern about attributes?
GV
Complain about this comment
Brian;
I agree that good can mean a variety of things, and that there are often conflicts of "good". I also agree that it is often difficult to strike the balance between opposing "good", or to calibrate "goods".
We're back to my favourite subject - analogy.
"Good" is an analogical term, which can refer to a wide variety of things in a wide variety of situations. But all analogies have a prime analogue, a fundamental set of relationships of proportion that determine how a word is to be used analogically.
Complain about this comment
"To keep asking what is THEIR source would be reasonable if it weren't premised on the hidden agenda of putting a god as an end to a regress which has no end."
i agree with you up until you say "would be reasonable if..."
I think that it's perfectly reasonable, and that there is no such thing as an infinite regress.
I would suggest that it is more rational to posit an infinite and neccessary final cause than to posit an infinite series of things which we know to be contingent limited.
Your argument that "it would be a reasonable argument, if only I weren't using it to try to posit God", holds no water...and, quite frankly, seems like an absolutely blatant prejudice.
Complain about this comment
"PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello Bernard,
"There is an easier way of putting this, but I've never been good at concision"
I think you're being needlessly hard on yourself, I think your posts are usually quite clear and concise."
Well, there's something we agree on. That and the George W Bush comedy routine.
Whatever happened to those? Hasn't he hit the lecture circuit yet?
GV
Complain about this comment
I'm actually still wondering what happened to mithras?
If it is so obvious that Jesus is based on Horus, why was it soooo obvious that he was based on Mithras, just a couple of years ago.
Isn't it more likely that loads of things are slightly similar, even when vastly different?
Complain about this comment
Especially when you jump through hoops to find the similarities.
Seriously though, what did happen to Mithras? You never hear that old chestnut these days.
Complain about this comment
Hi Bernard,
"Isn't it more likely that loads of things are slightly similar, even when vastly different?"
Or that they are slightly different, even when loads of things are pretty much similar?
Complain about this comment
Ha, I suppose that's a matter of debate.
Perhaps we should have a pair of comparative lists, listing all the similarities and all the differences, and whichever list has the most, wins.
Anybody want to bother? Not sure i could be annoyed, myself.
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
"That and the George W Bush comedy routine. Whatever happened to those?"
Georgies comedy routine is easily outdone by Obama too. Look at the White House Correspondent's Dinner roast:
http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/1111468
Complain about this comment
"Anybody want to bother? Not sure i could be annoyed, myself."
Just like two weeks ago or so, I will once again be happy to be absolved of spending my time on that. You're very merciful. Thank you. :)
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
This prime analogue to which you refer doesn't seem to be very adept at sorting out conflicts of 'good'. After all, you avoided my questions, and there weren't at least 29 of them.
In fact, if your are seeking a prime analogue, might it not be 'conflict'? Does morality not arise when we see that we have to forego or postpone our own wishes and desires for the sake of the good, which is not only our good but the good of the family, tribe, society etc to which we belong?
In other words, there is no essential basis of the good but there are people and their conflicts of desire and interest. What becomes good is the decision that puts others at least equal to, if not more important than, our own. There is morality in a nutshell, and it has nothing to do with a god. Indeed, in such conflicts a god could not determine what is the 'ultimate' good because it doesn't exist. Go back to the Gestapo question: "Have you any Jews hiding in your house"? What could possibly be the objectively good answer to this question for someone who has? What would the alleged mover of the 'prime analogue' say?
Complain about this comment
Brian;
"In fact, if your are seeking a prime analogue, might it not be 'conflict'"
I don't get you. Why would "conflict" be a prime analogue of "good"?
"In other words, there is no essential basis of the good but there are people and their conflicts of desire and interest. What becomes good is the decision that puts others at least equal to, if not more important than, our own"
Why though? Again, that's circular. What is good is what we decide is good? but how do we decide? Well, we balance out everybody's desires and wishes? But why do we decide that that is "good"?
and as for...
"In other words, there is no essential basis of the good but there are people and their conflicts of desire and interest. What becomes good is the decision that puts others at least equal to, if not more important than, our own"
you mean you really don't know? you're suggesting that each answer is equally as "good"?
Really?
I can understand that the balance of "good" must be weighed up in such a decision....although that presupposes "goods" to balance in the first place.
Despite the fact that there are other considerations, and that a balance must be struck, are you seriously suggesting that there is no objectively "good" answer to that question?
It's "no", by the way.
:)
You can't say that "good" is defined by a conflict between different aspects of good that must be reconciled. that already implies an implicit conception of "good" with which to strike a balance. If everything were equally as good as everything else, there would be no need for the conflict, or to strike a balance. every action would be equally neutral, and there'd be no reason to even make a decision.
Complain about this comment
In other words, if there were no prime analogue of good, an action of total inequality would be no less good than one of equality.
and if the prime analogue were "conflict", then there'd be no reason to solve the conflict, or basis on which to do so. So that action disadvantages me? so what? So another action disadvantages you? So what?
Complain about this comment
Helio
"Peter, what is your justification for assigning Attributes to Things, instead of Behaviours to Systems?"
When did I say that?
Actually we've had this argument already, already!
But, sure here goes again!
Basically what you are saying is that morals are constructed. That they are labels ascribed to certain actions. (Vu da jey) (that's not me typing in tongues BTW). It is a thing we humans do. The value 'good' has is of value to us. It is something emergent from biology, and, interactions between biological organisms. (all that was a copy paste and edit from a previous post of mine, saved a bundle of time!)
Helio, (and I've said this before too) I know you are using a word that looks like 'morals' or 'good' is spelt like 'morals' (or good) and no doubt if spoken, would sound like 'morals', but what you mean is behaviour.
What you mean is that we construct behaviours which we find acceptable and unacceptable, behaviours and codes of living which help us get along with one another or which might help some of us in not being too antisocial, but what you do not have AT ALL, IN ANY KIND OF WAY, is anything which might be termed right or wrong.
Let me know where I'm mistaken, (obviously, of course, I can't be 'wrong' in any absolute sense of the word)
Alternatively, instead of just stating that you think we just sorta do good, or morality or whatever, why not have a bash at explaining WHY do we need to bother about good human relations at all.
That's much more interesting. Or maybe H, it's just something you *believe*.
And here, do you think you could reply without using the words, 'sky' and 'pixie'? (cos I haven't mentioned one!)
:-)
Brian
How far do you push this doubt thing?
Complain about this comment
Oh dear - it's hard to keep these threads going, isn't it?
Graham - strict monotheism in C1CE Judaism? Give me a break! We know of at least three prominent sects that were kicking around at the time of Jesus (and pastorphilip, "AD" is only evidence that some stupid monk *believed* Jesus existed - and I don't even deny that Jesus *did* exist, ye numpty! And he's still dead), and they were at each other's throats over doctrinal matters. None of this mattered to the "man in the street", and heterogeneous religious beliefs at a domestic level were rife, as they always have been. Rather, I think, you realise this is problematic for your case, and therefore seek to prove the opposite. Good luck!
Leftow and Swinburne "top flight"?? Yikes. A. They're as boring as get-out, and B. They are trapped in attribute-land.
Peter:
what you do not have AT ALL, IN ANY KIND OF WAY, is anything which might be termed right or wrong.
Yes I do. Right = UPHOLD CONTRACT. Wrong = BREAK CONTRACT. Greater good = UPHOLD MOST IMPORTANT CONTRACT.
Indeed, I would argue that that is much more robust and objective than pinning your morals to the variable whims of some imaginary space pixie. It's practically *mathematical* in its precision and objectivity.
Nighty night - The barque of Re has descended into the underworld; in the morning Khepri the celestial dung-beetle will roll it back up into the sky.
Complain about this comment
H
You do? Oh, no you don't!
Right = UPHOLD CONTRACT. Wrong = BREAK CONTRACT. Greater good = UPHOLD MOST IMPORTANT CONTRACT.
Says you and whose army? I mean why should I keep some stupid promise? I can think of a time when it might be good to break a promise. Can you? And there's a most important one? How would we know it when we saw it?
H, you're going to have to think this through.
BTW you said Sky Pixie, that was very, very wrong of you.
Complain about this comment
Helio
My deepest and humblest apologies, you said 'space', not 'sky'.
I'm a numpty.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure I should join this learned argument for, long ago, I "Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed,/And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse". I am intrigued, however, by what Helio means by contract. In what might the contract we are to uphold or break possibly consist?
Adult male bears eat cubs of their own species - I would not think it wrong for a man to kill a child and eat it. If one looks at the duration of the universe and the span a human life, the extent of the cosmos and the specificity of a particular existence it is obviously of no ultimate significance whatsoever - why should we worry about it? What contract would prevent me killing anyone I felt like? Why should I abide by it?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
MORALITY AND CONFLICT
I do wish you would elaborate more about what you mean. As it is, it's a bit of a guessing game because you would rather hide behind questions than provide explanations. It was you who introduced the word 'analogue'. We are discussing the basis of morality, so let's stick to that. I suggested that a basis was the existence of conflicting wishes and aims. If there was no conflict there would be no need for morality. The conflict may be resolved by our own decisions, by laws, by consensus, public opinion or whatever - not necessarily to our individual preference and certainly not necessarily for all time. We as individuals may not agree with the law; we may think it is immoral. So we may try to get the law changed. Discrimination against groups on the basis of colour, creed or sexual orientation are examples.
There is no single, objective basis for this morality.
ANIMAL ETHICS
To say that morality is God-given is to ignore animals, which have similar, though less developed,
cooperative and tribal instincts to humans. Blackbirds and thrushes give warning calls when hawks fly overhead, which benefit other members of the flock but put in danger the bird giving the call. This is only one example of altruistic behaviour by other animals. Food sharing is common, as is helping injured animals. Monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations. This suggests that morality is grounded in the natural world and is not invented by humans, though obviously the language of ethics is human.
So:morality has its origin in the natural world and is based on is based on the need to resolve conflict.
THE GOD EVASION
Obviously, you believe that morality comes from God. He is the source of 'good'. Our being good therefore means that we do what we think he thinks is good. This is entirely arbitrary. And what we think he thinks is good changes in time and place. This is presumably our mistake, not his. For to him good is eternal and unchanging. Or is it?
Let's take an example. One of the 10 Commandments allegedly handed by God to Moses in tablets of stone (do you think they were God's or did Moses merely think they were?) is 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'. But why not: "Thou shalt not commit rape"? The latter is likely to be a far more violent act than adultery, yet adultery is forbidden but rape isn't. The explanation, of course, is that the Old Testament morality did not acknowledge that women had basic human rights.
Let us return again to my earlier example again, which you have not replied to. Does your absolute, objective morality inform you as to whether it would have been good to lie about Jews being in the house to a member of the Gestapo rounding up Jews in Nazi Germany. Which is more basic in this instance? Telling the truth or trying to protect lives? Or a related question: if you are a Christian leader and you know that a race of people are being exterminated purely on grounds of their race, do you keep quiet, or do you protest loudly and clearly?
The point is that in the real world we are faced with such dilemmas and choices all the time. We are choosing between greater and lesser goods, between the lesser of two or more 'evils', between one good value and another good value. And often it isn't easy.
You say that if there were no prime 'analogue' of good, an action of total inequality would be no less good than one of equality. But there are many who believe that inequality IS better than equality because some deserve more than others. They think that inequality is 'fairer'. Indeed, the world is economically structured on precisely this basis. Now, you may think that 'the prime analogue', i.e. God's conception of the good in this matter, is based on the equality of all God's creation (human, presumably, not including other animals?)
But does this equality mean equality of rights? equality of wealth? equality of opportunity? equality of rewards? It seems to me that different have interpreted this in many different ways. And certainly many wealthy Christians believe and have believed that their wealth was God's reward for their hard work or their piety or whatever.
Moreover, your God would seem not to have followed his own precepts because he presumably made us different and not equal: some are weak, some strong, some are born with a silver spoon in America and some are born in the Congo, one of the poorest countries in the world.
Perhaps you could give another example of a 'prime analogue good'.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
Not only do you misrepresent me, you obviously haven't even read my posts. This is evident because you claim I haven't answered your Gestapo question.
Actually, I gave as clear an answer as it is possible to get. I'll quote it for you:
"It's "no", by the way" - post 151.
However, I'll get on to that.
"We are discussing the basis of morality, so let's stick to that"
Actually, we were discussing the basis of "good", which is not the same thing.
I am suggesting that morality is a STRUGGLE and a DEVELOPMENT towards achieving what is "good".
"I suggested that a basis was the existence of conflicting wishes and aims. If there was no conflict there would be no need for morality".
True. Hence morality is a development of ideals attempting to resolve conflict. Right.
But now, WHY attempt to solve conflict? To achieve "the good"?
If so, conflict is not the basis of the good, but rather a dialectical process of the striving towards the good.
So what is the basis of the "good"?
"We as individuals may not agree with the law; we may think it is immoral."
Why? surely "immoral", by your reckoning means "unresolved conflict". But why does conflict arise unless there is a more basic difference between "good" and "bad"? How could conflict ever be solved, if there were no "good" and "bad" between which to decide.
Were there no more fundamental basis for good and bad than a desire to solve conflict, why desire to solve conflict at all? If there were no more fundamental basis for good and bad than the solving of conflict, why would conflict arise in the first place?
"There is no single, objective basis for this morality."
Except that it always strives towards the good. That is why it changes. Did it not strive towards something "better", there would be no change, because one set of circumstances would be no better or worse than another.
You're really looking at morality quite superficially there. yes, it's a process of development towards solving conflict. But why should there be conflict, and why should we strive to solve it?
"To say that morality is God-given is to ignore animals"
nonsense. how is it? Animals are explicitly included in most systems of religious ethics.
"Food sharing is common, as is helping injured animals. Monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations. This suggests that morality is grounded in the natural world and is not invented by humans"
Indeed. Surely you were the one saying it was invented by humans as a system of solving conflicts. I think it is firmly grounded in the natural world, insofar as existence in itself is a good.
Again, I think existence in itself is a good because it has a purpose of moving beyond itself to the transcendent.
Now, I'll ask again, why do you think existence in itself is good?
"morality has its origin in the natural world and is based on the need to resolve conflict"
What "Need" is this? Where is it found in the natural world? Surely the natural world is ambivalent to conflcit or otherwise....especially if there is no prior basis for "good", and every set of circumstances is as natural as every other. Which is what you have been claiming.
"Obviously, you believe that morality comes from God".
I believe that morality STRIVES to reach God. that's different.
"He is the source of 'good'. Our being good therefore means that we do what we think he thinks is good"
No. Our being good means that we do "what is good". As author of existence, which is a good in itself, God is therefore author of "good".
I am not saying that God arbitrarily decides what is good. I am saying that God creates existence, and existence, as the fullness of reality, is the fundamental basis of anything that could be called "good".
Any particular "good" we strive for is ultimately based on recognition of the goodness of existence. And God is the source of existence.
"This is entirely arbitrary"
Nonsense. It is entirely universal, relating as it does to the entirety of the universe.
Existence in itself is good...thus our striving to do good strives for the fullness of existence. that is not arbitrary, but clearly focused.
"And what we think he thinks is good changes in time and place."
Existence is always good. What changes are our attempts and systems aimed at achieving the fullness of existence. This is not surprising, given that we are prone to mistakes.
The goal doesn't change, but the process of reaching it does.
