jbernier

Leaving aside the question of whether or not a truly 'secular' democracy is possible (in that nationalism very often will function as a form of the sacred), this is beside my (and, btw, who is arguing for a theocracy anyways?). My point was not that one form of structure or authority is better than the other: My point was that the very fact that we seek structure and authority begs the question "Why do we seek structure and authority." This is a properly anthropological question in that it is a question about a general human tendency.

What technique? There was no technique in the quotation you cited.

This begs a question: "How did we climb out of the hole?" Was it simply because the Enlightenment finally figured out that "abuse, violence and exploitation" were bad? If so, were did they get the idea? Did Rousseau just wake up one morning and say "Oh, I think violence is a bad thing"? This is a historical question and begs an historical explanation.

I am offering an explanation: That over the last two thousand years people's thoughts have been shaped by a religious tradition in which one is to identify with the victim, not the persecutor. This identification took on a life on its, becoming so durable in our thoughts that it no longer needs the explicit religious association to function. However, as for the very idea that violence against an innocent victim is wrong, I see no place where this more dramatically and significantly explodes into western consciousness as a historical force than in the Gospels.

Exactly! And what I am asking is "Why?" we made that decision. What is your explanation?

There is no point that guilt can be exploited - so can love, for that matter.

It must be attached to the interiority - the thoughts - of the person for that is where the tendency to violence resides. It must be attached to the very interior processes that lead to violence.

Let me quote what is being "fixed": 'That left to our own devices we each have the potential to engage in violence to achieve our goals.' Now, by arguing that democracy can fix this you have tacitly agreed to this premise. Now, can democracy fix this? Can democracy even speak to this?

Democracy=Rule by the demos, the people. How can rule by the people speak to the tendency of the human individual to engage in violence to achieve his or her goal? This is an atomistic statement: A statement about the tendencies of the individual left to their own devices. Democracy, by definition, is never about the individual to their own devices. Democracy is not a solution to this problem because democracy arises subsequent to our tendency to engage in violence. We might be able to mediate the tendency but it can never fix it; at best it can make sure that it does not get out of hand. That is not a fix.

It may not be the most common interpretation of the Biblical texts but so what? Is truth decided by consensus? I am arguing that, if properly understood, this is what we see in gospels. I am making an exegetical claim and so what if lots of people disagree with me? That is exactly irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my claim.

Look closely at what I argued: I said that self-seeking is not overcome but turned back on itself. That is, by seeing oneself in the person towards whom one acts, by recognizing what one does not want for oneself, one is able to act towards them in a sympathetic way (sympathetic is most precise word I could think of, for we come to "feel like" them or to at least imagine what it must be like to be in their place).

But how is it actualized? It is one thing to say "Love is cool"; it is quite another to make it real.

An ethic of love, btw, cannot be based upon rules but must be an ethic that would make rules superflous and redundant.

But that was not my exegesis. I would argue that we are self-seeking by nature, and self-absorption created by a blindness to reality is perhaps the closest way I can describe the New Testament understanding of 'sin' (I think it a much better way that thinking of it as evil).

I would argue quite the opposite: The "liberal humanistic secular philosophy" was only made possible by the seeds planted by the gospel over 1500 years of proclamation. Remember that the first humanists arose from among the reformers - man like Erasmus, for instance. Was it not the Pilgrims who came to America seeking freedom from tyranny - ideas that found ultimate expression in the American nation? Were not the greatest early thinkers of "liberal humanism" themselves profoundly religious (for instance, Adam Smith, as I recall, was a Presbyterian minister who taught Moral Philosophy; John Locke, as I recall, was a Puritan; etc. I am going from memory of philosophy classes from long ago so, if I am mistaken on historical details, please correct me)? And I am arguing that this is not an accident: That it is precisely because of their influence by the gospel message that they promulgated their ideas.

If not in these fountainheads - Erasmus, Smith, Locke - then where would you see the history and prehistory of liberal humanism? Did people just spontaneously evolve one day? Where did this philosophy come from? It is fine to postulate it as a source for our transformed understandings but one must then address its own sources.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Locke? Jefferson? Rosseau? I'm not particularly up on Enlightenment-era philosophers. And it was the 19th century before anyone really took the idea seriously. The ancient Greeks caught a glimpse of it as well.

