Toto

Why repeat Durant's inaccuracies? Yes, people have questioned the existence of Paul. Paul claims only one meeting with Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem, and another encouter with Peter, and he does NOT admit that these men could tell him anything, or had known Christ in the flesh, nor is he at all envious. (Durant actively misunderstands a phrase from I Cor to reach that conclusion, which is not included in this quote - he thinks that Paul's statement translated as "untimely born" means that he was born too late to meet Jesus, when the Greek word used means that Paul was "born too early" to be fully formed or "born dead" - a gnostic concept.)

In fact, Paul is rather contemptuous of these so called pillars and states that he learned nothing from them. This is not what one would expect if they had actually known Jesus. Paul might still be contemptuous, but he would have to explain why he had a better knowledge of Jesus than those who knew him. He feels no need say this.

Chaucer

Total baloney. Whether or not you take what is ascribed to one Jesus of Nazareth as being historical, that corpus of sayings emphatically does account for a huge portion of the devotion for him from many millions around the world. Now, you can say that that devotion is not based on anything he said, if you choose to adopt an absolutist stance that not even the Mark/Thomas/Q-attested remarks have any historicity. But you cannot say that that devotion isn't partly based on what millions of devotees take to be his own words.

Moreover, respecting the application of many of his sayings, their greatest attractiveness to millions relates to ethics and to giving and to the last being first rather than to the afterlife, which connects to maybe half of what's been ascribed to him.

Chaucer

Doug Shaver

Christianity did not become the dominant religion of the Western world because Jesus was alleged to have said "Love thy neighbor." It became the dominant religion because some people wrote some books saying that (a) Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified and (b) anyone who believes that story will have eternal life and (c) anyone who doesn't believe it will burn in hell forever.

Chaucer

But Jesus didn't really start Christianity; if anything, Paul did. In fact, if anything, Jesus is more responsible, ultimately, for starting humanism some 1000 years after he was killed than for starting Christianity. Christianity may have been named after him, but the devotion to him today -- not 1001 years ago, which is admittedly different -- springs as much from those aspects that ultimately influenced humanism as from anything that Paul propagated.

Chaucer

No Robots

If you looked at the review, you would get some idea of where we are coming from. We have our two cultural founders, Homer and Moses. We then have our two embodiments of the cultural ideals, Socrates and Christ. We then have Spinoza who unifies these cultural ideals into a coherent, scientific whole. Finally we have Brunner, who provides the methodology for operationalizing the thought of these geniuses. Without Brunner, we wouldn't be able to make effective use of the work of the earlier geniuses.

Chaucer

Actually, this is -- potentially -- an interesting line of thought. I freely concede I have long been intrigued -- perhaps, puzzled, even slightly frustrated would be more like it -- by certain historic patterns which relate to No_Robots's link (WARNING: this is long).

This post involves, among 101 other things, an implicit query related to pioneers across the eons: Which pioneers have functioned as both “socially evolutionary” and as “Original”s? I’ll explain what I mean by these terms in more detail as we proceed. But I’ve decided to provide here two different lists first, showing a contrast that has bothered me considerably through the years. I may have already referred to this contrast in very general terms in other posts, but it’s time now to put some flesh and bones on that contrast, so others can judge its significance for themselves.

So here we go:

The first of the two lists shows many path-breaking and entirely original spins on social/cultural ethics that have emerged from founding pioneers who have, in the process, founded new and countercultural (for their time) theistic creeds as well, along with their _contextually evolutionary_ moral values –

(values that, as we’ll see, have little to do with so-called “sin”, really [ultimately, a red herring anyway, and fostered more by followers obsessed with exceptionalism than by the initial pioneers]) –

those initial pioneering moral values from the initial founders consisting primarily of salutary puncturing of socially thoughtless attitudes denying the humanity of all social misfits. These thoughtless attitudes are replaced by these pioneers with a constructive sense of responsibility for all without exception instead (”I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine”). All well and good, but why must the most far-reaching and original spinners on such social responsibility always drag in some brand new (and countercultural and initially nonconformist) theistic creed along with their independent social conscience?