Now, as you are claiming that ultimately there is no goal, I don't see how you can complain about the method changing.
The good remains the same. The AIM of morality remains the same. Particular moralities, and ways of achieving that aim, differ.
"Let's take an example. One of the 10 Commandments allegedly handed by God to Moses in tablets of stone (do you think they were God's or did Moses merely think they were?)"
I think they were probably a set of moral codes particularly suited to Moses and his particular time and place in history. Aimed, like all morality, at achieving the good in as much as possible.
"'Thou shalt not commit adultery'. But why not: "Thou shalt not commit rape"? The latter is likely to be a far more violent act than adultery, yet adultery is forbidden but rape isn't. The explanation, of course, is that the Old Testament morality did not acknowledge that women had basic human rights."
I'm not sure I've ever read such a spurious argument.
Not only that, but completely irrelevant. I have accepted that morals change. what I don't accept is that their ultimate aim changes.
Why would any morals arise, if not for a greater aim? Why not do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law?
"Let us return again to my earlier example again, which you have not replied to."
As I said above, yes I have.
"Does your absolute, objective morality"....
I've never said there was an absolute objective morality. It explains a lot to realise that you have been conflating "good" with "morality". But that is not accurate, as I've explained above.
"inform you as to whether it would have been good to lie about Jews being in the house to a member of the Gestapo rounding up Jews in Nazi Germany."
Yes. Lie about it to try to save lives.
"Which is more basic in this instance? Telling the truth or trying to protect lives?"
Trying to protect lives....in order to achieve the fullness of existence.
"Or a related question: if you are a Christian leader and you know that a race of people are being exterminated purely on grounds of their race, do you keep quiet, or do you protest loudly and clearly?"
B!
"The point is that in the real world we are faced with such dilemmas and choices all the time."
Indeed. That is because we are not perfect, and our system of morals is an approximation at trying to achieve the "good", which always falls short. That's precisely what I've been arguing!
"We are choosing between greater and lesser goods,"
But how can you calibrate "greater" and "lesser" without an ideal? what is "good"?
"But there are many who believe that inequality IS better than equality because some deserve more than others. They think that inequality is 'fairer'."
And do you agree? I wonder, how would we ever attempt to decide who is right? Are both right? does it make sense for us to wonder about it, or is it just a brute fact...both and neither are right?
"'the prime analogue', i.e. God's conception of the good in this matter"
No, "God's CREATION of existence....which is "good"."
"is based on the equality of all God's creation (human, presumably, not including other animals?)"
Including animals...equal, but different.
"But does this equality mean equality of rights? equality of wealth? equality of opportunity? equality of rewards? It seems to me that different have interpreted this in many different ways."
Indeed. Our system of morality is constantly developing and changing. but why? Were we not striving for the ultimate answer, people wouldn't have bothered interpreting it in different ways...sure it's all the same.
Again, this is where your conflation of "morality" and "good" does you a disservice.
"Moreover, your God would seem not to have followed his own precepts because he presumably made us different and not equal"
Well, different but equal. Different in circumstance, equal in dignity.
"Perhaps you could give another example of a 'prime analogue good'."
There isn't one. that's why it's "Prime".
Complain about this comment
Helio
Which three sects weren't monotheistic in 1st Century Palestine? I'd love to see the evidence.
There is no evidence that the man on the street wasn't Torah observant. Quite the opposite in fact. Mikvehs abound. Animal remains are of Kosher food. The people were prepared to riot over votive shields at the Temple, over the belief that there was no king but YHWH, and prepared to be slaughtered over the statue of Caligula. So, no, I don't feel any pressure here at all. I'm bewildered that you would think that polytheists permeated 1st Century Palestine or the Jewish Diaspora. What is your source here? They took different standards to Torah obedience. Is that what you mean?
And what do you mean about attributes?
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham, you are confusing the organised religion with the personal religion. We KNOW that the personal religion of many (perhaps even MOST) people in C1CE Palestine was rather diverse, and that crazy beliefs abounded. Polytheism is actually neither here nor there. The conception of the divine is far far more nuanced than a dichotomy between polytheism and monotheism, as both Egyptian and Greek religion demonstrate. In 2000 years, perhaps archaeologists will think we were all Free Presbyterians? It was an eschatologically charged time, and any two-bit (or even two-donkey) messiah could rustle up a load of followers in quick order. Hosanna, indeed. JtB was enormously popular, but considered heretical by the mainstream. Our old pal Honi probably likewise (he's probably the source of the apocryphal story of "Jesus" and the woman caught in adultery). So I am on rather solid ground here. This was Jerusalem - not Kabul under the Taleban.
Peter:
I mean why should I keep some stupid promise?
You don't really get it, do you? You were asking how I attach labels of "right" and "wrong"; I told you how we humans do this. What is your problem? Suppose I flip it around? How do YOU determine what is "right" and "wrong"?
Reference to your space pixie?
Why should you do "right"? Space pixie says so? So what? What if I ignore the space pixie? Why should I do what it says?
What I am saying is that we attach labels to things: right vs wrong. We use that as part of our decision-making process. We have an eye to the consequences, and an eye to perceived contracts (not "promises" - these need not be explicit - implicit is perfectly fine).
The space pixie is entirely redundant, both in determining WHAT is "right" and in determining how we humans make that judgement.
Back to Graham: attributes. Things are not "right" or "wrong" in and of themselves. These are LABELS we attach to concepts, and we use them in our mental handling of these things. THINGS do not have ATTRIBUTES; SYSTEMS have BEHAVIOURS, and one of the core behaviours of human systems is to reify concepts and attach labels to them. We need to watch out for these wee foibles, especially when "top flight" theologians end up making nancies of themselves over them, eh?
Complain about this comment
OK Helio
So we were using the word 'promise' differently, fine.
We keep an eye on the consequences, OK. I'll presume that you mean that depending on or with reference to the consequences/outcomes of a set of decisions, or the expected consequences of decisions we say, 'good' or 'bad' or 'right' or 'wrong'. Then as we build up an understanding of a whole range of outcomes and consequences resulting from decisions we and others have made (at an individual and group level) we learn what is 'good' and we learn what is 'bad' and we act accordingly making tweeks and changes and relabelling along the way as we learn and observe more and more about what certain actions cause.
Is that what you're saying?
So to take Brian's example, of the Gestapo, telling a lie might be the right thing to do if it saved lives? It might be the wrong thing to do if it caused a loss of life?
Complain about this comment
Peter, context is everything. Actions are not right or wrong in and of themselves. We have this sense of right and wring that evolution appears to have bestowed upon us, in that we assess options and use our "moralometer" as a weighting mechanism in making decisions. Our moralometer is programmed by our genes and our upbringing, and the weighting it applies to different scenarios varies.
I have a "contract" with the Gestapo officer not to lie to him. I also have a contract with the group of Jews hiding in my basement. My contract with the Gestapo officer is of VASTLY less value to me than my contract with those I am protecting, so I feel entirely morally justified in lying to him, and make the choice to do so.
It is not that lying "is" right or wrong per se. I have a decision to make, and if I tell him the truth, I violate a more important contract.
Now, if you say that the complexities of morality can be boiled down to a set of rules on *which decisions to make* rather than the processes that should be adopted in making decisions, you are not being sensible. If you suggest, for example, that the 10 commandments contain the highest moral value, I would suggest that this is not so, and that in doing so, you are being *immoral*.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Yes, nice. :-)
But let me go back to what I said earlier, "what you do not have AT ALL, IN ANY KIND OF WAY, is anything which might be termed right or wrong." In other words you only have what you say is right or wrong, good or bad. You have situational ethics. You see I don't misunderstand you at all.
Now, I have a 'contract' with the Gestapo officer, a 'contract' with the group of Jews in the basement and a 'contract' with my wife and kids. The Gestapo officer has pretty good 'intelligence', and a Walther PPK, and puts a bit of pressure on me, well actually on my wife and kids, so I tell him the truth, 'violate a more important contract', but keep the most important contract. The Jews die. There is no right or wrong per se. Pity that cos 'you're' a Jew.
"Now, if you say that the complexities of morality can be boiled down to a set of rules..." but Helio, I wouldn't say that, I would never say that.
Oh, and nobody's saying we don't have difficult decisions to make.
Complain about this comment
Peter, that all depends on how you value your respective contracts (remember, these are perceived or expected entities, not formal agreements). But I would push you even further - YOU have even LESS "right" or "wrong" - all you have is the whim of the space pixie, and again, you may yield to some temptation, and disobey your sorry excuse for a god, but is that disobedience wrong in itself?
Let me be quite clear - the Hebrews were WRONG to commit genocide on the Amalekites. They *should* have told the crazed prophet of their miserable Sinaitic moon god to get stuffed. Abraham was WRONG to obey this malignant deity and begin to sacrifice his son on Mt Moriah.
*I* am in a position to say that - unfortunately you are not, because you have yielded your very morality to this imaginary superstition. That is really sad, and it is one of the reasons why religious belief is a problem for society, and part of the reason why I think people *should* be atheists. Religion is fundamentally *immoral*.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
THE GOOD
Distinguishing between 'moral' and 'good' in connection with ethics is, in my view, just playing with words. There is no such distinction. You suggest that morality is the means and the good is the end. This is a false dichotomy. Life is about both means and ends. What is an end is one endeavour is likely to become a means in another. For example, an equal pay act, fought for for many years, can be a means of stopping an employer from underpaying women.
Moreover, the 'ends' are rarely, if ever final, because that would imply a perfect state, which does not exist and never will. We will never achieve perfect goodness, perfect kindness, perfect equality, perfect justice etc. Of course, we strive to get closer, and in some cases we clearly do: the world is fairer for women than it was in Biblical times.
This raises a basic problem I have with your approach. Morality is a development towards the good, but I cannot see how the Bible is a good guide in this direction. It seems to me, on the contrary, to be a lousy basis upon which to seek the good. Let us return to the example of women. You say that I'm using a spurious argument in implying that the Bible was written by men for men. But read Leviticus. Most of its admonitions concern male behaviour. A number of acts make men 'unclean' and in need of purification, which of course can only be offered by the priest - with payment in animal sacrifice. And what are the things that men men unclean: mostly food and sex, the basic things in life. So the priest is required in the most ordinary things. But it gets worse. For Leviticus associates sex, the female body, and disease. Sexual intercourse, disease, menstruation and childbirth are all seen as related and unclean. Menstruation is called a sickness and childbirth infirmity. The punishment for sexual intercourse while the woman is menstruating is exile. In all the impurities or uncleannesses or abominations there is no mention of urine, vomit, sputum or faeces, all of which are more potentially disease-ridden than the sperm or menstrual fluid with which it is obsessed. In other words, it is a patriarchal perspective which finds 'unclean' those things which tie men to women and thus to nature.
The reason that I mentioned the absence of any commandment against rape is that the Bible swould seem to approve of it. In Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, the Israelites often attack their neighbours, committing genocide and taking women, children and livestock as spoil. On one notable occasion they are fortunate to secure 32,000 virgins as 'booty' (Numbers 31:35).
In Deuteronomy 20:13-14, God is said to offer some advice to the Israelites on what to do once they have conquered a certain city: "thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword" and take the ' women, and the little ones ...'unto thyself'. Since God's commandments are presumably just by definition, it appears that a just war is to include murder, plunder and rape. I mean, in all honesty, Bernard, I cannot for the life of me see how this kind of morality can in any way gets us closer to 'the good'. Can you?
ANIMALS
You say that animals are explicitly included in most systems of religious ethics. I am not sure if you are referring to the way we treat them. If so, the Bible is again an appalling guide to the 'good' of animal welfare.But, leaving that aside, do you mean that you believe animals have souls? That they go to heaven or hell?
Just to clarify my own position, morality is the product of nature and conflict. Human ethics is invented by humans and animal ethics by animals, but they will overlap in a world that all living things share. Thus I care for my dog. My dog is 'good' in that she doesn't bite people and she doesn't steal off my plate (instead she looks at me with pleading eyes until I give her share). I believe that animals have rights, though I would accept a hierarchy of rights with us at the top of the pyramid.
Are you saying that equality is the prime analogue good of which you are talking? And if so, do insects have equality of rights with humans?
Bernard, there are certainly 'goods' worth seeking but searching for a prime good is futile. You are on a wild goose chase. It is a 'wlll o' the wisp'.
Complain about this comment
Helio
We need to be careful that this doesn't turn into my 'good's better than your good', but let's go on anyway.
"that all depends on how you value your respective contracts" - Indeed - my point exactly, but 'you're' the 'dead' Jew, remember, so it won't bother you.
Or how the Hebrews valued their contracts, perceived or otherwise. Or the Amalekites theirs. Sorry H but you have no basis for being their judge, there is nothing in your world view which allows you to say that. It was just their "moralometer programmed by genes and upbringing."
You have no basis to point at anyone else and say wrong, none, sorry, it ain't their. As I said you can type the word w - r - o - n - g but it has no meaning, none, you already said this yourself. It's only a label which you attached.
And your world view has no justice either.
And here, what's 'value'?
Complain about this comment
Brian, I'm not sure how we got to this point, so you'll forgive me if I wonder why we're only talking in connection with ethics.
I seem to remember that I posited God as the source of "good".
But let's clear a few things up before you make any judgments on the bible as an ethical guide. I'm more interested in finding out about the nature of "good" and the object of ethics.
For the record, I don't think that the bible is primarily an ethical work. I think that its major purpose is to convey metaphysical truths in a way that can even be understood in a cursory way by young children. I think that it prescribes a system of ethics appropriate to the particular circumstances in which it is written, but that, in doing so it expresses deeper metaphysical accounts of "good" and "God", and His communion.
So, I have already admitted that ethics develops. I have no problem admitting that the ethics of the Bible are also subject to development.
What interests me is the ultimate object of that development. Again i emphasise, I am not interested in asserting that the particular ethical systems outlined in the bible are not subject to development. I believe that they contain core insights, and that the motivation to achieve the good is evident in those systems, but they are subject to development and improvement....as, indeed, they have always been.
So most of the latter part of your post doesn't really apply to the argument I'm making. again, when discussiong universal questions you make a list of particularities.
"Distinguishing between 'moral' and 'good' in connection with ethics is, in my view, just playing with words."
But surely morality is not the only good? After all, you said beauty was a good, and it is ambivalent to morality. So there quite obviously IS a distinction.
"You suggest that morality is the means and the good is the end.....For example, an equal pay act, fought for for many years, can be a means of stopping an employer from underpaying women."
Yes. So a system of laws or morality is used as a means to achieve a "good". i don't see the contradiction there. The Act is not good in itself, but a means to achieve good. maybe we'll develop a better Act, or even better, develop a fuller conception of equality. Morality striving towards the good, you see.
"Moreover, the 'ends' are rarely, if ever final"
Indeed. there is only one final end. every other is simply another means.
"because that would imply a perfect state, which does not exist and never will."
What makes you say that? Have you any reason whatsoever? Does that not mean that all of our striving is in vain?
"We will never achieve perfect goodness, perfect kindness, perfect equality, perfect justice etc."
We certainly haven't yet....and yet we keep trying.
"Of course, we strive to get closer, and in some cases we clearly do:"
Closer to what? the ideal that you have just said doesn't exist? There is clearly an ideal of "good"...otherwise there would be nothing to get closer to
Can't you see that even the way you're casually using words betrays the nonsense of your claims. There is no such thing as perfection, but we get closer to it? There is no ultimate ideal of "good", but we're always trying to reach it?