You can read political equality into Christian scripture just as well as you can read support for tyranny, slavery and the chattel status of women into them.

Like I said, FWIW, I personally approve of your interpretation of Christian scriptures. But it's an interpretation that few applied until very modern times, and it seems to obviously import secular humanistic philosophy.

jbernier

But it was there in Locke, Jefferson and Rousseau. It takes time for new ideas to filter into the wider public consciousness.

Either way, were did Locke, Jefferson and Rousseau get the idea from?

Fair enough - although I would suggest that it was a very fleeting glimpse. Moreover, it did not seem to go very far.

Note that this was not my argument. I did not argue that the Christian scriptures had a full-blown philosophy of political equality. My argument was that the gospels progressively shaped the way that western society viewed the world, thus opening the possibility for thinkers such as Locke et. al. That is that the Gospels constitute an - perhaps the most - important part of the genealogy that led to philosophies of political equality. This is a genealogical argument, and thus it is to be expected that later points in the genealogy contain ideas novel or more clearly articulated than earlier points. This, however, does not negate the importance of the earlier points of the genealogy for they open the possibility for the later.

Sure. Of course, Locke et. al. can be open to similar critiques (and has been - Marx, for instance). For instance, was slavery in its modern expression part and parcel of first mercantilism and later capitalism?

If the gospel text preceded humanist philosopher and were well-known to those who started the humanist tradition, then is it not most logical to argue that the gospel texts influenced humanist philosophy rather than the other way round?

Which brings me to the rub: If you "personally approve" of my interpretation are you not tacitly acknowledging that it is valid (unless you are approving something that is invalid)? If you acknowledge that you it is valid are you not admitting that one could be influenced by the things that I see in the texts? And if one could be influenced by the things that I see in the texts and if the texts preexisted and were known to the earliest humanist philosophers then could it not be that they were influenced by the things that I see in the text? That is, your very approval admits that my argument is a possibility (unless you are approve something that is invalid).

Dean Anderson

Erm... you seem to be agreeing with me here. That is what I meant by "psychological security" - the assuaging of fears about what our neighbours might do.

Of course, our fears are normally much more extreme than the things we are afraid of. Look at any place where there has been a natural disaster such as an earthquake - and where the authority and structure has disappeared.

Sure - there are people who loot and so on, but time after time the majority of people help one another and co-operate.

I think you have a far too pessimistic view of human nature. After all, if we really would break down without authorities to keep us in place, then how do those authorities get set up in the first place?

The authorities are to protect us from the anti-social minority, not to protect us from the social majority.

But human nature must be harmonious for it to make us want to set up and support these authorities, structures, rules, etc.

In my opinion, "we seek structure and authority because we naturally co-operate and we like such things" makes more sense than "we seek structure and authority because we naturally hate such things and want anarchy".

If a religion or cult is going to sell a "cure" for your worthlessness and guilt, then it is no use to someone who is happy. Magnifying everything to make people feel much worse and much more in need of the "cure" provided is a classic tactic. Just look at the Scientology "psychology tests" designed to make you think you need the "help" that they are selling.

The Bible may not be so blatant (although some might disagree with me on that), but it appears to be using the same tactic - whether deliberately or not.

I never said he was - I was answering Neorask's two contradictory posts.

My perspective on that is that (to paraphrase what you have said)...

The Gospels (a) incorrectly diagnose the human condition, magnifying imperfections to the point where humans are considered worthless and deserving only of eternal torture and (b) offer a solution to the problem of guilt that its doctrine of sin caused.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Yes, well, one step at a time. First we throw off the shackles of the priests, then the generals, then the politicians.

Indeed it is. A question for science, not religion.

The technique is adopting the metaphysical view that at least people are not inherently depraved, that we are even naturally virtuous; or at least some tendency to virtue is within our nature and can be brought out.

It could well be.

The creativity of the human mind. Einstein woke up one day and thought, "hmmm, what would a particle travelling at the speed of light actually see? Is is so hard to believe that yes, a person can indeed wake up one day with a new idea.

I disagree. Two thousand years is much too long.

Besides, how would you falsify this idea? It's easy to grab the credit after the fact.