Whatever each pioneer’s individual faults — and a few of them certainly have their individual personal flaws, no question — each one has shown clear originality for their time and place and culture in that they introduce, without prior precedent

1. the centrality of peace as the spine to all social values (Lugal-Shag-Egur of 3rd-century-B.C.E. Sumeria — but he also introduces the worship of a deity, Ningirsu, who’s conceived as a powerful god who safeguards all peace treaties)

2. the establishment of protections for the treatment of the socially downscale and the introduction of the concept “freedom” (Urukagina, the Sumerian reformer — but he also reconceives Ningirsu as the safeguard of the widow and the orphan [the first known use of this turn of phrase], thus instituting a new form of worship)

3. the notion that those who are afflicted and oppressed deserve the most respect and consideration of all (the writers of Exodus — but they also introduce the worship of a new god, Yahweh, who has “surely seen the affliction of my people .. and have heard their cry .. And I am come down to deliver them” — in contrast to all other gods of that period who safeguarded the mighty instead)

4. the fundamental concept of Yin and Yang (the writer of the I Ching [thought by some to be a certain Wen Wang] — but this text also introduces something called “Tian” [loose translation: "Heaven"] as a metaphysical bulwark of all that is)

5. the first conscientiously designed Constitution in the Western tradition, instituted as the Constitution of Orchomenus (Hesiod, nicknamed “hearth-founder” for his groundbreaking constitution — but he also introduces into literature the classic picture of the cosmos as conceived in ancient Greek tradition, with its pantheon of gods like Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, and so on)

6. the establishment of conventional wisdom as automatically suspect and the powerful’s use of the jackboot (so to speak) as intrinsically antithetical to all nature (the writer of the Tao-te-king, sometimes called Lao-Tzu — but this text also introduces a new form of worship, Taoism, which worships the Dao as [paraphrase] “the mystical source and ideal of all existence: it is unseen, but not transcendent, immensely powerful yet supremely humble, being the root of all things”)

7. the utter repudiation of any and all violence whatsoever and a rejection of a caste system and of any system that imposes any types of discriminatory levels on the human family at all (the originator of the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya, usually taken to be Buddha — but these sermons also reconceive a new Brahma, a deity now free of anger, pure of mind, free of malice, without wealth and free of worldly cares, capable of union with and inspiration of a sequence of “messengers” who “regard all with mind set free, and deep-felt pity, … sympathy, … equanimity”)

8. the primacy of reining in the arrogance and violence of those in power, advocating a new-minted reciprocal and considerate reform in political life instead, thus shaping the extraordinarily peaceful and stable culture of the Han dynasty (Confucius — but he also introduced the concept that all moral strength comes ultimately from “Tian”, a new wrinkle on the “Tian” of the I Ching)

9. ethics itself as the most important element in humanity’s existence together with a claimed capacity for anyone, from freeman to slave, to grasp it and master it better through continually sharpening self-knowledge (Socrates — but he also introduced his conviction that he could sometimes hear God’s own voice, when being dissuaded from a course of action that would not be right)

10. service to all and living purely for others, even loving one’s enemies, in expectation of the last being first and the first last (the writers of the various Gospels, Scriptural and non-Scriptural, in describing Jesus of Nazareth — but these texts also introduce a new Yahweh, who is merciful and loving, yes, but worship of whom is still yet another form of theistic creed)

11. the primacy of negotiating peace with one’s enemies on their own turf, going in unarmed at great personal risk, just in order to construct a peaceful existence for all peoples in the region, and the instituting of an automatic gift to the poor from all citizens (Mohammed, a reformed raider — but he also introduces a new god, Allah, who must be worshiped five times a day) and

12. a nuts-and-bolts path to total world peace in our modern world, and the first conception, within a combined political/theological context, of our globe as a single village long before other politicians ever took up this idea (Bahá’u’lláh — but he also re-introduces the modern world to a then-new conception of deity as the inspirer of a sequence of “messengers”, and therefore worthy of a new form of worship, Bahai).