"the world is fairer for women than it was in Biblical times."
What do you mean, fairer? Closer to the "good"...? Why is one thing fair and another unfair?
"Morality is a development towards the good, but I cannot see how the Bible is a good guide in this direction."
I'm not surprised you can't see that, as you said earlier that morality is NOT a development towards the "good", but that it in itself is "the good"". Have you now changed your mind? So now it IS a development towards the good, as I said?
It makes sense that you you don't believe the bible provides a good guide for a route that you beleve not to exist.
"It seems to me, on the contrary, to be a lousy basis upon which to seek the good."
I thought there were no good, apart from the striving morality itself? If that's the case, it's the striving that counts, and any striving is as good as any other....there is no object, so blind striving is as good as sighted.
"...the Bible was written by men for men."
Again, I agree that the ethics in the bible are subject to a development. the Bible tells us towards what that development can be. So your particularities about Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy make no odds.
"you believe animals have souls?"
Souls particular to them, yes. Animal souls, if you like.
"That they go to heaven or hell?"
I have absolutely no idea. In fact, I have no idea what it is like to be a lower animal in any sense whatsoever do you? Does your ethics tell you?
"Just to clarify my own position, morality is the product of nature and conflict"
But WHY though? Why can nature not accept conflict? why does a system of "morality" have to be invented, if not to achieve something?
"Human ethics is invented by humans and animal ethics by animals"
WHY though. What is the purpose of these elaborate systems?
"Are you saying that equality is the prime analogue good of which you are talking?"
NO. I never mentioned equality, except when YOU said it was the basis of morality. now you're saying it's not?
I'm saying that a communion of the universe with its creator is the prime analogue of good. It is the ultimate end of all striving. Thus, in a sense, all of creation is good, insofar as it can approximate a communion with the infinite Other. Equality would obviously help that, so therefore equality is a particular end which can be aimed at achieving the ultimate end.
What for you is the ultimate end?
If there is no ultimate end, why the striving? How can we speak of development, or ends, or good?
"Bernard, there are certainly 'goods' worth seeking but searching for a prime good is futile."
Why are those goods "good", unless with some supposed heuristic reference to an end?
How can you speak of "good" if there is no ultimate end?
Or, if there are merely a large series of particular ends, why are they ends?
How is anything good in itself, if not through the loving act of creation that constitutes all of the universe?
Eh?
Perhaps it is you on the goose chase, chasing an endless series of particular "goods", each of which becomes dependent on another "good", and so on, in ever decreasing circles.
Complain about this comment
PS;
I will be away until the weekend, so take your time replying.
:)
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
You say: "But surely morality is not the only good? After all, you said beauty was a good, and it is ambivalent to morality. So there quite obviously IS a distinction".
I referred to the word 'good' in connection with morality. Obviously, it is used in many contexts because, as I said, it is a hold-all term used to describe things we like.
Fox's Classic biscuits are good because I like them and so does my dog. So we both approve of their taste.
The fact that the word 'good' is a loose word employed in many contexts doesn't imply that we cannot use it in the context of moral, or that what is moral means anything significantly different in an ethical sense from what is good. As I say, you're only playing with words.
You say: "You suggest that morality is the means and the good is the end.....For example, an equal pay act, fought for for many years, can be a means of stopping an employer from underpaying women. Yes. So a system of laws or morality is used as a means to achieve a "good". I don't see the contradiction there. The Act is not good in itself, but a means to achieve good. maybe we'll develop a better Act, or even better, develop a fuller conception of equality. Morality striving towards the good, you see".
No, wrong. The act is good because it establishes a principle (nothing is 'good in itself' if by that you mean that there is no reason for it being good: Fox's Classic biscuits are 'good' because to me and Molly they taste nice: we presumably both like the combination of honeycomb, cream and chocolate (coating)). That principle should then guide employers' decisions. If they make the right decisions and pay women the same as men for the same work, that, too, is good. Both the principle and the action upon which it is based are 'good'.
Otherwise, you are implying that the principle by itself is not good; it only becomes good in action. This is a false distinction.
You quote me: "because that would imply a perfect state, which does not exist and never will." And then say:
"What makes you say that? Have you any reason whatsoever? Does that not mean that all of our striving is in vain?"
There is no evidence for such a state. Have you any evidence? Moreover, it is highly improbable since we are not perfect beings. Believing that it is possible is Utopian dreaming. We can, thankfully, improve but I doubt if we shall ever reach a state even approximating perfection. One reason is quite simply that our desires conflict: we do not all want to the same things. If we did want the same things, then morality would be unnecessary, which is why I say that the basis of morality is conflict.
As for ideals, most of them are poorly thought out hopes. Yes, most of us have ideals, but I doubt if we have thought them through properly. I have an ideal of perfect peace in the world. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean: no more wars between states? I suppose that could conceivably be achieved, though it's obviously a long way off (and how likely is it to last for ever? And would it exist perfectly amicably without tension?). Does it mean no sub-state 'terrorism'? Does it mean no more fighting between anybody? No punch-ups in the pub? No boxing matches? The more you think about it, the more unlikely it becomes. But of course we should strive to get closer to the ideal, e.g. through multinational arrangements etc. I don't approve of boxing, but if people want to pummel each other's brains for sport (and money), that's their decision, I suppose.
You quote me: "Morality is a development towards the good..."
If you look at the previous sentence I referred to 'your approach'. This sentence was presenting YOUR view, not mine.
Fairer, yes, which is another way of saying 'more good'. Okay?
You ask: "Why can nature not accept conflict? why does a system of "morality" have to be invented, if not to achieve something?" Yes, it seeks to achieve survival, harmony, living together, contentment etc.
Yes, we strive for ends (plural), but it is wrong to think that there is a single, ultimate end to morality.
You say: "I'm saying that a communion of the universe with its creator is the prime analogue of good. It is the ultimate end of all striving. Thus, in a sense, all of creation is good, insofar as it can approximate a communion with the infinite Other. Equality would obviously help that, so therefore equality is a particular end which can be aimed at achieving the ultimate end".
Equality is certainly an end worth pursuing, and I agree with you on that, but it is not the only end. Freedom is also worth pursuing and, as I have said on another thread, I do not think it is possible to have both complete freedom AND complete equality. We have to compromise. Can you foresee a possible state of both absolute equality and absolute freedom?
As for 'a communion of the universe with its creator', the 'infinite Other', that's poppycock. You are welcome to it, but I don't think it has the remotest connection with anything real or anything moral.
Bernard:
You have kept asking what is the point of morality but finally offer up as the point a 'communion with the Other' as if it rendered it suddenly meaningful. I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
Complain about this comment
Have we converted you to the artsy-fartsy post-modernist cause Helio?
I am loving your unsupported and gloriously undefined statements like: Right = UPHOLD CONTRACT. Wrong = BREAK CONTRACT. Greater good = UPHOLD MOST IMPORTANT CONTRACT.
Is that what you feel or do you just think it sounds good? (For the record I do think it sounds good.
There are a few nuances you have yet to grasp, however, we post-moderns don't do truth. In the absence of truth how could one have a contract not to lie?
I have asked you before, what does truth mean in a world without purpose, a world shaped by chance? The notion of truth has no coherence except as a function of purpose.
Morality is purely a matter of intuition: there is no right and no wrong: the best we can hope for is empathy.
Maybe you can explain to me how your view differs, how your morality is based on anything more than how you feel?
I, too, btw, would not hesitate to tell any prophet who suggested a spot of genocide to go and get lost (or words to that effect).
An aside to Bernard and Brian - instead of an obedient adoring dog I have a cat who does not hesitate to use her claws to climb my leg, who would eat my food given the slightest chance, and who bites my hand when I have scratched her chin for long enough. Is it only because I am a post-modernist Christian that I love her?
Complain about this comment
Peter, you ARE saying that your good (i.e. Space Pixie Says So, SPSS) is better than my good (humans have relationships with other humans, and attach values to those relationships, and their decisions that affect those relationships lead to the concepts of "good" and "bad").
But you're also hopelessly confused. In many ways it does not MATTER whether the Amalekite genocide was "good" or "bad" - attaching labels that far in retrospect is pretty pointless nowadays, but I rather think that the concept of justice *does* flow directly from my formulation. Justice could be seen as an attempt to restore a contract, or resolve the consequences of a breach in proportion to the disparity.
But I would suggest that these are things YOU do under your morality too. You just don't realise it. God is as useless to your morality as it is to mine; the difference is that I can talk about mine without dividing by zero.
And I am not post-modern. There is Truth all right. A contract can be either broken or fulfilled; true or false. The subtleties arise when we attach values to these contracts, but remember it is US who is doing this, not the gods.
SPSS is no basis for moral behaviour. As Euthypro would point out.
Complain about this comment
Helio
"I am on rather solid ground here."
In terms of monotheism, no, you really aren't. What on earth is your source for all of this? I've been looking at the standard texts and can't
find any reference to popular polytheism amongst the Jewish people of this period. Pretty much the oposite in fact.
And you're missing the big picture for the details. A Jew might approach YHWH through Wisdom or Apocalyptic literature. But he still approached the unique YHWH. There are heavenly figures like Enoch - but YHWH is the unique creator and sustainer. No one like the unique YHWH emerges from the literature.
The "people of the land" were contemptible to some of the Rabbis for their ignorance of traditions about Torah. Now *one* understanding of Torah obedience became standard after the Council of Jamnia - something like the Pharisaical view. But there were other approaches that tried to be Torah obedient and were certainly monotheistic. Just look at the commitment to the Temple, the taxes paid to the Temple (which, unlike taxes to the Romans, never became a source of civil unrest), the cry to Petronius "we would rather die than violate our laws".
Now you're not just reading the syncretism of previous centuries into 1st century Palestine. You're reading contemporary pluralism back in there as well.
We have *archaeological evidence* relating to the practice of the common people, and it speaks to Torah faithfulness. They used Mikvehs. Their food was kosher. They used stone vessels so that their water was not ritually impure. Their burial practices reflect belief in a resurrection.
Take Johnathan Reed, an archaeologist with ties to the Jesus seminar - Not an evangelical apologist buy a long, long shot - talking about Sepphoris in Galillee, which was close to the polis of the Decapolis abd far from the Pharisees centre of power (Jerusalem)
"Sepphoris is one of the most deceiving sites for people interested in archaeology and the historical Jesus because all of its wonderful pagan art and architecture gives the impression that Jesus lived in an absolutely Hellenized city. But ****scrape off the many layers from the third, fourth and sixth centuries and one finds a small first-century Jewish city that was clearly averse to the overtly pagan influences that were sweeping over the broader Mediterranean world****. In Jesus' day, it was a ***fairly conservative city****. In the 1920s, '30s and '40s, there was an attempt by some to make Jesus non-Jewish, to make him an Aryan. In the scholarship of that time, Jesus was said to be a descendant of a group called Itureans, who lived north of Galilee. Others have tried in a more subtle anti-Semitic way to suggest that because Jesus was so open and cosmopolitan he couldn't have been Jewish. ***Or that Galilee must have been more mixed and syncretistic, and therefore Jesus was not a typical Jew. But archaeology makes it very clear: Galilee was settled by people from the south, in and around Jerusalem, in about the second century BCE***. So Jesus and almost all Galileans had to have been Jewish."
That's the consensus viewpoint. And that's a radical talking. (Jerusalem is even more conservative again). It sounds to me like a writer somewhere is spreading bad memes about with no regard to the evidence. Yes the Pharisees wanted the am ha arretz to be *more* faithful to *their* traditions. And the Pharisees won. But we don't have evidence that the ordinary people made compromises with paganism. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
GV
PS What's the attribute thingy about? Not an issue I've looked into, so I'm curious.
PPS Elliott Sober has replied to Fodor. "Fodor's Bubbe Meise Against Darwinism." @ http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/recent.html
He doesn't really know what Fodor's point is either, which is comforting. "Bubbe Meise" is Yiddish for "tall tale"or "old wives tale". The piece is a good knock-down of Fodor. Sober also has some good critcisms of ID. They're very,very effective. I don't think he's destroyed the design argument (he seems to think so). But most Theistic philosophers think that he's delivered the goods on ID.
I think Sober's your kind of philosopher. You should take a gander.
Complain about this comment
PPPS
Shouldn't that be FSMSS?
(Flying Spaghetti Monster Says So)
Or are you now a heretic?
Complain about this comment
Actually Helio all I'm saying is what Portwyne is saying, you just haven't grasped, or don't want to acknowledge for some reason or other, that your position necessitates the conclusions Portwyne and I have described. Portie and I may not agree, I'm quite convinced we don't agree on the matter, but we have grasped the implications of the kind of argument you are making, which is, BTW, as soft and dry as the sand in Mitsrayim, and I'd stop digging now if I were you.
Compare our statements (Portwyne's and mine).
Complain about this comment
Graham, sorry - where did I say they were polytheists? They were religious nutters of a mixed sort. That's all.
Peter, you didn't answer my question. I am on at least as good a moral footing as you are, and indeed *better* - you only have SPSS (or FSMSS if you take Graham's view - I don't mind being a heretic; it's my divine calling).
Complain about this comment
I didn't H, you're right! It was this question of course, "How do YOU (I) determine what is 'right' and 'wrong'?"
Then you said 'Space Pixie'.
I of course had tried to ask you to respond to me without saying Pixie Trixie Malixie, simply because part of my answer is based on the fact that I have grasped the reality that your position must inevitably lead to moral feelings but no real or fixed reference, or Truth, as Portwyne said. That is bad enough, but the implications are even worse, you want to say 'right' or 'wrong' but you can't say right or wrong, not consistently anyway and you certainly cannot tell me what my right or wrong is.
Have you heard of Janes Addiction? Maybe not your 'cup of tea', have you heard their music? They have grasped it. They wrote, "Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right, only pleasure and pain."
You really are going to have to think this through cos my answer to your question ain't gonna make no sense now, if you don't. You think me or Graham or Bernard just leap to 'Space Pixie'?
And, you see, it's linked to my question to Brian on doubt, because H, I have doubted, really, I have, and it's scary s***. And doubting God is the easy bit.
You really need to answer Portwyne's question. I don't mean to have to tell me or tell him, I just mean you need to tell yourself.
Or why not have a wee deco at this:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A2141&page_number=17&template_id=1&sort_order=1
Just look at the sculpture.
Complain about this comment
So, not only does truth exist it comes complete with a capital T!
You need to be careful Helio - you might just find those damn space pixies are adapting to different environments...
Complain about this comment
Jews and SS officers make for relatively uncomplicated moral dilemmas.
Suppose I live in a problem estate. I have neighbours on both sides: one is an elderly widow who lives alone but for her beloved terrier who gives her a reason to get up each morning; the other is a depressed teenage mother of low intelligence and too self-absorbed for empathy, she has three young kids whom she allows to run wild and has just had a new baby a fortnight ago.
I am driving along and one of the kids pushes the new baby in its pram directly into my path, if I swerve I will hit and probably kill the terrier who is walking down the pavement. What do I do and why do I do it?
Complain about this comment
Peter - tried to follow your link but my browser does not allow it. I'm intrigued - could you suggest an alternative way to access the sculpture?
