Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 07-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Actually science was pretty advanced in the 1st century, with Aristotelian rationalism a force to contend with. That had nothing to do with the moral abyss that was classic pagan culture, nor did it mitigate the violence and cruelty of the time. I mean, National Socialist Germany was all too rationalistic and had great scientists. It was simply morally bankrupt. Science (while we both I think admire it as one of the greatest human achievements) is no guaranty against oppression.

Moreover, you are engaging in "back formation" of ethics. The ethical world you see around you -- to the extent that it at least holds up as values things like monogamy, altruism, respect for individual persons, and a rejection of purely utilitarian view of Others -- is the result of Judeo-Christian ethics. So in a sense you're asserting qualities in the modern world as a bludgeon against Christianity which in fact Christianity produced.

In any case, I sense in your argument an admission that Christianity spread because it offered a more attractive vision of human existence than classic paganism. And that's exactly what I was arguing for.

This is nonsense, as I already explained in " How fast a fictional belief becomes widespread?".

There was nothing new or improved about so-called "Christian ethics".

See for example CELSUS ON CHRISTIANITY (178CE):

http://members.aol.com/PS418/celsus.html

Quote:

UNORIGINALITY IN CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

"Many of the ideas of the christians have been expressed better-- and earlier-- by the greeks, who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god. The ancients in their wisdom revealed certain truths to those able to understand: Plato, son of Ariston, points to the truth about the highest good when he says that it cannot be expressed in words, but rather comes from familiarity-- like a flash frpm the blue, imprinting itself upon the soul... But Plato, having said this, does not go on to record some myth to make his point (as do so many others), nor does he silence the inquirer who questions some of the truths he professes; Plato does not ask people to stop questioning, or to accept that god id like such and such...Rather, he tells us where his doctrines come from; there is, in short, a history to what he says, and he is happy to point to the sources of his knowledge, instead of asking us to believe that he speaks on his own authority..." (92-93).

"Not only do they misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even stoop to assigning words of the philosophers to their Jesus. For example, we are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.' Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in a purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.'* Is one utterance more inspired than the other?" (94).

[*Plato, LAWS, 743A]

"You christians have a saying that goes something like this: 'Don't resist a man who insults you; even if he strikes you, offer your other cheek as well.' This is nothing new, and its been better said by others, especially by Plato, who ascribes the following to Socrates in the Crito...'ts never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil for evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even...'" (113).

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...". (91).

"What do the christians say? They say, "First believe that the person who tells us these things is god's son... Now if these beleivers confess Jesus and others confess someone else, and if they all together have the slogan "Believe and be saved, or damn you," what is to happen to those who really do want to be saved? I mean, which path are they to follow, since advice of the same sort comes from all quarters? Are the ones who crave salvation to throw dice in order to find out where they should turn?" (93).

See also the ethics of the materialists, Democritus and Epicurus:

http://www.humanistictexts.org/democritus.htm

Quote:

19 Virtue does not consist of avoiding wrongdoing, but in having no wish to do wrong. It is a great thing, when one is in adversity, to think of duty. Refrain from crimes not through fear but through duty. It is noble to prevent the criminal; but if one cannot, one should not join him in crime.

20 Continuous association with base men increases a disposition to crime. One must avoid even speaking of evil deeds. It is easy to either praise or blame what one should not, but both are the marks of a corrupt character. Neither can fine speech cover up base action, nor can good action be injured by calumny.

32 Poverty under democracy is as much to be preferred to so-called prosperity under an autocracy, as is freedom to slavery.

34 Rule belongs by nature to the stronger. When the powerful prevail upon themselves to lend to the indigent, and help them, and benefit them, in this at last is pity, friendship, and mutual aid, harmony among the citizens, an end to isolation, and other blessings such as no man could enumerate.

Despite sounding heavy handed at first, the passage means that the rulers should be humble and give to the weak.

http://www.humanistictexts.org/epicurus.htm

Again refuting yoru claims about wealth, btw:

Quote:

42 Love of money that is unjustly gained is sinful; if justly gained, shameful. For it is unseemly to be merely parsimonious even for a just person. Cheerful poverty is an honorable thing.