That’s one list. Here’s the other:

This list starts off with certain genuinely upright and courageous nonbelievers throughout history that historians rarely talk about –

A) Mathias Knutzen, who described himself as the first “Conscientist” in a series of path-breaking pamphlets published in Central Europe in the 1670s:

‘We declare that God does not exist, we deeply despise the authorities and also reject the churches with all their priests. For us Conscientists the knowledge of a single person is insufficient, only that of the majority is sufficient, as in Luke, 24,39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (because a single person cannot see everything) and the conscience in combination with the knowledge. And this, the conscience, which the generous Mother Nature has given to all humans, replaces for us the bible — compare Romans, 2, 14-15: (14)”For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:” (15)”Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” — and the authorities; it is the true judge, as Gregory of Nazianzus testifies (”On his Father’s Silence, Because of the Plague of Hail,” paragraph 5: “Under what circumstances again is the righteous, when unfortunate, possibly being put to the test, or, when prosperous, being observed, to see if he be poor in mind or not very far superior to visible things, as indeed conscience, our interior and unerring tribunal, tells us”), and is valid for us instead of the priests, because this teacher teaches us to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his. When we fail to do this, I maintain, as this life is for us the only one we have, our entire life will seem like a host of plagues, even as a hell. If, however, we behave in a just manner, it will be like heaven. This, i.e. the conscience, comes into existence with our birth, and it also dies when we pass into death. These are the principles that are innate in us, and whoever rejects them, rejects himself.’

When we research these ethical principles of his — and their nub is, and actually presented in italics in the original German, “to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his” — we find that Knutzen, in setting this off in italics, is adopting another’s code that he sincerely admires rather than conceptualizing an original groundbreaking one of his own. He is borrowing here from the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian, a polytheist whose writings formed the backbone of the Justinian code.

B) Going back to the ancient Greeks, we have Democritus who urged that everyone be engaged in public service. Admirable sentiment, of course. The “asterisk” here is that this time it is his nonbelief that is not original with him, since he was an avid student of and proselytizer for Leukippos, the ingenious elder pioneer of the ancient Greek Atomist school, the first school to recognize that all life is composed of atoms. At the same time, it is clear from what little we have of Leukippos’s own voice that he himself was solely engaged in the close study of what many term purely as physics, with social justice and philosophy never an abiding interest. In fact, Epicurus appears to have remarked that Leukippos was no philosopher.

C) A century or so later, there is Theodorus, who is, unlike Democritus, an “autonomous” atheist, with no mentor or peer group behind him, and hence a true “Original” in that respect, and also a reasonable socially responsible philosopher. His brand of philosophical hedonism, though, partakes partly of Epicurus’s more thoughtful spin on hedonism and more directly of Aristippus’s mild hedonism, the latter having pioneered the Cyrenaic school. Again, then, we have someone who is not entirely an “Original”, this time adopting, albeit sincerely, others’ ethical tenets.

D) Then there is Stratton, another upright original atheist, seemingly uninfluenced by forebears like Theodorus and/or Democritus and/or Leukippos. His (sincere) ethics, though, constitute a wholehearted adoption of the Socratic model.

E) In the C.E., there is even a genuine martyr of freethought, Vanini. His tongue was amputated and he was strangled and burned at the stake. On his way to this ghastly ordeal, he stated he wished to die “en philosophe” — with equanimity. He was an avid student of Aristotle, whose concept of the Good Life had deeply impressed this brave nonbeliever. At the same time, where Aristotle states that the Good Life resides ultimately in contemplation, Vanini had enthusiastically adopted the then-new variation on that construct, promulgated by a thinker of his own time whom he adopted as his more immediate model, Pomponazzi. Pomponazzi may be the first to advance the notion that all religions contain a kernel of the truth, but Vanini, a nonbeliever, probably had little interest in that. What he did adopt enthusiastically from Pomponazzi — and lived and died by — was Pomponazzi’s variation on Aristotle: Instead of the Good Life residing ultimately in contemplation, Pomponazzi stated that the Good Life resides ultimately in moral action. Vanini was courageous but not an “Original” in holding fast to this formulation at his very last hour.