Complain about this comment
Transcendent Other? Fixed reference point? Truth as a function of purpose? Are you guys paranoid? You think there's always something lurking behind you watching your every move to ensure that it fulfils the divine transcendence, reference or purpose. But, chaps, don't worry: it is all only a figment of your imagination, with no grounding in reality.
There is no evidence of a 'transcendent other', though there may be 'others' in far off galaxies; there is no 'fixed reference point' nor any need for one; and truths of fact exist whether we like it or not (it is true that I will get ill and die, but at the moment I certainly don't want it to happen).
Moreover, you seem not to face up to the huge incongruity residing in the fact that the path you take to these pure 'spiritual' dimensions is littered with the slaughters of Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, Midianites and Amalekites. "Thou shalt not kill" becomes a hypocritical and meaningless exhortation in the midst of such murder and mayhem. But so too does a 'transcendent other', 'fixed reference point' and 'truth'. Can you think of a WORSE 'transcendence' than a murderous deity, a more false reference point than a God who hates any rivals, and a more futile truth than a god whose moral rectitude is worse than a spoilt child?
Complain about this comment
H
Okay, I've lost the thread of the argument somewhere.
I was responding to these comments -
"strict monotheism in C1CE Judaism? Give me a break! We know of at least three prominent sects that were kicking around at the time of Jesus and they were at each other's throats over doctrinal matters. None of this mattered to the "man in the street", and heterogeneous religious beliefs at a domestic level were rife, as they always have been."
That gave me the impression that you were imagining some sort of polytheism in Galillee and Jerusalem.
"Polytheism is actually neither here nor there. The conception of the divine is far far more nuanced than a dichotomy between polytheism and monotheism, as both Egyptian and Greek religion demonstrate."
Which gave me the impression that you thought Jews could use, say, Stoic conceptions of the divine.
Jews of the period were unanimous on YHWHs identity and uniqueness. There is no evidence that there was a plurality of conceptions that would undermine YHWHs uniqueness. The monotheism was strict.
So, as an analogy - the three members of the Axis of Evil Evangelism (Bernie. PeterM. Me.)would all have different views on Church order, the role of tradition, the role of reason, authority in the Church etc. etc. Now if we could found our own movements they would look very different.(Rest easy, I have no plans in this direction. However if I could found a sect that could bring me a supply of books, coffee and peace and quiet, I would be tempted).
But we still can get lumped together *by another* because we clearly have core doctrines that we won't compromise on. The same was true for Jews in 1st Century.
The point being that worship of Jesus using (concepts and language reserved from YHWH) in the Earliest Churches, and confession that he rose from the tomb are very difficult to explain. And as the chorus goes, evidence for both is deep and wide.(You remember the actions)
That's what I was arguing about. What were you arguing about?
GV
Complain about this comment
How do you know truths of fact exist? Specifically how do you know your death will be preceded by illness - have you had a vision? You are sure you won't be knocked down by the proverbial bus? One truth already undermined by careless argument if nothing else...
Complain about this comment
Brian
I hadn't encountered the Barry Wilson hypothesis before, so thanks for the introduction. It's a fairly typical liberal interpretation of Jesus.
If I break it down -
1) Jesus a Jewish Rabbi and revered teacher who obeyed and championed the Torah. He wanted to improve Jewish life, not abolish it and he did not proclaim himself to be a 'Christ' figure.
2) James and other followers established the 'Jesus movement', and after his death in about AD 30 they waited for him to return to create the promised kingdom of God.
3) James's death in the early 60s, the Jesus movement suffered a leadership crisis
4) The Christ movement launched by Paul became dominant. This movement was Hellenic.
Now there are real strengths to this interpretation
A) It allows that reliable teachings of Jesus would be preserved
B) It has a Jewish, as opposed to Cynic, Jesus. So Jesus is explicable only against a Jewish background
C) It recognises the importance of James
The weaknesses as I see them
A*) It is very difficult to explain and understand the Kingdom of God language as mere social and political renewal of Galilean communities. Albert Schweitzer was correct - Jesus needs to be understood agaist the background of Jewish apocalyptic expectations. If John the Baptist had an eschatological message, and the eary Church had an eschatological message, and Jesus taught in a culture that linked eschatology and politics, then we need to keep eschatology in Jesus preaching of the Kingdom.
B*) It ignores the evidence that Paul sought James approval, that Paul's thought remained Jewish, and that Paul's high Christology predates the eecution of James, that the controversies with Jerusalem were about Torah and not Christology. (In fact the interpretation of Paul is very weak).
C*) It does not explain how the Jesus movement survived the Crucifixion.
D*) The very early worship of Jesus can only be explained if Jesus gave himself a role equivalent to YHWHs - a role in eschatology.
GV
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
The link was to an Alberto Giacometti piece, 'Man Pointing' on the Museum of Modern Art (NY) website. If you try the homepage
http://www.moma.org/
and search for Alberto Giacometti you will find a selection of links including one to Man Pointing. That worked for me anyway. You might also be interested in a slide presentation of his work on the same website at:
http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/giacometti/start/goflash.html
infact if you do look up some of his work, especially the 'figures' like Man Pointing or Man Walking I'd be interested to hear what you think you see.
Complain about this comment
Brian - it staggers me that anyone could so misunderstand my postings!
I have made it often and abundantly clear that I consider it meaningless to speak of God in terms of existence. I do not think there is anything lurking around behind my shoulder. I do not believe the universe has any purpose and I recognise the one inescapable conclusion of that belief: in the absence of purpose, any notion of truth loses all coherence.
If for you truth is merely a matter of facts then the strong trample the weak and that is moral because whatever is, is right. Right?
I conclude there is no possible ground for morality beyond sentiment - to pretend otherwise is to be dishonest.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Funny, I don't feel paranoid at all, I've stopped worrying, and am enjoying my life.
I would be interested to know though, how you know and why you think the imaginary Space Pixie is a "murderous deity", if you have "no fixed reference point."
Complain about this comment
Graham:
One thing that Wilson's book explains for me is the virulent anti-Semitism of Christianity for most of its history. The switch of the religion of Paul for the religion of Jesus had to create a hostile differentiation for everything Jewish. Hence the attacks on Jews as the murderers of Jewish and the downplaying of the responsibility of the Romans, especially Pilate, who in the accounts of Philo and Josephus was in reality a cruel ruler, totally insensitive to Jewish customs.
Wilson also points out that the Christifier's rewriting of the religion of Jesus as the Christ fits a history of Biblical rewriting. The later book of Chronicles, for example, rewrote the earlier account of King David in 2 Samuel, whitewashing many of his character flaws.
Wilson's thesis doesn't contradict an eschatalogy in the original Jesus.
Portwyne:
Say what you like, but I don't think you are describing your own position accurately. You certainly aren't fair to mine. I have already stated often enough that I think there are truths of fact AND truths of value. Neither, Peter please note, are necessarily fixed or immutable. And certainly, it is not necessarily the case that whatever is, is right. This is the theist's position in the sense that "whatever God says is right, is right".
It almost staggers me how anyone could so misunderstand my postings.
Peter:
Are you saying yourself that murder is always wrong? It certainly wasn't if you were on God's side in the OT. Let's go back to the Nazis. President Benes of Czechoslovakia said that if he was ever invited to meet Hitler, he would carry a gun in his pocket. Would you maintain that he would have been wrong to 'murder' Hitler. Or are you going to tell that it would not be 'murder'? What is 'murder'? (is killing the elected leader of a state not 'murder'?). If killing Hitler had saved 6 million Jews, would it have been wrong?
The point, Peter, is that there are NO fixed reference points in morality. If there were, we would still have a world of slavery, a world where animals have no rights, and a world where gays were executed. Thank goodness, there are no fixed reference points (and thank goodness the Bible is being discarded as one of them).
Complain about this comment
Brian
If Jesus could have an apocalyptic eschatology, then I think it would be simpler to assume that he gave himself a role in that Christology than assume it was a "mistake" made by his followers. We need some cause for the very High Christology in all the Early Churches. If a person wishes to be skeptical, it would be simpler to say that a charismatic figure like Jesus was mistaken about his own eschatological role. This would explain the incident in the Temple and the Crucifixion, for example.
Most of the Pauline doctrines once assumed to be Hellenic can be explained by Jewish doctrines. Paul was thoroughly Jewish. Ironically the "Gentile" Paul is usually reagrded as an anti-semtic fiction. (Not that Wilson is being anti-semitic. The roots of the idea are said to be anti-semtic.)
Christian anti-semitism really only gets going after the Jewish Wars, and is set by the Bar Kochba revolt. The Jewish Churches were devastated by the two wars. The Jewish Council of Jamnia began to set the boundaried of Judaism around the Pharisaic interpetation of the law, in want of a Temple. The "Birkat ha-Minim" tried to remove heretics (eg Christians) from the synagogues. The Churches, by the time of the Church Fathers, were trying to prevent Christians from attending synagogues. (However, the fact that they needed to impose a ban means that synagogue attendance was still popular among Christians, despite the Birkat ha-Minim").
The long and the short - I don't think that we can draw a straight line from Paul to Christian anti-semitism (although James and Paul did have differing approaches to their Christianity. James was more of a Messianic Jew, Paul a Jewish Christian. Still, his gospel was to the "Jew First" and he fervently believed that Israel had a part in God's plan).
GV
Complain about this comment
Murder
The intentional killing of an innocent person.
Now we can ask for defintions - what counts as innocence? what makes someone a person?
And we can ask epistemological questions. How can we determine innocence? How do we determine another persons intentions?
And then there are practical questions. How certain do we have to be that another person is innocent?
None of which undermines the definition of murder, none of which undermines the "rule" - murder is always wrong. It just means that rules are not enough. Life is too complex to be encompassed by a simple set of rules.
We need examples to follow, stories, proverbs and so forth. SO something like "virtue ethics" seems necessary. A virtue is a deep, abiding excellence in a person that produces good motivations and good actions. Courage, love, compassion and humility are all virtues.
Now we have near universal agreement on virtue lists. (We don't have agreement on their relative importance. We don't have agreement on how to apply them. So we need to have personal wisdom.)
And certain rules follow from what a virtuous person would *never* do. But I don't see that the mere fact of moral disagreement establishes anything about moral objectivity.
GV
Complain about this comment
Okay, here's a moral rule that everyone holds to.
"It is wrong, always and everywhere, to torture a baby to death *merely* for fun."
That is, the *only* justification for the act is fun.
GV
Complain about this comment
Brian
Am I saying that murder is always wrong?
In terms of Grahams definition, yes.
The point however is not that sometimes we have to make difficult decisions, not that sometimes we are forced to decide on the lesser of two evils, but that within a worldview which says, "no fixed reference point, and no need for one", then each decides according to his or her own preference, sentiment or whim and that there is then no basis for saying, 'you (whoever that is) have made the wrong decision'. At the the moment all I'm arguing for is some kind of reference, some kind of basis upon which to make our decisions and point out that you and Helio don't really mean NO fixed reference points. I suggest to you that you have fixed reference points and that they are here: http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration Point 4 is odd though, don't you think, "Humanism insists..... Humanism is undogmatic"
If killing Hitler had meant saving 6 million Jews, would it have been wrong? If killing 2 Nazis had meant saving 6 million Jews would that have been wrong? If killing 3 Nazis had meant saving 6 million Jews would that have been wrong? 1000 Nazis? 100,000 Nazis. 50,000 Amalekites?
So have you fixed reference points or not and on what basis is the Sky Pixie a murderer?
And what about doubt, how far do you push it?
Do you doubt the Amsterdam Declaration for example? Maybe you guys have it wrong!
Complain about this comment
Graham:
If you are suggesting that the intentional killing of innocent people is always wrong is a fixed reference point, then you have at least two tasks here. The first is that the Bible is full of such actions, apparently sanctioned by its God. You mention babies in a subsequent post. But in 1 Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord is said to order the Jews to kill Amalek: do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses. Are these victims, including women, children and animals not innocent, Graham? And, presumably, it was okay to take pleasure in the killing, as it is not specifically prohibited. Would it, incidentally, be possible to justify the killing if it was done reluctantly out of a perceived duty, however misconceived to our mind?
And what on earth are we to make of Psalm 137:9, which displays hatred towards Babylonian women: Blessed will be the one that seizes and dashes your little ones against the rocks?
In Hosea 9:15-16 God even becomes angry at his own people: All their wickedness began at Gilgal; therefore I began to hate them... If thy go forth, I will slaughter their beloved children.
There are possibly as many as 100 cases of murder in the OT, most of them apparently directed or done by its God. Slaughtering babies because we hate the leaders of our tribe or country is surely murder in your definition, Graham.
Leviticus 20:13 commands the killing of gays. Are they innocents, Graham? Leviticus 21:9 commands a priests daughter who has engaged in sex to be oput to dearth. Are they innocent, Graham.
Let me say that in a general sense I agree with you that the killing of innocent people is wrong (presumably, in my example, since Hitler was not innocent, then killing him would have been morally justified, in your view?)
But I partly agree with Portwyne that a key reason for our aversion to killing innocents is moral sentiment, though I would include also the evolution of reason.
The bottom line is that it is precisely because there are no fixed reference points and that we have become more humane that we reject the Biblical ethic. I have made the same point about Jesus and his attempt at a pacifist morality. This is evolution from the OT and is possible as a result of a rejection of the fixed reference points in those more violent OT narratives.
Peter:
It does NOT follow that because there are no 'fixed reference points' that it is every man for himself. In the Bible there were 'fixed reference points' for the Jews, but they didn't apply to their enemies. In other words, they weren't fixed for everyone. In other words, there never have been fixed reference points and even when some people thought there were, it didn't stop them being nasty to people they didn't like.
You are presenting a false dichotomy: either 'a fixed reference' or a 'free for all'. Both are completely wrong.
There has never been either. What you want and I presumably both want is more people to behave in a loving, caring, kind and generous way towards one another and towards other creatures. That is an evolutionary process which is never finished. It has nothing to do with religious faith or Holy Books.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
By the way, you are, as usual, reading too much into too little. The word 'insists' in point 4 of the Amsterdam Declaration simply means to assert, to state or express positively. It is to emphasise that personal freedom is not the be-all and end-all of Humanism, as might be supposed from some popular misconceptions. Social responsibility is also a key value. Alas, there will be those who wish to ignore this point and perversely twist it to assume a statement of dogma.
The Amsterdam Declaration is couched in very general terms which leave the details open to interpretation.
In this sense, there is no dogma here. Perhaps it might be better, Peter, if you stated some specific points of disagreement with the Declaration. I mean: do you not believe in democracy? Do you not believe in human rights? Do you not believe that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision? Do you not believe that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
To stress the point: the list of general values in the Declaration - democracy, human rights, personal freedom, social responsibility etc - is not presented as a dogma to be held unquestionably but as a a tentative guide to living. Humanists are well aware of the complexities and compromises of life: freedoms conflict with other freedoms, rights conflict with other rights, the individual conflicts with society, head counts are not a necessary criterion of truth, and so on.
In the case of Benes and Hitler, I think Benes would have been right to kill Hitler. If your mathematical imaginings are meant to prove that it would have been wrong, then I think you are wrong. Hitler wasn't the same as other Nazis: he was the dictator of the country and ultimately what he wanted, happened. This makes a difference to the situation. Killing him might well have saved 6 million Jews, whereas killing a second, third... Nazi would not have made any difference. We have to determine whether we think a policy of extermination would still have been carried out after Hitler's death. Would others have ordered it? That's the key question, I think.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
many good points have been made, by you and others, but unfortunately I haven't time to go through them all. What I will do is attempt to briefly explain what I don't understand about your position.