43 Give thanks to nature, the bountiful, because it has made necessary things easy to procure, while things hard to obtain are not necessary.

The reason that these philosophies were beaten out by Christians has nothing to do with the value, truth, or benefits to society of the teachings themsleves, it has to do with the fact that the materilasts were not evangelicals, and they didn't tie their philosophy to any larger cultural movements, such as a movement for the liberation of Judea, or the movement of the poor to overthrow the wealthy, etc.

None of the materialists put an empahsis on having large familes, on pusing thier views onto others, or on being morally judgemental, or on using violence to get their way. The Christians did all of these things, and that was why they were successful.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Actually science was pretty advanced in the 1st century, with Aristotelian rationalism a force to contend with.

But science was not nearly as advanced in the first century as it is today, and today, science and education are causing problems for Christianity, especially in the Western world where education is better than in third world nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Moreover, you are engaging in "back formation" of ethics. The ethical world you see around you -- to the extent that it at least holds up as values things like monogamy, altruism, respect for individual persons, and a rejection of purely utilitarian view of others -- is the result of Judeo-Christian ethics. So in a sense you're asserting qualities in the modern world as a bludgeon against Christianity which in fact Christianity produced.

In any case, I sense in your argument an admission that Christianity spread because it offered a more attractive vision of human existence than classic paganism. And that's exactly what I was arguing for.

There is not any credible evidence at all that social values would not have improved without Christianity. "More attractive" does not necessarily mean "true". Unless you can establish a correlation between "more attractive" and "God's influence", you do not have a credible argument.

Gamera · 07-03-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This is nonsense, as I already explained in " How fast a fictional belief becomes widespread?".

There was nothing new or improved about so-called "Christian ethics".

See for example CELSUS ON CHRISTIANITY (178CE):

http://members.aol.com/PS418/celsus.html

See also the ethics of the materialists, Democritus and Epicurus:

http://www.humanistictexts.org/democritus.htm

Despite sounding heavy handed at first, the passage means that the rulers should be humble and give to the weak.

http://www.humanistictexts.org/epicurus.htm

Again refuting yoru claims about wealth, btw:

The reason that these philosophies were beaten out by Christians has nothing to do with the value, truth, or benefits to society of the teachings themsleves, it has to do with the fact that the materilasts were not evangelicals, and they didn't tie their philosophy to any larger cultural movements, such as a movement for the liberation of Judea, or the movement of the poor to overthrow the wealthy, etc.

None of the materialists put an empahsis on having large familes, on pusing thier views onto others, or on being morally judgemental, or on using violence to get their way. The Christians did all of these things, and that was why they were successful.

So you accept as fact the villification by detractors of Christianity, but you reject as fiction the assertions of the promoters of Christianity.

Interesting historical epistomology.

Gamera · 07-03-2006, 05:44 PM

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic]

Quote:

But science was not nearly as advanced in the first century as it is today, and today, science and education are causing problems for Christianity, especially in the Western world where education is better than in third world nations.

I would say that science and education has caused "problems" for a particular illegitimate strain of Christianity, that has nothing to do with historical Christianity and has taken virulent root in America. The church in Europe finds the Christian Right and their bizarre views about literalism and inerrancy as downright laughable. And so do I.

Quote:

There is not any credible evidence at all that social values would not have improved without Christianity. "More attractive" does not necessarily mean "true". Unless you can establish a correlation between "more attractive" and "God's influence", you do not have a credible argument.

I disagree. We have 3000 or so years of pre-Christian culture to draw upon, and it was not progressing ethically by any standard I can tell. Greeks were just as convinced that they were superior to barbarians and that they had the right to enslave, rape and kill them as Egyptians did. The pre-Christian world was a moral blackhole.

Haran · 07-03-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The church in Europe finds the Christian Right and their bizarre views about literalism and inerrancy as downright laughable.

This is probably why the church in Europe is mostly made up of the elderly and has been slowly dying. It is because the gospel has been watered down and morality has become relativistic.