Will there be, at some point in future history, a figure like one of these, who is just as much a moral model as one of these, but also at the same time an answer in autonomous “original”ity to the 12 cases of pioneering countercultural theisms cited further up. None of these nonbelievers cited here have that double “original”ity, both of creed and of ethics, that the 12 theist groundbreakers (above) have. They’re either “original” in one respect or the other but never both, unlike the first list.

So far — and I’ve beaten my head against a wall on this, researching this to a fare-thee-well, so I feel fairly confident in saying this — no one of this nonbeliever description has been an “Original” in both respects. The question is, Will such a transforming nonbeliever figure who can “evolve” our species come along before humanity extinguishes itself in some ghastly conflagration brought on by religious strife? So far, only total “Original”s have brought cultures back from the sociopathic brink in the past (and all of them counterculturalists in their respective theisms rather than their atheisms), with those dedicated nonbeliever advocates who dot the landscape with some already-mooted ideas being merely consigned to “big yawn” status (like the ethically impeccable but ineffective Vanini).

Of course, it is not a case of there being all that few nonbelievers in every age. There are a number, if you know where to look and what to read (encyclopedias are generally a waste of time). The thing is, they have not seized everyone’s imagination in the same decisive way — yet. And I think that can be traced to the fact that we have not had a total “Original” among those who are indeed morally perceptive — yet.

F) The very earliest (known) pioneering nonbeliever was a signal failure in terms of any new culture arising out of his example, even though he certainly had both an entirely original creed and entirely original “ethics”, unlike those unbelievers cited above. But when one studies what he said, it’s not hard to see why his example failed to gain a significant shelf life, although he did have a few adherents for about a century or so (a mere blip in human history). He was the ancient Indian thinker Brhaspati (not to be confused with other figures named Brhaspati in ancient Indian culture), the pioneer of the ancient Indian Lokayata school of philosophy. Here’s some bits of what he said:

“There is neither god nor liberation” [i.e., an afterlife]. “Moreover, earth, water, fire and air are the four forms of matter. The only valid form of knowledge is the one produced by the senses.” “There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid impostors of other schools of thought.”

“There is no heaven, no final liberation,
nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes,
orders, or priesthoods produce any real effect.”

And his “ethics”?

“Merit and demerit also do not exist.” “The pleasure that is produced in a person due to the obtainment of the desired and the avoidance of the undesired is useless.” “gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
“The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others” [OUCH! So much for social responsibility].

“While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee [an extremely expensive and fattening butter] though he runs in debt”.

It’s always struck me that here, and not in Brhaspati’s avowal of total unbelief, we have the reason why he failed to capture a whole culture’s imagination (despite his number of adherents for a century or so). Most people just like to think of themselves as caring and compassionate, whether or not they really are, and when a philosophy fails to address the needs of others in ways that presuppose that everyone hearing them is naturally as upright as the day is long (;-), such philosophies eventually get tuned out, as happened to Brhaspati. His example (as the earliest known atheist) may even have done incalculable damage to the cause of atheism for centuries, if not millennia. The “ethics” may simply have turned too many people off.

All this does not gainsay the fact that sociopathic philosophies can still exert a hold of sorts if advanced with enough charisma and cunning. But they don’t tend to transform whole cultures for more than a couple of centuries, at most. Those “ethics” that have longer influence than that are, sooner or later, the more stable ones that effectively include greater numbers within the “social compact”. Inclusiveness just yields greater long-term stability. Yes, there can be appalling suffering so long as a sociopathic philosophy prevails. And it can last for as long as two or three lifetimes. But it is ultimately self-destructive and unstable through its very cruelty.