On the one hand you say that there are no fixed reference points, but you then say that that is why things have got "better". And, somehow, this is not a free for all, because it is "good" that animals have rights, and homosexuals are not executed.
But really, aren't you just saying that whatever happens to be the case at the time is what is good?
If civilisation became what I would describe as "worse".... say European countries began executing homsexuals, and people began torturing animals for fun... on what grounds could YOU say that that is "worse"? Remember, no fixed reference points.
I don't understand how you can speak of "development" without a fixed reference point. Towards what?
I don't understand how you can say that one thing is "better" than another...not just for you, but in general, somehow...without a fixed reference point with which to calbrate "better" and "worse"....surely without a fixed reference point all you can say is "different".
If you were to say "better for ME, because it gives ME pleasure", I could understand that.
But in what way is it "better" that we no longer execute homosexuals? It's better for them, obviously, but is it just them? Or is it better for everyone because it reflects a civilised and humane society?
But why is that "better"? Could some hypothetical person not argue that that is "worse"...and be entirely justified in doing so, beyond all debate?
Or are you arguing for some broadly utilitarian ethic, and a calculation of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number?
Because I've never understood how a utilitarian ethic can ground itself. why aim for the greatest pleasure for the greatest number? Why not aim for my own pleasure, and balls to everyone else?
That's what I don't understand
Complain about this comment
Brian
I think it will probably be unhelpful to become bogged down in some kind of semantic debate. 'Fixed' 'free' 'right' 'wrong' and so on all of these things need to be interpreted and debated and there will always be grey areas in life, so let's try and establish some points of agreement.
In terms of the Amsterdam Declaration for example there is much with which I can agree, much of it is good, indeed I would say that much of it should be fixed when it comes to human interaction. Affirming the worth of every human being for example is good, indeed I would suggest that this is a statement which should be pretty fixed, why would we want to change this? "Humans have a duty of care..." Again I can fully endorse this and again would argue that it should be a fixed reference for our lives. I'll not take the various points one by one, there is no real need, but can you really envisage humanity shifting from these values? I don't particularly think they should BTW, but surely this means that while you might be reluctant, possibly for reason of opposing religion, to use words like fixed, certain and so on the Amsterdam does in effect provide guidance for living which is pretty much fixed and which you are pretty certain about.
In other words I would suggest that we do in actual fact agree that there are human values which we should be certain about, which we should seek to promote and which we should refer to in order to make our moral decisions. Even though I am a Christian I haven't actually been arguing here which particular guidance we should refer to merely that we need something, and that without something it's very difficult if not impossible to use words like 'right' and 'wrong'. It's not enough to say I'm going to attach a moral label to a behaviour, we also need to know which label to attach and why we're doing it. The Amsterdam Declaration provides us with one basis for doing that, and I'm convinced we need a basis, but inspite of all this, I can still ask my basic question, why should we value the things we value and what is our basis for it?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Okay. Lets go back to basics. A fixed reference point presumably implies that:
(a) it is fixed for all time, place, circumstances.
(b) there is only one.
I reject both implications.
(a) There are no moral principles that are fixed in these senses. Morality is not something outside living things; it comes from them and, as they change and develop, so too does morality.
Moreover, morality did not begin with Jews or Christians. Indeed, it predates all the major modern religions. You referred earlier to equality. Epicurus, who was definitely both secular and egalitarian, admitted women and slaves to his school, and he was one of the the first Greeks to base ethics on the Golden Rule, which of course predates Jesus.
Morality is a product of social evolution and is relative in time and place. Let us take the avoidance of killing since it has been posited as a basic good and since the whole history of our attitude to killing demonstates that a fixed moral reference point is a chimera.
To survive, we have usually avoided killing too many of our own species or tribe while killing other species or tribes in large numbers (pigs, cows, sheep, fish, Amalekites, etc). Survival of any group normally depends on caring for the young. There are exceptions: sometimes survival depends on killing. Thus eskimos sometimes kill perfectly normal infants, especially girls, not because they have less respect for life but because food is in short supply and there are limits to the number of babies a mother can sustain, especially if they move about in search of food.
In this sense, morality is rational. It is also partly a reflection of our feelings. So Portwyne is half right: emotivism plays its part. We may be repulsed by the killing of baby seals or squirrels because they look cute but generally feel no revulsion at the killing of snakes or rats (squirrels without bushy tails). Of course, if we can dehumanise other people and regard them as rats (like Nazis did), then we may convince ourselves that we are doing the right thing in ridding the world of vermin. The OT includes a Commandment allegedly given by a god to a man not to kill but it was frequently broken, apparently with the Gods approval, in relation to tribes that were the enemies of Jews. So they were not fixed in tablets of stone for everybody.
Now, none of this implies that one cultures morality is as good as any other. I am not arguing from pure moral relativism. Some cultures are better than others. Who says so? I do, because I think they have evolved more than others and become more civilised. That is, they have extended the scope of their compassion and pity, and for me (and many others) these are reference points (see below). An expanding circle of moral concern is part of the history of ethics in western society.
(b) There is no one prime principle of morality. Why should there be? Why should every value be reduced to just one value? Peter keeps asking about the source of value and thinks he has an answer (God), but he is wrong, because there isnt ONE (and God is not one of them). I would list respect for: truth, reason, life, dignity, happiness, love, compassion, justice, freedom and equality as 10 of the most important reference points. These are not 10 Commandments of Humanism, and they are positive values, not negative prohibitions.
I dont propose to explain them all now. But lets just dwell on truth for a moment. It is an important value because without it: there would be little communication and society sould collapse; knowledge would be rudimentary; science would be backward; and we would die younger.
As I have stressed more than once, there are both truths of fact and truths of value. The former are objective, while the latter are dependent on our reason and our general system of values and, if you like, our reference points. They are true if they rationally cohere with that system and if they are backed by better reasons than the alternatives.
I do not think for one moment that we have value because we receive if from a source of value called God. So, why do we value values? There are many reasons. For survival. I am in general against klilling because I want to sleep peacefully in my bed at night. For happiness. I feel better if most others are also treated well. I dont like seeing physical cruelty. For love. I want to see the people I love treated well and receive what they deserve.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
I agree with so much of your last point that it's quite surprising.
As for fixed reference points...I kind of agree. I would say rather that there is an implicit ideal, which develops to become more explicit.
That is how we can speak of development in morality at all.
That is why you can talk about "better" and "more civilised" societies.
I think that you can't ultimately answer peter's question though. why value love? why not wish for death? What do you say to those who do wish for death, not because of pain or illness, but because they see no purpose to life?
What is the purpose of life, and love, and happiness? I'm still none the wiser.
Complain about this comment
Brian, you say,
"... let's just dwell on truth for a moment."
Sure, let's.
You also say, "Who says so? I do."
So, Brian, what is truth? It appears Jesus has a rival!
Complain about this comment
Peter:
What did Jesus say of worth about truth, other than that "the truth shall make you free"? Did he know of the distinction between truths of fact and truths of value? Actually, I think that Socrates is infinitely superior to Jesus both in his method of seeking the truth and his adherence to it. He sought the truth by asking questions, whereas Jesus thought he already knew it.
And remember what Shaw said: "All great truths begin as blasphemies".
Complain about this comment
Interestingly Brian, I was only asking the question Pilate asked, 'What is truth?' It was in response to the following words placed on the lips of Jesus, "You are right in saying that I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to me."
Im not actually expecting you to like what Jesus said, actually I don't like it much myself, no more than I like his statement, "I am... the truth and the life." In fact, to use your phrase from earlier, sometimes it really gets on my wick. I don't really want Jesus to be the truth, I don't want him to be the one who, "says so", I'd actually rather be the one who says so, I'd rather make the rules, act on the basis of my own preferences, follow my whims and sentiments, I want to establish my own truth.
But in the end I'm an awkward bugger, and it's probably best for all of us, you and me that I'm not in charge, because you see I'm not that trustworthy, if it were left to me I'd write the moral labels to suit myself. The real trouble is, and it is the most offensive aspect of all of Christianity, that Jesus did claim to perfectly represent truth. Sometimes I don't know what I make of it and sometimes I want with all that is in me to tell him to... well you know... but also, if I am honest I must face up to this, I borrow the words of W.R. Rodgers,
"Name him not, Name him not, nor nor constellate
The one who led him to his fate. Nevertheless
Judas was part of Jesus.
For the god has always a foot of clay, and the soul
Grows in soil, the flower has a dark root.
And deep in all is the base collaborator.
The betrayer is ever oneself, never another.
All must say, "Lord is it I?" There is always
Evil in Goodness, lust in love, dust on the dove's foot,
And without it purity's groundless. And the Cross
Had never been."
so, like Pilate I sometimes sit, "Sucking threads of thoughtfulness through his teeth."
Complain about this comment
I still don't know what a "truth of value" is. Isn't that, by your reckoning, totally subjective?
Why is it true, other than, paradoxically, because YOU say so?
Complain about this comment
Brian
I dont see anything that overturns my conviction that everyone agrees that it is wrong to torture babies to death for fun. That is cases of infanticide were FUN is the ONLY justification available are never justified.
As for murder, a fundamentalist (Jewish or Christian) would probably counter that the victims were not innocent. The standard being applied was not one of human justice but divine. Or they might argue that the aim of the ban was the destruction of a religion, not mass murder. So the end justified the means, or it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. I dont think that either response is remotely adequate, as the slaughter is deeply shocking (even allowing for hyperbole) given the ethics of warfare taught in the Pentateuch. But the point is that murder still counts as wrong, just the lesser of two wrongs.
A few points about the ban on the Canaanites
(a) In this kind of warfare cities had to be set on fire. So inevitably there were "civilian" casualties. (The idea of a "civilian casualty" is an anachronism.)
(b) The point of the command is to reinforce that "non-combatants" should not be taken as slaves or wives. The aim was to remove a form of religion from the land.
(c) There is a fair degree of hyperbole in these commands. Keep in mind that there is universal agreement that the Old Testament historical books from Genesis to Kings had the same editor, and that the editorial work was quite skilled.
SO Joshua 10 verse 40: So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.
What did that look like in practice? Judges 1 v 28 - 29
When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely. Nor did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, but the Canaanites continued to live there among them.
One more example found in the same passage.
Judges 1 verse 10 says that the Sons of Anak were killed. Judges 1 verse 20 explains that as meaning expelled.
Ancient historians used hyperbole by convention, and would talk up the size of armies and the scale of slaughter.
(v) Given that a lot of the work on these texts was done post exile, the point seems to be that (1) Gods judgment is never pleasant and (2) that idolatry is contagious. The survival of the Canaanites in the land guaranteed Israels apostasy and Exile. Eventually, in the Divine history, the same wrath that the Canaanites experienced turned on them. (BTW this removes any absolute claim to the land of Israel. So Theological defences of Israels occupation of Palestine (Jewish or Christian) are incoherent.)
(vi) In any case, you seem to think that the argument is that morality makes no sense unless we believe the Bible, and hat we read the Bible as strict inerrantists. That is *not* the argument. The argument is that morality only makes sense in a Theistic worldview. The argument from morality need not make any appeal to revelation.
(vii) And even if a Christian was not convinced by the defences of the ban offered above, they could simply say that there were mistakes in the Bible. Revelations that are more central (the Cross, Jesus' love Commandment, the Decalogue) can be used to judge Scriptures that seem more peripheral. Or shocking texts can be mined for insights (like the horror of Judgment) but taken as historical fictions.
CS Lewis took this approach. You can be a very conservative Christian without being a Fundamentalist or Evangelical.
GV
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Your modesty would stun a horse.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
You have just proved that anyone who orders and indulges in slaughter can very easily plead that he is doing it for their own good not for his own 'fun'!
Complain about this comment
Indeed.
And what is wrong with that, exactly, by your account?
Complain about this comment
Graham:
You have just proved a variation of Voltaire's dictum: "People who believe in absurdities will justify atrocities".
Complain about this comment
You could try a re-read of what I actually posted Brian, instead of reading what you *think* I posted.
(A) I don't agree that justification for the "ban" can be found. In fact, the texts remain shocking, and any attempt to remove the shock reveals a misunderstanding of the text.
(B) At the same time, it wouldn't do any harm to actually study the texts. You know, see what they meant to those who read them first. Try to discern their literary function. Although, I have to admit, they are much more difficult to caricature if you do that.
(C) However, and this is the key point, you have not shown that murder is not absolutley wrong. (In fact you seem to assume it.)
(D) Furthermore, even fundamentalists who also read the texts in an uniformed and naive manner, agree that murder is absolutely wrong. They just produce simplistic justifications for the ban. So the argue it was not murder, or that murder was the lesser of two wrongs. That is what *they* argue. Not me. And I made that clear.
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
WE all have to take responsibility for our own thoughts: "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so" -Shakespeare. This applies to those who think their morality comes from a god just as much as it does to those who think it derives from us.
Complain about this comment
That doesn't in any way whatsoever answer the question though.
So, if you or I THINK something is good, it is?
and I'm not sure you've yet adequately replied to my post 196.
Is your ethics utilitarian?
If so, why should I aim for the greatest pleasure for the greatest number?
Why?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Just to stress this point. You wrote: "I'd actually rather be the one who says so, I'd rather make the rules, act on the basis of my own preferences, follow my whims and sentiments, I want to establish my own truth... and I'm not that trustworthy".
Why this denigration of yourself, this "I am a miserable sinner and I need God to put me on the right path" act?
It is so completely demeaning and disrespectful of humanity, something of which I was accused on another thread. For, of course, you don't just mean yourself, do you, Peter? It is a kind of Uriah Heep-type humility.
It is NOT what most Humanists do. We 'think for ourselves and act for others'. Our morality is not our own 'whim' but the combined product of our individual thought and that of the wisdom of others. We are well aware of the flaws in human nature - life is an 'imperfect garden- but we can make it better.
Complain about this comment
I haven't really followed all of the comments on God and Morality. So I'll offer my own take on the argument from morality.
I've discerned two Naturalistic accounts of naturalism. (Naturalism - no supernatural entities exist).
ONE (Roughly)Humean-Darwinian
Reason cannot establish what is right and is wrong.
SO Reason cannot establish "ends" only "means" to those "ends".
Humans have certain passions. Some passions aim at the common good, so we can call these "moral passions".
Evolutionary theory can fill out the gaps. Humans are in possession of a suitably-modified suite of primate adaptations for cooperation. So "Passions" would be revealed as a certain kind of evolved motivational system. "Moral passions" would be
revealed as evolved motivational systems for cooperation.
SO Scientific study will enable "reason" to understand our passions, and therefore make it easier to find means to satisfy our desires.
TWO (Roughly)Kantian
On this view, morality is the inevitable outcome of rational practice.
We prescribe what a person should do using some model of rationality. So if an action is to morally permissible, we have to be willing to propose that anyone in situation(A) should do (B) for reason (C). Certain moral laws come to light.
Or to put it another way - rationality seeks the universal. We should always leave "self" out of rational consideration and aim at impartiality.
There are many variations on both these themes. But I think most secular morality refers back to them on some level. (I'm leaving out relativism and Aristotleianism. I doubt anyone will mind. The former denies morality, and the latter takes us back to some form of Theism).
