Wise men should believe in the Christain Ethic
Gurnemanz
read over the Christimas period:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=111520
jh
Mullet
"Gurnemanz" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a078lm$jg6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Irrespective of whether Christianity is true or not, it would make for
greater social stability if a significantly higher proportion of the
population attempted to answer those questions in a Christian context."
Well, just because living your life founded on nonsense *might* "make
for greater social stability" doesn't mean that living such a life would in
any way be better, truer, more meaningful, or more WISE, Mr. Humphries.
--
Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk in front of me, for I
may not follow. Don't walk beside me either. In fact, just leave me the hell
alone.
-- Eric J. Muller --
Elizabeth Hubbell
"Mullet" <ejmu...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:wSCW7.5149$tg4....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> "Gurnemanz" <j...@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a078lm$jg6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > An article * by an atheist* for atheists to
> > read over the Christimas period:
> >
> >
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=111520
> >
> > jh
>
>
> "Irrespective of whether Christianity is true or not, it would make for
> greater social stability if a significantly higher proportion of the
> population attempted to answer those questions in a Christian context."
>
> Well, just because living your life founded on nonsense *might* "make
> for greater social stability" doesn't mean that living such a life would
in
> any way be better, truer, more meaningful, or more WISE, Mr. Humphries.
Another (fair, IMO) question might be, Well, are there, perhaps, any
thoughtful, entirely original, trend-setting ethical precepts/concepts that
were
first introduced on to the world stage by pioneering atheists?
By way of clarification, I'm not referring here to figures (impeccably
upright
individuals like Ingersoll, Lucretius, Russell, and so on) who may have
coined certain impeccable ethical precepts/concepts pretty much on their
own, while doing so within the context of approving the essential
skepticism of others they may have admired (Lucretius admiring Epicurus,
for example).
Nor am I referring to figures who pioneered an atheistic outlook while
adopting impeccable ethics from others, however sincerely (for example,
the skeptic Vanini martyred horribly on the stake for his courageous,
trend-setting skepticism, while living and dying unflinchingly along the
strict ethical lines of his mentor Pamponazzi).
What I am wondering is, can anyone here, with all the knowledge that's
available at this forum, come up with an individual who was both a
trend-setter when it came to her/his atheism (having arrived at it without
any mentor or influence of any kind) and also a trend-setter when it
came to a clearly distinctive, innovative, ethical creed (having arrived
at it too without any mentor or influence of any kind)?
Just a thought.
Thoughtfully yours,
G Riggs, agnostic (who, BTW, can't help wondering whether the
adoption of "Gurnemanz" as a "nom de Net" doesn't indicate an
opera fan here clearly adopting the name of a certain
loquacious character from Wagner's Parsifal.............<G>)
Jay
John Secker
Hubbell <elizabet...@verizon.net> writes
>What I am wondering is, can anyone here, with all the knowledge that's
>available at this forum, come up with an individual who was both a
>trend-setter when it came to her/his atheism (having arrived at it without
>any mentor or influence of any kind) and also a trend-setter when it
>came to a clearly distinctive, innovative, ethical creed (having arrived
>at it too without any mentor or influence of any kind)?
>
a baby abandoned at birth and brought up by wild animals. How can
anybody have "no mentor or influence of any kind"?
--
John Secker
Elizabeth Hubbell
"John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VSjtXuAw...@secker.demon.co.uk...
Since, with respect, this thread started out by left-handedly claiming (in
the
link cited in the initial posting) that the *ethical*
formulations/precepts/constructs coming from Jesus were somehow
unique to Jesus (i.e., somehow free of any "mentor or influence of
any kind"), it seems likely to me that the clear courage
entailed--in years gone by--of openly espousing skepticism
(vide Vanini dying courageously at the stake) would inevitably
disclose, eventually, some example of some similarly brave
skeptic likewise espousing a "way of life" that would defy,
in an enlightened way, the thoughtless ways of her/his compatriots in
the same way that Jesus's "Love your enemies" certainly defied the
vindictive ways of his compatriots ca. 30 A.D.
I would accept the notion that "Love your enemies" sprang full
blown from Jesus' own highly individual concept of what it was
to be a decent human being, without the influence of any
apparent mentor. Surely, the courage entailed in being a
freethinking atheist should result in the uncovering of some
similarly independent and courageous espousal at some point
in history from a similarly autonomous *atheist*'s "way of
life" in defiance of hidebound contemporaries.