Brhaspati’s (relatively) poor reception may be an object lesson for today. If some want to be respected as proselytizing atheists, they may have to advance a clearly responsible and universally caring ethical/social/cultural code (a la the 12 theist paradigms cited at the top here), or the underlying idea — in this case, atheism — may have a hard journey indeed. It could even be that latter-day nonbelieving “self-centered-ists” like Rand and Nietzsche (and Hobbes, to an extent) have done just as much long-term damage to atheists as Brhaspati may have, due precisely to the same lack of a caring ethic.

That concludes the second list.

Someone once asked me ironically –

“So, the “good” influence of religion lies in its tendency to make people follow leaders, and if the leaders happen to be good, then religion has had a good influence?” –

with the ironic subtext that religion is the best way to make people follow some perfectly awful pioneers as well.

I would respond that while “Original” plus sociopathic can make a devastating cultural impact, that which is both “original” and altruistic tends to have a longer and stronger influence. Unfortunately, that which is originally altruistic has to apparently be presented in an entirely new and original package as well in order to establish any foothold inside any culture. That’s what history seems to teach us anyway. So far, any such successful original packages have been exclusively theistic, although counterculturally so. That shows that religion, provided it’s a new counter-cultural religion, has been the only effective carrier of such good — and original — ethical ideas — thus far. Unfortunately, it has been an effective carrier of some pretty noxious ideas as well ……………

Now, is religion — a new countercultural religion, that is — the only package in which good — and “original” — ethical ideas can take strong root in a culture on the brink of sociopathic collapse? That’s the million-dollar question. Fact is, we don’t know the answer for sure. It would obviously be important if an atheist as thoroughly original (for his immediate culture) as Brhaspati could fire the imaginations of enough people to jump-start more environmentally and socially responsible habits on a global scale today. But that would need a much more socially responsible social ethic than the apparently disreputable Brhaspati could muster up in himself almost three thousand years ago.

Is there a possibility that our brains are actually wired in such a way so that we (the majority of us, that is) only respond as a culture or a whole species to ideas that are both good/original when, and only when, they are also “clothed” in new counter-cultural theisms? Is religion then somehow a neccessary evolutionary building block of some sort for human community? It is these thoughts that are teasing me now, and I wonder if any up-to-date evolutionary specialists may eventually address this question.

One can’t help wondering, What would have happened to ancient India had Brhaspati coupled his pioneering nonbelief with an ethical code a century ahead of Buddha’s (he came approx. a century ahead of Buddha) in its all-embracing sense of social responsibility and caring? Would Brhaspati’s ideas have still ended up in the same obscure circular file they’re in today, or would his ideas have then transformed much of Asia into a region eventually free of religion altogether? The only region of the world like that? If we knew the answer to that question, we would know if the majority of our brains invariably require some form of ever-new religion (that is, necessarily counter-cultural) in order to also “take in” good/”original” ethics that periodically save us from the full horrors of sociopathic apathy, or if they can also “take in” such good/"original” ethics in some other creedal package instead, including nonbelief, provided that that package is just as soundly “original” and autonomous from its immediate culture as would be the “original”/good ethics confronting such a doomed culture in the first place under this scenario.

Chaucer

No Robots

Amazing post. Thanks. I'll have to think about this.

No Robots

I've thought about this a bit. You would like to have an ethics based on naturalism, right? Isn't this what Spinoza gives us?

Chaucer

Thanks. Actually, I did look into Spinoza quite a while back. In fact, he terms himself a pantheist. Contrary to some, I'm not sure this is his "get-out" card, so to speak. Instead, he appears to carefully work out the "reality" of this, taking deity as physically present in literally every atom on Earth, and in all matter everywhere, excluding the extra-natural, which is the only thing he does not acknowledge at all. I view him as quite explicitly a theist, just not a mainstream brand.

Best,

Chaucer

No Robots

He was called a pantheist. In fact, the term was coined to describe him. It is, however quite incorrect.

I think I understand you better, now. I would guess that by atheism you mean strictly materialism, ie, that mind is a derivative of matter. Is that correct? If that is the case, you won't have any luck with ethics, which are always based on the Ideal.