Now here's the problem with both views. Neither makes morality obligatory. Neither makes the decision to *be moral* a rational decison. It remains a leap of faith.
On the "Humean/Darwinian" spectrum of views we have passions and moral passions. Moral passions are just passions for the common good. So why should we sacrifice the latter to the former? No reason can be given if the universe is impersonal at base, and totally indifferent to our acts. Morality cannot be considered "binding". It remains a preference, and one that could be set aside from time to time out of self interest.
The "Kantian" spectrum of views we just help ourselves to an ideal reason that would inform a disinterested person how to act in each situation. But human rationality is not like that. It is bound up with passions and emotions. It is limited.
The "Kantian-types" can respond that this rationality is a useful fiction. It helps guide us. But why should we take a fiction as binding? What authority can a fiction have over our lives?
Furthermore various ideals compete in our moral lives. The desires for freedom, justice and mercy all conflict to name but three. Why should we assume that these goods can be reconciled in the long run if the universe is not rational at the foundation? Why should we assume that even an ideal reason would be able to reconcile the competing voices?
But morality does seem to be binding, and it seems to transcend human rationalit, passions and self-interest. Consider Huxley's "Brave New World" without Bernard Marx or the Savage, or Orwell's 1984 with no Winstons or Julias, to bring hope. Just a boot stmping on a human face forever. Even if the race thrived, even if a utilitarian calculus could show that pleasure dominated pain more than any other historical period, we would once more say, better that the Earth had remained lifeless than contain creatures such as these.
Or if those scenarios do not convince you - Consider a scenario in which the human race survives and thirves in the future, but only when it embraces a strange set of practices. It *does* torture babies *purely* for fun. Huamns have long forgotten why they started such practices as humanity has learned to hate compassion and knowledge. The species future is guaranteed. But who would want such a species to survive? Better that the Earth had remained as lifeless as the moon.
And that brings me to a third belief necessary for morl practice. Hope. We live in a world were evil dominates. We need some reason to oppose that domination, and believe that the good will have the last word.
Now this is not an argument that a revelation is necessary to teach us right from wrong. That seems to be trivially false.
Rather I am arguing that Morality only makes sense in the light of certain presuppositions that are consonant with Theism (that the Universe is rational etc)
That Theism makes sense of the "binding" character of morality.
And that we need some reason to "hope".
Otherwise moral practice becomes an existential leap in the dark. Which is fine. But it isn't preferrable to any other existential leap, and secularists who criticse believers for having a "blind faith" and yet try to live moral lives would need to stop tossing stones around.
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Why,why, why? I am not Jesus: I don't have all the answers. I am the questioning sceptic here, remember.
You already know the answers to your own questions. Or do you? For you never make it clear. Why not ask a question and provide your answer, however tentative, and see if I agree with it?
Anyway, I'll take one of them: utilitarianism, as expounded by Bentham, Mill, Singer, etc. Of course, Bentham didn't believe that God was incompatible with utilitarianism. He thought that religion would endorse the utilitarian perspective - that an action is right if it brings about the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness - because it implies that God is a benevolent creator. However, I don't think that a Humanist morality is purely utilitarian.
As I have already suggested, there is not one prime Humanist value but several (I listed 10, remember). Happiness is only one. Justice, freedom, etc are also important. Thus an action might produce a 'happy' result for most of a group, but at the expense of other people's rights or happiness.
Morality has evolved in the west to the extent that we do not always put the good of society before the good of individuals. Instead, we seek a compromise or balance. This is why our system is called 'liberal democracy: majority rights on some issues and minority or individual rights on other issues. Modern morality is an attempt to reconcile the respect for persons of which Kant wrote and the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number' of which Bentham and Mill wrote.
Perhaps, I should stress this word 'compromise'. In NI before the ceasefires, it was generally a dirty word. But it was, on the contrary, the key to peace. And it is a key element in any advanced morality.
So the question 'why' that you and Peter are obsessed with, is a presumption of something absolute behind every value, but it is a chimera, because there is no one overriding value and to look for it is to be trapped in what I shall call 'the Ulster fallacy'.
Complain about this comment
Brian
You say, "I am the questioning sceptic here, remember. " (But you cannot speak of the extent of your doubt)
You ask Bernard, "Why not ask a question and provide your answer, however tentative, and see if I agree with it?"
Is there any chance that if he does he won't "stun a horse"?
On the one hand you keep telling us to ask questions and yet when I ask them of myself, or I ask 'why' I am Uriah Heep stuck in a fallacy.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Perhaps you should read the postings instead of pasting in your philosophy notes. For example, I have already suggested that the means/end distinction is largely false. In oner sense, peace in Northern Ireland is an end, but in other senses it is a means to other ends: a closer union with GB? a closer union with the Republic? a new political landscape? an integrated society? the end of religious division? or the end of religious social influence?
And so on. Both reason and compassion are relevant to means and ends.
You also say: "Morality seems to be binding, and it seems to transcend human rationality, passions and self-interest". I have no idea where this statement comes from. Why, and in what senses, is morality 'binding'? Why, and in what senses, does morality 'transcend' other values?
Then you say: "Otherwise (without theism), moral practice becomes an existential leap in the dark". This is nonsense. People practise morality every hour of every day - unless they are hermits shut off from the rest of the world - without thinking that they are taking theistic leaps. And if they are taking secular leaps, they are at least grounded in reality and our relationships with real people, not some hypothetical sky pixie who allegedly commands our obedience to his 'whims'.
Complain about this comment
Let me be the first to disagree with Graham's universal moral proposition - "It is wrong, always and everywhere, to torture a baby to death merely for fun."
I do not think it is wrong to do so. In the vastness of space/time, in a universe devoid of purpose, nothing actually matters. In the struggle for survival and reproduction there is only naked self-interest and calculating self-interest.
There is no morality: what we call morality is merely a cloak used by those unable or unwilling to face reality to cover the true nature of their calculating self-interest from themselves.
The actions of a man torturing a baby to death are no more wrong than those of a cat toying with a mouse she has no intention of eating.
That is what I think.
What I feel is rather different.
I now no longer merely disagree with Graham's statement I am horrified by its implication. I feel it is wrong to torture babies to death whatever the reason. The statement seems to imply there might be circumstances in which it might be OK to torture a baby (vivisection in the interests of medical research perhaps) but I would assert - on no grounds other than my feelings - that there are not. I would assert that the gross practice of late-term abortion is every bit as morally abhorrent as the similarly depraved actions of a psychopath. (Note the emotive language).
I would go further - I would say that the torturing to death of babies is a daily occurrence and we in the West are almost all of us complicit in it. I would say it is no more wrong to physically torture a baby than it is to consent to the slow death of millions of children in developing countries by starvation and the diseases of malnutrition. I would say that the lassitude, the moral torpor which prevents us agitating for reform and wealth distribution makes us equally culpable with, say, the parents of Baby Peter.
Finally, and just to prove that, like all good Post-Modernists, I have embraced my cloak: Hitler. I would not have shot him.
I cannot understand the mathematical obsession which makes morality a numbers game. The Holocaust was no less significant but equally no more significant than the Soham murders. We all of us only die once. A mass tragedy is no more than the aggregation of many individual tragedies and every individual tragedy matters. Hitler was no less evil than the Moors Murderers, but no more evil either. As a pacifist there are no circumstances in which I should take another's life.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
Yiour last post in reply to me sums it up.
Apparently, you see yourself as the questioning sceptic...then go on to admit that we theists are the only one's asking "why".
All you have done is give a list of values. I am asking why they are valuable.
Are you, sceptic as you are, suggesting that that is the one question not worth asking?
Sceptic, schmeptic!
Now, let me try to explain where I stand.
I ask questions. I don't assume that human happiness, my happiness, or anyone else's happiness is valuable. I reject even that assumption, which you can't seem to shake off.
My "answer" is not quite an answer. It is a hope.
I hope that all of those things have value. However, the only sense in which I can understand them to have value is as an attempt to commune with a transcendent source.
That is a "hope"...It is not me thinking I have "all the answers".
Now, why do YOU think all of those things are valuable? I have told you why I "hope" they are valuable. Without that hope, I can see no value in those things at all. Literally, absolutely none.
Complain about this comment
Brian
The post wasn't aimed at you. I imagined that most posters would have problems with my version of the Moral Argument. Portwyne (thankfully) has leapt in with criticisms. I wouldn't be surprised if Bernard and Peter had difficulties with my formulation - they may think that it's too weak, for example, or that it isn't specifically "Christian".
So I'm just looking for good natured critiques, that's all. The argument I've offered is quite modest, actually. It just says that something *like* Theism makes better sense of morality than Naturalism. It has nothing to say to the relativist, for example.
To clarify.
"Morality seems to be binding" - There is a prescriptive element to morality. It tells us what we "ought" to do, or "should" do. We "ought" to be rational, we "should not" believe in absurdities or justify atrocities. And I think this is something Kant had right - it is what everyone in situation (A) should do.
It's just that human life is so complex, it is rare to find the same situation occuring twice. And it is difficult to state with certainty the relevant features of a moral situation. Kant said "never lie". But what about the Nazi hunting for the family in your cellar. Do we change the rule to "never lie, except to Nazis". or "...except to murderers" or "...murderers looking for victims" or "never lie except about things hidden in your cellar."
The point of course being that rules may be difficult to discern. And it may be difficult to know which rule should be applied. But neither fact means that moral rules do not exist.
"Morality ..seems to transcend human rationality, passions and self-interest." I would have thought that my meaning was obvious here. What is "good" takes precedence over our personal preferences. Compassion is more important than gluttony.
Now if you ask, say, Peter Singer why this should be the case, he'll reply "We're moral animals. We're just made that way." Or Johnathan Glover might say "This is just a compelling vision of how we should live our lives."
By asking "Why, and in what senses, is morality 'binding'? Why, and in what senses, does morality 'transcend' other values?" -
You seem to agree with me that Glover and Singer do not answer the question - "Why is there an obligation to love others, or to pursue what is good over our own self-interest?".
In your final paragraph you move from "People can be moral without knwoing of a convincing argument for morality" to "No argument for morality need be offered". Now I agree with the former. But cynicism and moral skepticism are features of everyday life also. And what is worse, they seem to be features of the "real-politik" of Western politics. This is something that we both despise.
People often ask the question "Why should I be moral? Why should I consider morality binding? Why should the humanity of those living on the West Bank override my nation's long term interests? Why should my nation's long term interests override my short term political ambitions?"
I never suggested that people take Theistic leaps. Just that they should consider what needs to be pre-supposed to make sense of their moral lives. And that if, after reflection, they cannot offer a justification *then* all they have left is a leap in the dark.
That's the argument as I see it. Critiques are *welcome*.
GV
Complain about this comment
BTW
Being modest stuns a horse? SO I've been going wrong when I act coquettishly?
Thanks for the tip.
GV
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
It seems that you *do* believe that it is wrong to torture babies. Now presumably a capitalist could offer some justification for children's suffering (I doubt he'd cite "fun" as the justification). And you *feel* he'd be wrong.
The fact that you did not deduce the falsehood does not mean it is any less of a falsehood. There is a proposition - "The Global Market justifies the suffering of countless children." And you *feel* that it is false (not just that it is unpleasant. Brussel Sprouts are unpleasant. 11v1 are unpleasant. They are not *false*).
And I agree. Emotions and intuition have to play a part in moral reasoning. But I don't think that emotion and feeling are opposed to rationality. Quite the opposite in fact.
So I can't make sense of your post if you are just saying "Suffering babies - yuk!" But your post does make a lot of sense if you are saying "there's more to morality than calculation".
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Just a few points.
It wasn't implying that the post 213 was aimed specifically at me, merely that it wasn't an accurate summary of the discussion on the thread.
Your explanation of 'morality seems to be binding' is, as far as I can see, tautological. Since morality tells us what we ought to do, saying that binding morality tells us what we ought to do adds absolutely nothing to the meaning, does it? I think the word 'binding' is there because of religious connotations: morality, you think, is what God 'binds' us to do (our 'obligation to 'God'). In this sense, the adjective is quite wrong. But if I am wrong and you mean it in a 'secular' sense, then you need to explain it.
You say: "'Morality ..seems to transcend human rationality, passions and self-interest'. I would have thought that my meaning was obvious here. What is 'good' takes precedence over our personal preferences. Compassion is more important than gluttony".
You are implying a theistic explanation of 'transcend'. Rationality and passions are not necessarily 'personal preferences'. 'Passion' includes 'compassion', 'rationality' embraces impersonal logic.
Graham, if you insist on bringing God in, please do it by the front door.
Complain about this comment
Brian, still not asking the question why those things are valuable.
Why are they?
isn't that question worth asking, rather than simply making assumptions?
Complain about this comment
Remember that doubt and scepticism you were boasting about?
:)
Complain about this comment
Brian
Okay, poor "transcendent" is a poor choice of word. You're right - it suggests a religious answer, but I didn't intend that.
As I pointed out in the examples, I simply meant morality "dominates" over pragamtism, self-interest etc. We can think of possible futures for humanity (or possible histories) which we would judge inferior to a lifeless universe. The very point of morality seems to be that there is more to life than self or group interest. So I need a better word than "transcends".
"Binding" - we could use "constraining" instead. The idea being that morality is prescriptive, telling us what we ought to do. There is a "command" implied. Now that command needs to be explained, but it could be explained as a useful fiction, or a command of the community, or all rational agents, or the species, or of our natures.
Of course "command" is as bad a word as "transcends". I felt that "binding" was better. But you seem to read that as a synonym for "commands". So bad communication.
"Constraining" or "restricting" might be better. After all, gravity restricts us without being personal.
GV
Complain about this comment
Okay, to elaborate a bit further (although I did make these points in the argument)- the point is that *human* rationality is limited, so appeals to an *ideal* rationality appear in the Kant-type moralities (we should do what an ideally rational agent in possession of all the relevant facts would do). But how can we have obligations to a useful fiction?
And passions can involve "moral" passions for the common good, as well as other passions. But why should we prefer the former to the latteer when they conflict?
What brings my point out is that we can envisage the human race evolving/devolving to such a state that we might say that the universe would be better off without it. SO that value judgment seems to show that there is more to morality than enlightened self interest or the satisfaction of passions. That in fact we would not and do not tolerate scenarios in which humans invent their own moralities.
Another implication is that there are values greater than the survival of the human race. Morality goes beyond human interest.
Now I'm not sure if you're replying that morality is just a useful fiction, so you accept that it should not constrain us in an absolute sense. Or if you think that some marriage of the Kantian and Humean views can save the day. If the latter, how would that work roughly?
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernard (223):
No what reasons I give, you will still say why. Anyhow, let's take freedom. Why do we value freedom? I suppose it is because it gives us the power to fulfil our potential, to do the best we can for ourselves and others. It underlines our autonomy as individuals and the achievement of our goals makes us happy. We feel a sense of joy at success, at discovery, at seeing others happy etc.
Or take justice. According to Plato, the 'good' society is a 'just' society. As social animals, we have always shared our burdens and successes. Thus hunter-gatherers shared out the meat to the tribe. So we feel that if we all contribute to the common good, then the rewards for our effort should be fair, and if we fail the 'society' then we should be punished. Thus everyone will be given his or her due (as Justinian put it).