Fortunatley, there are a few new churches sprouting up in some parts of Europe where evangelicals are helping to revive the church and bring the younger people back into a right relationship with God.

Gamera · 07-03-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

This is probably why the church in Europe is mostly made up of the elderly and has been slowly dying. It is because the gospel has been watered down and morality has become relativistic.

Fortunatley, there are a few new churches sprouting up in some parts of Europe where evangelicals are helping to revive the church and bring the younger people back into a right relationship with God.

Yeah, it's "relativistic" to accept the isochronic dating.

It's regrettably that you've been bamboozled by the religious right and their political agenda. I hope some day you'll come to a real knowledge of the gospel of Christ.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I would say that science and education has caused "problems" for a particular illegitimate strain of Christianity, that has nothing to do with historical Christianity and has taken virulent root in America. The church in Europe finds the Christian Right and their bizarre views about literalism and inerrancy as downright laughable. And so do I.

Thank you very much for that correct assessment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

There is not any credible evidence at all that social values would not have improved without Christianity. "More attractive" does not necessarily mean "true". Unless you can establish a correlation between "more attractive" and "God's influence", you do not have a credible argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I disagree. We have 3,000 or so years of pre-Christian culture to draw upon, and it was not progressing ethically by any standard I can tell. Greeks were just as convinced that they were superior to barbarians and that they had the right to enslave, rape and kill them as Egyptians did. The pre-Christian world was a moral blackhole.

And Christian endorsement of slavery until the 19th century was a moral blockade, especially for a group of people who supposedly had "the truth", as was the Christian conquest of the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion, an empire that was conquered by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

Gamera · 07-03-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

And Christian endorsement of slavery until the 19th century was a moral blockade, especially for a group of people who supposedly had "the truth", as was the Christian conquest of the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion, an empire that was conquered by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

A bad example since slavery was ended in Europe and America by movements that were almost exclusively Christian in nature.

I'm not saying Christianity was misused or even coopted. The point is Christianity condemns the misuse of other humans explicitly. If a self-serviing Church hierarchy misused or ignored that message, that's bad. But the Greeks didn't have ANY message against slavery. They liked slavery. They saw no moral impediment to slavery. If the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had their way we'd still have slavery.

See the difference? You're making my point by the very examples you're giving. The moral universe that allows you to sit there and condemn some Christians for not ending slavery is a moral universe constructed by Christianity.

Haran · 07-03-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Yeah, it's "relativistic" to accept the isochronic dating.

Huh? I was just responding to your incorrect statements. I don't know many Christians who have any problems with science, though some have a problem with the theory of evolution. Though I do not personally have such a problem. I, in fact, studied engineering.

Quote:

It's regrettably that you've been bamboozled by the religious right and their political agenda. I hope some day you'll come to a real knowledge of the gospel of Christ.

There is no "religious right" in my life, so there is no way I could have been "bamboozled" by them.

By the way, it's not about knowledge of the gospel of Christ...that was called gnosticism.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-03-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

A bad example since slavery was ended in Europe and America by movements that were almost exclusively Christian in nature.

But long overdue for a people who supposedly had "the truth". This is quite suspicious. The texts basically say that to whom more is given, more is expected, and by implication certainly much more than the world has gotten from Christians. If God exists, he will judge professing Christians by the Bible, most certainly not by comparing them to non-Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I'm not saying Christianity was misused or even corrupted. The point is Christianity condemns the misuse of other humans explicitly.

So did Hammurabi 18 centuries before Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

If a self-serviing Church hierarchy misused or ignored that message, that's bad. But the Greeks didn't have ANY message against slavery. They liked slavery. They saw no moral impediment to slavery. If the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had their way we'd still have slavery.

Noted skeptic Bible scholar Dr. Robert Price once told me that in ancient times when Christians endorsed slavery, some non-Christians groups, I forget which, opposed it. In early American history, some of the first people to oppose slavery were non-Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

See the difference? You're making my point by the very examples you're giving.

I am not making your point at all. Which groups of people are more moral proves nothing, especially when God himself is not moral.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.