Two thousand years is not a dramatic explosion. It's more like a barely perceptible seepage. Now the American Revolution, there was an explosion! Within a generation, the idea of self governance began to sweep the West.

Where do you see this in the Christian bible in such plain and direct language? What do you see but "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and Paul's lips planted firmly on the anus of Roman hegemony? What did we get except the divine right of Kings and the tyranny of a millenium of Popes?

Because we finally had the courage to step out from under the idea that mankind was depraved by nature. That's an Enlightenment idea, not a Christian one. The Christians had a thousand years of ideological and political hegemony to abandon this soul-destroying doctrine, but they did not.

Why then and not sooner? I don't really know. I'm not a student of history. But it's fairly obvious that Christian scripture can't claim the credit. Christianity is a johnny-come-lately to the humanist scene.

Well, the democratic governments of the West are some of the least violent societies in all of human history.

What are you looking for? The eradication of violence from the human soul? Why should we eradicate this trait? Why isn't management and harnessing of our capacity for violence into productive forms of conflict such as capitalism a fix?

And how do you know secular democracy cannot eradicat violence if we choose to do so? It's only been around a couple of hundred years, and it's already improved human happiness and well-being a thousand times more than two millennia of Christianity.

Christianity's only value in modern times is its adaptability; you can read anything into Christianity, humanism as well as tyranny. Islam, for instance, is going to fail violently because it cannot adapt to humanism. The Koran is too clear, too unequivocal for even the cleverest to read modern society into it.

The meaning of words is indeed decided by consensus.

You're begging the question. There is no "proper" understanding of any text. Yes, there does exist some reading of the gospels that entails humanism. But that reading is no more "authoritative" than any other reading. Remember, I like your reading of the gospel a hell of a lot better than I like Fred Phelps'. But neither you nor Phelps can lay claim to an "authoritative" reading of the bible.

But you have no way of establishing the truth or falsity of an exegetical claim. Exegesis is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I'm not arguing your opinion. I'm arguing only that you have to bring all of secular humanistic philosophy to bear to extract that reading. My view is that I just take secular humanistic philosophy and leave the bible to antiquarians.

<shrugs> Everything that happens in history was made possible by everything that happened previously. I can say again only that 1500 years is far, far too long for one ideology to be considered a direct cause.

No, they were seeking the opportunity to create a tyranny more to their own liking.

No. Enlightenment philosophy was imported from Europe after the establishment of the colonies.

I'm no more schooled in history than you. I do know that most of the founders of American Democracy, especially Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Franklin, were Deists, not Christians, and hardly "profoundly" religious. It is, I think, profoundly indicative of the low esteem held of religion in general and Christianity in particular that the Declaration of Independence mentions only a deistic Creator and the Constitution not only fails to privilege any religious faith into law, but also explicitly cuts religion off from governance with the First Amendment.

Not all in one day, but yes. People had creative ideas and explored them.

I'm not enough of a student of history. But I do know enough that your 21st century reading of the then 1500-year-old Gospels wasn't a dominating influence.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Keep in mind, jbernier, that I'm 100% absolutely in favor of Christians applying your flavor of liberal humanistic interpretation to their scriptures. I think if every christian read the scriptures as you appear to, the world would be a far better place. But I don't think even your interpretation of scripture is particularly evangelical; it doesn't serve to persuade an already liberal, humanistic atheist such as myself to even reexamine the scriptures, much less become a believer.

I don't need the scriptures to tell me to be a kind person. I'm a kind person because it is in my self-interest to be kind; It feels good when I help others and earn their approval. I don't need to apply any religious mysticism to socially manage my self-interest; rationality and adequate parenting and socialization do the trick nicely.

Eldarion Lathria

Save of course when god wanted to massacre them, or have his friendly little bet with satan about Job.

Of course, from the archeological evidence it seems that the events of Genesis,Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua never happened. And the events of Judges, Chronicles and Kings are much exaggerated. But morally one must ask the question, is it creditable to someone to boast about crimes that never happened? And did the priests of Judah write all that fiction about Egypt in Exodus to salve their national pride over the fact that, more often than not, Judah was tributary to Egypt.

Eldarion Lathria

sharon45

First of all, that quote from Galatians is like stating "we are all equal as long as you 'buy' what we are 'selling'". They are trying to pass off a corruption, a lie, and oviously, anyone who knows this as such is not equal to those who do not know. The ones that understand the deception are thought of as blind or as garbage not deserving of any mercy.