I have already suggested that we value truth because we realise that it aids communication, integration and discovery. Take an example: if humanity realised the truth that there is no God in the Abrahamic sense, then we would have greater freedom to overcome our differences and adopt a more humane, universal ethic. In short, the truth would set us free, for we would discover that religion inhibits rather than enhances the values I outlined.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Re 227. It seems that you believe in human nature, or something like it. The debate about God aside, that's interesting - I've always thought that you have much more in common with the original Free-thinkers than their descendants (the New Atheists for example).
There just seems to be a very rich tradition of Free-thinking that contemporary skepticism ignores. I have to say that I'm very surprised that Hitchens doesn't make more use of Paine, for example, when debating Craig or DeSouza.
Just making an observation really. I don't think it helps either side in the debate.
GV
Complain about this comment
Oh, and thanks for the comments on the argument. I checked Singer's conclusion in "Companion to Ethics" last night and he uses "restrictive". "Constraining" sounds a bit KJV.
Complain about this comment
"No matter what reasons I give, you will still say why"
Yes. Until we arrive at a sufficient reason that accounts for itself, I will keep asking questions. that's rationality for you.
Why do you arbitrarily stop asking questions.
Like in all of your examples. You say "X is good because it leads to Y" "Y is good because it leads to Z" and "Z is good because it leads back to A".
Now, is this series infinite? We can always attempt to exhaust it, rather than arbitraily ceasing our questionning when we reach an answer that sounds nice and noble. What is noble, by the way?
So;
Why is "joy" good? Is it just base pleasure? Why does seeing others happy bring joy?
Why is it good to give everyone his due?
Why is fulfilling our potential good?
Now Brian, although you may think I'm merely being obtuse in asking those questions, I'm actually attemopting to be a rational sceptic in the full sense.
Why not try it? Take a leap into mystery, Brian. you might like it.
Complain about this comment
I've just realised I keep saying sceptic instead of Skeptic. Ach, you know what i mean anyway
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
No, that's not the point. I am saying that I don't know the answers to many questions. Why do we want to be happy? Because it makes us feel good. Why do we want to feel good? Because it's more pleasant than feeling bad? Why do we want pleasant feelings ....?
You are dogmatically saying that there is ONE answer, something 'that accounts for itself'. Why assume that such a chimera exists, Bernard, just because one doesn't know all the answers? There is no logic in your position. A rational sceptic who thinks God is the answer? Why does God make us want to feel pleasant, Bernard? And if he does, why does he make so many people miserable?!!!
Graham:
I am existentialist. I don't think there is a human nature. There is human potentiality to be both good and bad, and an ethic of freethought, reason, compassion and love is more likely to encourage those good qualities than a divine command theory.
The 5 pillars of Humanism are: existentialism, freethought, reason, compassion and love.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
"Morality is a useful fiction". You mean in the sense that we invented it? The motor car was invented by us; is it too a useful fiction?
As for Kant and Hume, I have said many times that I am eclectic. Thus I think that Kant's idea of 'respect for persons' is crucial, but that doesn't mean I accept his complete ethic or explanation of the 'categorical imperative'. I accept Hume's stress on 'passions', but that doesn't mean I agree that "reason is, or ought to be, the slave of the passions". I think that many philosophers provided insights but we should not slavishly go along with everything they said. This is a fundamentalist 'Christian' approach: it's all or nothing. Well, it isn't.
A secular ethic is still very much a work in progress. For too long religion hijacked and distorted morality to make it comply with its obsolete narrative. We are still endeavouring to free it from its theistic chains.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
"No, that's not the point. I am saying that I don't know the answers to many questions"
OK. Neither do I, despite your insistence that I do.
But I ask. I doubt. I am skeptical.
Don't you?
"You are dogmatically saying that there is ONE answer, something 'that accounts for itself'"
I am not saying that. I am saying that the only answer that would satisfy our rational inquiry is one that accounts for itself.
Is there such an answer? I don't know. but I hope so, because if not, there is NO answer, and all of your partial answers are totally in vain, and utterly meaningless.
"The 5 pillars of Humanism are: existentialism, freethought, reason, compassion and love."
Do you ever DOUBT those five pillars, Brian.
Or are you completely dogmatic.
I doubt them, and hope that they have a value. I'm not insisting that they do, or suggesting that I KNOW...
I'm HOPING that they do, because, if not, all of our striving is absolutely in vain. I HOPE that there is something that accounts for itself, for if not, nothing accounts for itself, and all of our striving for answers will ultimately lead nowhere. So I HOPE....but I don't rest on a simple hope, I also continue to ask, and to doubt.
Now, again, do YOU doubt those "five pillars"....do you ever ask why they are good... or are you a dogmatist?
I must say, your attitude and answer to all questions thus far suggests that you don't doubt them at all, you just assume.
Complain about this comment
"I am saying that the only answer that would satisfy our rational inquiry is one that accounts for itself.
Is there such an answer? I don't know. but I hope so, because if not, there is NO answer, and all of your partial answers are totally in vain, and utterly meaningless".
This is dogmatism in disguise. It is also illogical. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Why does there have to be one answer that accounts for itsel? Why does that hope make you feel better? I am not looking for ONE answer but many answers, and I don't feel that I am losing anything by seeking a plurality. In fact, ONE answer is very unsatisfactory! It implies the end of all inquiry. Who wants that? Not my brain. Indeed, I hope there is NOT one answer.
Complain about this comment
"Why does there have to be one answer that accounts for itsel"
Because any other answer is not really an answer but relies on other, previous answers. That is obvious, and completely logical.
"Why does that hope make you feel better?"
sometimes it doesn't. I would much prefer to KNOW...but, as that's impossible, I have to be satisfied with HOPE.
"I am not looking for ONE answer but many answers, and I don't feel that I am losing anything by seeking a plurality"
OK. so long as those answers account for themselves. there are sound logical reasons for supposing that an answer that completely accounts for itself must be singular....as otherwise something would have to account for the plurality's commonality.
"In fact, ONE answer is very unsatisfactory! It implies the end of all inquiry"
Indeed....it implies that THERE IS AN END. Of course, given that we never reach that ONE ANSWER, there is no implication that OUR inquiry will cease, or that we will ever reach that end. it merely implies that inquiry has an end, and a goal. A true "End" if you like.
All we are doing is setting the boundaries of what would ENABLE our inquiry to cease. Or, if you like, setting the ultimate goal of our inquiry, given that that goal has not been reached.
Otherwise, your inquiry doesn't have a goal, and might as well go round in circles, or not begin in the first place.
"Indeed, I hope there is NOT one answer"
So, you hope that there is NO answer to your inquiry???
Why inquire then? Why not just sit back and not bother?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I offered the 5 pillars of Humanism as a tentative riposte to the Islamic designation. Earlier, I also offered 10 values as a riposte to the Judaeo-Christian list. I don't think that there are only 5 or even 10 key Humanist values. But I have outlined a few of them, as I see it. There are others...
Complain about this comment
It matter not how many you outline, but whether you are willing to doubt them and question their value. You have yet to do so, other than by appealing to others, which you then refuse to doubt or question. that is the point.
in fact, PeterM called you on it long ago in this thread.
How far does your doubt and sketicism go, Brian?
Complain about this comment
From my experience, when one begins to doubt - and i mean REALLY doubt, not just doubt those things that are easy to doubt - one realises that hope itself is the only hope...for anything, any meaning or value.
Often, that HOPE is expressed in love, which is itself the purest kind of hope.
Complain about this comment
Brian
""Morality is a useful fiction". You mean in the sense that we invented it? The motor car was invented by us; is it too a useful fiction?"
Of course useful fictions can be very useful. But once again I think you've given me good reason to change my terminology when taling about *moral rules*.
Perhaps a better analogy than a vehicle, an analogy that we can both agree on, would be money. By convention we give pieces of paper, or numbers on a computer, a certain value. Money is a human convention based on human beliefs and values.
Another analogy would be the law. We could be consistently positivist about the law, without claiming that laws are fictions. They are real expressions of real beliefs.
So I need to be clear. An atheist can be a moral realist. Moral rules are not fictive - they are real expressions of real moral intentions. SO my point is not that atheism necessitates anti-realism about morality. (I know that YOU might be anti-realist about many (all?) moral claims. But not all atheists need agree.)
My argument is that Atheism does not give an adequate explanation of moral realism. Because humans endorse conflicting moral systems realists have to find a way to avoid a lapse into relativism or subjectivism. There needs to be a final "court of appeal" for moral disagreements, some higher principle or ideal that realists can judge conflicting claims by. The one popular principle seems to be "what an ideally placed ideally rational agent would do." (I think you disagree with this approach also, so I'd be interested to see if we agree that my critique is on target.)
Now I've no real quarrel with the claim abou an ideally rational agent - I believe in one at the end of the day. But in the absence of Theism (or something like it - say a First Mover) ideal reason is a useful fiction. Now it's very difficult to see why we should pay attention to what a "useful fiction" might do, instead of following a strong inclination to satiate a desire.
But worse, we have no reason to believe that a useful fiction is even possible. Many moral *goods* conflict in this life. In a unverse with no teleology thereis no reason to assume that these conflicting goods can ever be reconciled. So we cannot assume that the ideally rational agent would be able to reach any decision *at all*.
Rather than proposing an "ideal rationality" we could pursue scientific study, and catalogue "passions for the common good". But again, without a wider teleology, why should we assume that we will find a coherent set of moral passions? And even if we do, why should we favour these over other passions (vengeance for example?)
Now if you're an existentialist, I imagine that you've a problem with moral realism. I'm not really up to speed with existentialism. It doesn't seem essential to secular ethics - I can think of many secular thinkers who make no appeal to it, and some who are quite hostile. But it certainly seems important to yours.
So I take it that you mean *your* thinking here is a "work in progress". That, and your commitment to existentialism clarifies what I thought were inconsistencies.
There are a few questions arising from your posts.
(i) Do you think that secular ethics will need a narrative?
(ii) I think your biggest difficulty will be reconciling the existentialism with "compassion and love" if you want all three to be "pillars". (I take it that you mean *essential* to ethics). If decision (existence) determines our nature (essence) couldn't someone just make a leap into nihilism, and be as justified as a person who makes a leap into the moral life? The only way to avoid that is to say something about the human predicament.
Those are just thoughts for discussion, not a critique (can't critique your position if you haven't formulated it yet. You know what you're against, and know what you're aiming for, and you've a lifetimes reading to draw on. So the result should be interesting.)
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Don't you understand the English language? 'Tentative' implies doubt, uncertainty. Hope is of course relevant. We all hope for better things. 'Hope is the only hope'? It certainly isn't the only value. Again, that would be a dogma, not a doubt.
Moreover, I have made it clear that many of the values I outlined conflict, and it is necessary to seek compromises between them. What could be more 'uncertain', 'undogmatic? Look mate, it is YOU who believe in the 10 COMMANDments, not me! None of my values are COMMANDS, unlike yours.
Complain about this comment
Brian, ignoring the insults, let's get back to the issue.
"Moreover, I have made it clear that many of the values I outlined conflict, and it is necessary to seek compromises between them"
Yet you have given ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNT of on what basis those compromises should be made.
I am not asking if any of your values conflict, I am asking why you think they are valuable.
you must have a reason, otherwise there would be no "conflict", and there would be no basis on which to make "compromises"
My comment about dogmatism was perhaps a little disingenous. i did not mean that you assert that you DEFINITELY have the answers, and that you think you are DEFINITELY right, merely that you do not have the answers, but are content not to even ask.
I suppose you're right, that is not so much dogmatism as willful blindness...or laziness.
Refusal to ask certain questions....actually, i think that is part of the definition of dogmatism.
I ask questions about everything....even the 10 commandments. I doubt the 10 commandments.
Now, yet again, do you doubt any of the things that you assume to have value?
I see no evidence of you doing so.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
You ask me to formulate a 'position' or dogma; Bernard wants me to be more sceptical. Guys, you need to get together and sort out what you want. Maybe you should read the whole thread; I thought I had outlined at least elements of a 'position', while emphasising that I had no 'fixed reference point' but several tentative (note, Bernard) reference points and that compromise between them is necessary. The nature of that compromise obviously has to be worked out: more tentativeness, more uncertainty (Bernard).
You also keep using philosophical categories whose meanings are not necessarily agreed or which change in different disciplines; that in itself is implied dogma. If we want to achieve the state of sceptical doubt approved of by Bernard, then we need to strip away the jargon and categorisation employed in the traditional philosophical language such as 'moral realist' and 'ideal reason'.
Yu have to remember that I studied philosophy but taught Politics (and Economics). A term like 'realism' in a 'political-moral' sense has certain connotations of power politics, 'national self-interest', 'pragmatic' etc, which oppose it to the 'higher' principles of 'idealism'.
So, what you mean by 'moral realism' is not necessarily what I might mean by it. Its not a term that I like. I have pointed out that I think there are truths of fact and truths of value. The truths of value are not 'objective facts'; they are truths in terms of our reason and compassion (much of which varies from one person to another). So I am not a moral realist in the sense that I do not believe value truths are factual truths. My understanding of freedom might be different from yours. Who is to say that it is better than yours? There is NO final court of appeal (I would probably find some disagreement, but am prepared to be shown that my conception is wrong (Bernard).
I have tried to answer some of your questions on earlier parts of the thread. My position is existentialist in the sense that I do not believe that the universe has any intrinsic meaning or purpose (it is, if you like, 'absurd'), that we have no essential human nature (though we are social animals), asnd that we must take responsibility for our own actions. Bernard seems to be existentialist in the Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith' sense, but wants to have his cake and eat by claiming that the universe is rational.
Bernard:
You ask on what basis the nature of compromises should be sought. Surely it depends on the issue? Take peace in NI. On what basis do YOU think this compromise was made? And if the major participants had realised the value of compromise earlier, don't you think that many lives would have been saved?
It is very easy to SAY I doubt the 0 Commandments. Okay, I doubt the principles I have outlined. I certainly am not sure how they are reconciled. I've said that. How do you reconcile freedom and equality, for example? It's not easy and I don't pretend it is. Should there be an upper limit on incomes? Should there be higher taxes on higher incomes? Or are these proposals a denial of people's freedom to spend their own money?
Life is full of these difficult choices, and I wrestle to find answers. No way do I suggest that everything is easy.
Complain about this comment
Brian, yet again you are talking about reconciling things.
details details.
I'm talking about the wider issue. Not "how do we reconcile particular conflicting values"....but "on what basis should reconciliation be sought". What is the basis of the value that we are trying to achieve through compromise and reconciliation?
It's not a question of whether everything is easy, or whether we have to make difficult choices.
I'm asking on what overall basis do uyou make choices? What drives you to make choices in the first place, rather than just accpeting conflict? Why attempt to reconcile conflicts?
Brian, I have been attempting to grapple with the nature of good, value and hope, and all you can do is give a multitude of particular examples, and revert to the conflicts between them.
Yes, I know there are conflicts, and difficult questions, and a multitude of conflicting values.
Why should we strive for any of those values, attempt to reconcile those values, or indeed ever aim for anything of "value2 over anything else.
I'm really not that interested in the deatils of how a particular conflice can be reconciled. Those details are polymorphous and have a multitude of possible attempts at answer.
Wjhy should we attempt to answer, or to reconcile, or to describe anything as valued at all.
On your points about existentialism, it makes no sense to me to say that the universe is "absurd" and in the same sentence to speak of "responsibility". Responsibility in absurdity?
Perhaps you could explain that a bit more?
Complain about this comment
last post was a bit rushed, by the way, hence the typos. you get the gist
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Why do you write these postings on the basis of my last answer alone, and ignore all my other examples. You really are playing with words. I give you a general principle and you want to know the details. I give you detail and you complain that they aren't general enough.
You also avoid many of my questions. On what basis do you think peace should have been established in NI?
Complain about this comment
Brian;
I don't ignore all the other examples, but I'm asking for you to look beyond the examples.
You haven't given me a general principle...at least not one sufficiently general. all of your principles seem to be based on particular examples, and subject to change depending on those examples. But what is the general principle behin those examples?
That is what I have been continually asking you.
Why do you follow freedom, happiness, compassion, truth or reconciliation of moral conflicts?
On what basis do you seek reconciliation?
Not "How can particular moral issues be reconciled" but "why do you seek reconciliation, and on what basis do you judge and calibrate conflicts?"
That is what you haven't answered.
On your particular question, being particular I don't really see how it is relevant. To humour you, I think the GFA followed by a long period of personal and communal reconciliation eventually leading to reunification might be a good way.
What has that got to do with anything?
Complain about this comment
That should be "why do you VALUE freedom....etc"
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
You have truly transmogrified. You began as the fount of all certainty: the man who knew that Jesus existed, who knew what he meant, who dismissed any suggestion that a Christian could doubt the divinity of Christ (61), who believed that Horus, Hercules and Krishna were not in the same league as Jesus, that God is the prime analogue of 'good', that "what is clear is that the writers of the Gospels... believed it to be true" (69), that "what is clear is that the story did not begin as a myth" (69), and that there is a 'risen Christ' (76).
Now you have become Bernard, the doubter, who questions everything. Is this a miracle?
Complain about this comment
Brian
Bernard and I aren't part of a team, so I reckon it's okay for us to ask for conflicting things.
And I didn't expect a piece of analytic philosophy (boring!) and I didn't expect it any time soon. I just thought that someone with your breadth of reading could put together some interesting thoughts on morality. I got the impression that you know what you're ruling out (God&nihilism) and know what you want to rule in. But fitting the pieces together is a different story.
You could certainly put a good book together on this topic. You seem to have the writer's bug. And I'd buy it. And I guarantee it would be better than a lot of theological ethics produced in Ireland. But as far as debating God and morality goes, I more or less thought we'd reached a dead-end. I was just asking what direction you envisage taking you thoughts on morality.
For example, I'm sure that there are plenty of narratives that you might draw on, *especially* given your background in politics and economics (and your frightening knowledge of the bard).
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
You say: "I don't ignore all the other examples, but I'm asking for you to look beyond the examples". But that's what I'm asking of YOU. Consider the NI situation and expand on your principles. Was peace worthwhile? Was it not achieved through compromise? What sort of compromise? Is compromise relevant to ethical questions? Or are they all a matter of black and white? What should have happened over the last 40 years to prevent 'The Troubles'? If you consider such questions irrelevant (dogmatic, Bernard), then I suggest your own ethic - whatever it is, and we haven't that at all - is itself irrelevant to the real world.
Complain about this comment
Brian, that's quite a sidestep to avoid questions, but I'll humour it anyway...like I did your last question, my answer to which you haven't even acknowledged. Maybe political solutions in NI had nothing to do with it after all, eh?
"who dismissed any suggestion that a Christian could doubt the divinity of Christ (61)"
Ok, we agreed that that was a matter of definition. My point was that the generally accepted and widespread meaning of "christian" involved belief in divinity, but I agreed that this was not neccessarily so. Still, a dispute about definition...hardly dogmatic certainty.
"that God is the prime analogue of 'good'"
I was making an argument about a POSSIBLE understanding of "good". I never said it MUST be right....however, given that you can't offer an alternative understanding, i think that's fair enough.
All of your other points are about arguments that I was making. NOT STATEMENTS OF INDISPUTABLE FACT.
Rather than reply to argument with argument, you've reverted (AGAIN) to saying "You think you know everything".
As I said the last time you made such a move, it is no substitute for argument.
No matter how you might wish to caricature me as an unthinking follower of authority, I have repeatedly asked questions that you seem unable even to contemplate.
And your reply..."You think you know everything".
Try again, Brian. I clearly don't know everything. That is why we're having this discussion.
Now, what do you know?
Do you ever question the value of those things that you appear to be presuming. Fourth time I've asked you now.
Don't you like the question? Some questions are quite challenging, aren't they?
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Fitting the pieces together is a huge task, and I wouldn't claim that I could do it on my own. But in the end, I am responsible for what I think.
As I said, ethics is still in its infancy. In this sense, we are all 'leaping in the dark', but we do have some peramters such as the fact that we are co-operative and caring animals (of course, we are capable of the opposite), that we have evolved a rational mind, that we have much evidence of the consequences of certain actions, that some of the world's greatest minds (like Kant, Hume and Mill) have tried to lay down the paths.
I was only suggesting some principles or values like freedom, truth, justice, etc. I don't claim to have put the jigsaw finished, despite what Bernard may think. Nor do I KNOW why we, or many of us, value these things, though I can suggest some reasons. One thing I feel fairly confident of, though, is that there no one supervalue, fixed reference point, or 'prime analogue of good', from which all others derive. Why should there be? And what is the evidence?
Complain about this comment
"You say: "I don't ignore all the other examples, but I'm asking for you to look beyond the examples". But that's what I'm asking of YOU"
You're not! you're clearly asking me to consider one particular example in isolation. But I'll do it anyway.
"Was peace worthwhile?"
Yes.
"Was it not achieved through compromise?"
Yes.
"What sort of compromise?"
I'm not sure what you mean.
"Is compromise relevant to ethical questions?"
Yes.
"Or are they all a matter of black and white?"
No.
"What should have happened over the last 40 years to prevent 'The Troubles'?"
I don't know. A number of things could have been tried, but I am not sure whether they would have worked.
Now that i have answered those questions about that particular example, perhaps you can tell me why that particular example is so relevant to the question of value in general. What implications are you trying to discern from my answers to those particular questions.
The general implications I draw is that peace and justice are valuable. Peace and justice are valuable because they allow each of us to fulfil our potential. Fulfilling our potential is valuable because it enables us to reach higher than our own self-interest. reaching higher than our own self-interest is valuable because it brings us closer to a communiion with an act of love for the entirety of creation. Becoming closer to an act of love for the entirety of creation is valuable because it brings us closer to the architect of reality, and the ultimate end and purpose of reality.
I THINK. (I don't KNOW).
Now, once again, what do YOU think?
Why do YOU think those things are valuable? Perhaps you may answer this time, perhaps with even a series of ends that comes an apex.
Perhaps you'll answer with a series of ends that is infinite and self-fulfilling, although I could then raise the question of the value of the series overall.
At least give SOME answer!
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Side-stepping is your second name (maybe 'Insight' should be 'Insole'). What about 'Norn Iron and compromise?
Yes, yes, yes, I do question the value of those things that I presume. Indeed, at times, I feel like Sisyphus, pushing that big stone uphill, especially when debating with Christians.
Now, If you actually addressed my NI question, we might be able to see if our ethics in any way coincide, despite the metaphysical differences.
Complain about this comment
Brian...see my post 254 - as clear an answer as is possible.
I think we may be on some delat here.
I have drawn some general implications of my answers, and attempted to ask why?
what are your suggested answers?
Complain about this comment
That should be "delay" obviously
Complain about this comment
Brain (post 243)
I'm jumping in after an absence I know, but only to follow up a part of the discussion which interests me.
You say, "There is NO final court of appeal" and "My position is existentialist in the sense that I do not believe that the universe has any intrinsic meaning or purpose (it is, if you like, 'absurd'), that we have no essential human nature (though we are social animals), and that we must take responsibility for our own actions."
Brian, this maybe explains one of the reasons I remain a Christian, not because Christians are good, many are far from it, there are atheists and humanists I know who I would much prefer to spend an evening with, but this concept of a meaningless, purposeless, and ultimately unjust world is not one I can live with.
Fine perhaps if all were decent fellows, but the human race is not. For me, that there is 'good' or 'cruelty' or 'hope' or 'personality' or 'human nature' in this world must mean that these are not just mere illusions. It must, surely, matter, how we live, surely we must be accountable, surely we cannot overlook injustice, surely there must be a 'final court', surely these things must be real, surely you need them to be real? In the end Brain it is my doubt which drives me to keep on hoping a 'Christian Hope', it's not that the human good I see around me isn't enough, it is that the human cruelty I see around me cannot be ignored.
I just don't see how an 'absurd' universe can lead to anything other than ultimate pain. As I've said before, in this sense, you have more 'faith' (note the quote marks!) than me.
I'll address the NI question you raised as an example, our imperfect peace is much much better than the 'Trouble', but as you have said yourself in the past, we ended up with 'bad' men running the country. Will this mean an immediate better future for our children, yes, I think it will, but surely it is unacceptable that some 'got away with it' and surely there is a sense in which the new opiate of many of these people is "the huge solace of thinking that our (their) betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders are not going to be judged" Czeslaw Miolsz, Nobel Prize winning Polish Poet.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I raised the Northern Ireland situation because I thought it was a good example of the value of compromise.
For many years, some religious leaders told us that compromise was a dirty word because there can be no
compromise with 'the truth' and no compromise with 'killers'. But this assumes that a truth of value is an absolute. It is a religious concept of 'truth', particularly a fundamentalist one.
It is precisely the adherence to fundamentalist values, both religious and political, that has caused so much suffering in the last century. Think of the obsession with national or racial purity in Nazi Germany or the slavish adherence to dogmatic socialism in the Soviet Union.
Take any absolute value to its logical conclusion and you end up with an absurdity. Think of the free market ideology of the last 30 years, where absolute economic 'freedom' produced the 'law of the jungle' and the denial of freedom to all but the rich and powerful, summed up in Leona Helmsley's remark that 'only the little people pay taxes' (and recent evidence suggests that a large proportion of British MPs were prone to this philosophy). Does this not indicate that there has to be a balance or compromise between freedom and equality, as represented by a mixed economy? Of course, the extent of this mixture needs to be debated.
Freedom and equality, the state and the market, law and justice, order and disorder, individual and majority rights: the mature politics of now and the future is a constant search for compromises or give-and-take between these absolutes.
Concepts such as a 'nation' and 'sovereignty' are also fundamentalist absurdities. Whatever characteristics we ascribe to a 'nation, it never properly fits the reality. Orange and Green nationalisms are perfect examples. These two dinosaur traditions were fundamentally uncompromising, closed nationalisms, when what is needed is an open internationalism, a postnationalism as John Hume has called it. The point is that the Agreements reached in the last 15 years tacitly acknowledge this reality: Sunningdale for slow learners. The extreme groups that said that compromise was 'evil' and that they would never do it, have done it. There is neither a united Ireland nor a strengthened union but a settlement somewhere in the middle, a fudge if you like.
In NI it was the extremes that reached the compromise peace: the moderates were not able to do it. It is now up to the moderates to consolidate it.
So, my point is that compromise is a key Humanist virtue in the real world and it works. Is it not the very antithesis of your emphasis on the search for the elusive Holy Grail of one supervalue?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
I feel your anger. My blood boils at the thought that 'some got away with it', perhaps even to the extent of being in the government. But they didn't get what they wanted, and in this sense they 'lost'. You and I will presumably never vote Sinn Fein or DUP. Let us play our part in trying to discourage others from doing so in the future.
Complain about this comment
Graham - I suspect I am saying not so much that there is more to morality than calculation, rather that calculation is the antithesis of morality. I am saying that reason far from facilitating a moral response actually inhibits such a response.
I consider empathy the basis of morality. One of the key features of the Christ narrative is that it is, in its essence, a myth of empathy.
Morality stands along side pain, suffering and distress: it reflects it, it absorbs it, it identifies with it. The moral man suffers with and for the outcast and the oppressed; he understands their pain because he stands in their shoes. There is nothing more to morality than this.
Reason, especially when it does the math justifies horror: it makes avarice acceptable, torture defensible, and war just. You cannot put yourself in a man's shoes and contemplate pulling his nails out but you can build perfectly rational arguments for so doing.
I am not sure that I believe anything - I embrace concepts I find attractive so avoiding the imputing thereby of any connotation of an inherent truth.
A few asides: since I have no interest in history and Sinn Fein are the left-most party on offer I may well vote for them at the next election. I love Brussels Sprouts. My musical tastes run right up to Lady Gaga (love Poker Face) but I've never heard of 11v1.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne:
"Reason, especially when it does the math justifies horror: it makes avarice acceptable, torture defensible, and war just. You cannot put yourself in a man's shoes and contemplate pulling his nails out but you can build perfectly rational arguments for so doing".
Gosh! Isn't that what Sinn Fein did for 30 years? And you may vote for them? Crickey!
Complain about this comment
I have ZERO interest in the past. Sinn Fein are now a democratic party, committed to non-violence, and offer a politically radical agenda to the NI electorate. I agree with most of their policies. It seems to me entirely reasonable to consider voting for their candidate. A colleague of mine used to work for Bairbre de Brún and found her able, conscientious and courteous.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
your post 25 9 YET AGAIN completely ignores the questions I'm asking, in favour of telling me what YOU think I mean.
I also value compromise. I do not think that any one person is in possession of the truth. I also recognise the neccessary abstraction of ideal terms, and how these never quite fit with reality. i also value development and progress, in morality as much as in anything else.
The question I am asking is not "why don't you accept ONE version of the truth".
I am asking why you value all of those things that you claim to value. what is valuable about them.
This must now be, what, the fifth time I've asked, and every time you sidestep by talking about the futility of absolutes.
I recognise that in our imperfect world, absolutes do not adequately describe or account for situations.
But we also strive to make the world "more perfect", and we do so through values and ethics which, although constantly changing, always aim towards what is good.
What I am asking is "why are those things deemed to be good, even though they change and conflict and differ". What is it about them that is "good"?
I can't help thinking I'm still asking the same question I asked 100 or so posts ago.
Complain about this comment
Let me try to emphasise again, because you keep making the point about compromise.
I am not saying that humans are currently in possession of the absolute RIGHT.
What I am saying is that humans constantly strive for what is right, and that the value of "what is right" must have a transcendent source if it is not to descend into "What I want is right".
In that sense, compromise can often be beneficial, as a step on the development towards what is right.
But if we begin with no conception of what we want to achieve, where is the value in compromise. Why not just accept whatever happens to be the case.
The same is true of development. If morality is just whatever seems to be adequately acceptable at the time, why do we strive for development at all?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
I'm not telling you what you think, I'm trying to find it out. As for your question about what is valuable about the things I value, you just don't like my answers because they don't lead in the direction of a God. I've told you I value things because they make me happy, because they are reasonable, etc etc. But that's not good enough for you. Why do I want to be happy? Because it makes me feel good. Why do I want to feel good? Because it's preferable to feeling bad. Why is it preferable? Because feeling bad makes me miserable. Why do you not want to feel miserable? Because I want to be happy. But if I said: "I want to be happy because this is what God wants", my answer would suddenly become acceptable. Why do you think your God wants us to be happy. What is God's ultimate value, his supernalogue?
Actually, you have answered very little. One word or one sentence answers don't exactly lighten u