Besides that, life as it is now, is far from equal or anywhere near as all people being equal. Equality is still an experiment a long way from a serious beginning. Equality sure did not come from out of the bible that much is true. Not even people's corrupted versions of equality came out of the bible, that is still just much older human nature struggling to get ahead.

To connect to the bible with something like equality is about as much a reach as being able to prove the bible as true. First, both subjects need a document that takes itself serious enough to at least be consistent and that easily leaves the bible out.

jbernier

I am not interested in persuading you; I am interested in proclaiming the Gospel. That is the kerygmatic task of Christian theology: "Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me" (to loosely quote Martin Luther).

Ah, but that is the issue. What if it did not feel good? Would you still be kind? This still puts yourself first, makes your own feelings the deciding factor in whether or not you will be kind. But what of the other's feelings and experiences? Do they weigh into your decision at all? And, if so, how? As long as you doing it because it feels god it is still self-centred. Can we even call it altruism if it is to make yourself feel good?

You are talking about managing it; I am talking about transforming it. There is a qualitative different. You want to use it to motivate your actions; I argue that it is possible to transform self-interest into a love for all humanity. These are very different things. You said that you are all for an ethic of love. However, if you are motivated by self-interest - the desire to feel good - is that really an ethic of love?

jbernier

Yes, I did agree substantially with what you said. I apologize if that was unclear.

I would agree.

Agreed. But this begs a question: Why is it that humans unite most solidly in the wake of disaster? You can much more easily mobilize a nation for war than for foreign aid missions. Why is that?

To prevent the breakdown, of course. In the earliest contexts 'authorities' would have been informal (as we find in many hunter-gatherer, pastoralist and agricultural societies); formalized authorities would occur later, as the result of historical processes of routinization (this is intentionally Weberian language, as I think Weber hit the nail on the head here) and institutionalization. This, incidentally, is why 'structure' is a more useful term than 'authority.[/i]

You might be able to make that case with 'authority' but not with structure. Social structure and society arise simultaneously. Evidentially, no ethnographer has yet found a unstructured society; logically, they are inseparable. Now, in order to suggest that structure is only there to regulate the anti-social then one must suggest that the anti-social existed before the social, which is logically absurd. Thus the most one can say is that 'authority' developed as a specialized form of structure that could take more aggressive action against that 'anti-social minority.'

Now, of course, one must ask how one comes to be defined as anti-social. Is there something intrinsic to the individual that makes them anti-social? In that case, certain people are defective social beings. Is there something intrinsic in society that makes certain people anti-social? In that case, at least some societies are defective societies (certainly any society in which authority exists would have to be so, or else authority would not have arisen). Or are anti-social people individuals who act in a way or belong to a group deemed outsiders and enemies by society? That is, is the problem something within the anti-social person or does the problem lie in the way that societies categorize people. Now, what if this was an essential part of any society (as it seems to be)? That is, a society can only exist by defining who is in and who is out. Then we could say that the definition of an anti-social minority is primarily the means through which the majority continues to maintain its position as majority.

Not necessarily. There must merely be a desire to minimize conflict; that is not identical to being harmonious. The very fact that we need to create social mechanisms to do this suggests that it is not in our very natures to be this way.

I did not argue that we want anarchy. I argued that our instinctual self-preservation causes society to tend towards disintegration. Those are two different points. However, we again get back to the anti-social minority. In order to make this point you have to postulate a group of people who do not fit your understanding; that is, you have to posit exceptionality for the anti-social minority. My model has the advantage of not needing to posit an anti-social group to explain anomalies. I would thus suggest that my model is more parsimonious.

This is indeed a paraphrase - and a very loose one at that. Why is it very loose?
1) I did not say one word about eternal torture. Nor did I say one word about heaven. I said nothing about the life to come at all, as I recall. My posts were entirely about this life, this world.
2) I did not say that humans are to be considered worthless. Quite the opposite, in fact. My argument is that the guilt is a necessary part of the recognition that we often treat or view (at least certain) people as worthless (the anti-social minority comes to mind). The guilt comes with the recognition that we have treated people who are not worthless as worthless.