The notion that such an atheist, who is both a pioneering atheist
and a pioneering ethicist, has been duly chronicled already
seems--to me--more likely than not.
IMHO, if Jesus was autonomous in his own individual espousal
of a "way of life" ("Love your enemies"), then there must be some
atheist of similar assurance and independence out there in the
pages of history. Who is s/he?
IMHO, my initial question, and its validity, and its likelyhood of
being answered in the affirmative, still stands.
Respectfully and thoughtfully,
G Riggs, agnostic
Arthur Samuels
> a baby abandoned at birth and brought up by wild animals. How can
> anybody have "no mentor or influence of any kind"?
A better scenario would be somehow to raise a group of children without
exposing them to any religion whatsoever. Teach them everything else that a
child gets from this culture, but without the Invisible Sky Daddy. Maybe on
the first Mars colony (but I doubt it).
- Arthur
Hoeven
Jay skrev i meldingen <526801d3.01122...@posting.google.com>...
>And just what Ethic is that?
>
"As the good Lord said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," unless he's Turkish,
in which case, kill the bastard!"
(The Black Adder- "Born to be King")
--
Hugo van der Hoeven
Jay
"Golden Rule". What follows comes from www.cyberdespot.com ...
If anyone should tell you that, without the benefit of Christian
teaching, we would all lack the Golden Rule, share with them the
following:
Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.
-- Pittacus, 650 BCE
Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not do
unto another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest
this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest.
-- Confucius, 500 BCE
Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.
-- Thales, 464 BCE
What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them.
-- Sextus, a Pythagorean, 406 BCE
We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act
toward us.
-- Aristotle, 385 BCE
Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for
another's welfare as your own.
-- Aristippus of Cyrene, 365 BCE
Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you.
-- Isocrates, 338 BCE
Do not do to others what you would not like others to do to you.
-- Hillel, 50 BCE
Then, some time later . . .
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-- Jesus of Nazareth, circa 30 CE
Eric Pepke
> IMHO, if Jesus was autonomous in his own individual espousal
> of a "way of life" ("Love your enemies"), then there must be some
> atheist of similar assurance and independence out there in the
> pages of history. Who is s/he?
Robert Ingersoll
ne...@nunc.invalid
> - Arthur
Very likely they would thank god for their safe arrival on the Martian
surface.
--
Nemo esse vult nemo
et quoniam nemo sum ego,
is ipse sum qui esse volo!
--Terry Groff (translation into Latin by nemo)
ne...@nunc.invalid
Shouted by Brian Blessed as father of Prince Black Adder. Wasn't Brian
great in that role?
Elizabeth Hubbell
"Jay" <jmf3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:526801d3.01123...@posting.google.com...
> Any search engine should provine a number of sites dealing with the
> "Golden Rule". What follows comes from www.cyberdespot.com ...
>
> If anyone should tell you that, without the benefit of Christian
> teaching, we would all lack the Golden Rule, share with them the
> following:
>
> Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.
> -- Pittacus, 650 BCE
Please, I'm sincerely interested. Might anyone here know whether Pittacus
was in fact one who worshipped any kind of deity (i.e., mainstream Greek
polytheism of the time), or was he closer to anticipating something like the
Greek atomist point of view (i.e., closer to Leucippos of the 400s/5th
century B.C.E.)? Thanks.
> Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.
> -- Thales, 464 BCE
Essentially, the same question. I realize that Thales is sometimes thought
to be the first philosopher (which can mean several things, of course). But
I've never been entrely clear on where he stood with respect to a theistic
or a nontheistic outlook (the latter not unheard of in ancient Greece by 464
BCE). Again, thanks.
> Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for
> another's welfare as your own.
> -- Aristippus of Cyrene, 365 BCE
Essentially the same question. I seem to recall that much of his thinking
was "propelled" by exposure to the Socratic school (Socrates being already
gone by 365 B.C.E.). But that does not address the question of the degree
to which he did or didn't worship a deity or deities. Thanks.
> Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you.
> -- Isocrates, 338 BCE
....and the same question. Thanks.
(Finally, I seem to think that Hillel was a rabbi(?), which, in his case,
would pretty much answer my question right there;-)
Thoughtfully,
G Riggs
Elizabeth Hubbell
"Eric Pepke" <epe...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.01123...@posting.google.com...
Oh, there's no question that Robert Ingersoll was courageous and
genuine in his espousal of a truly selfless ethic as a way of life.
What I'm chiefly interested in, though, is a figure who would, yes,
A) espouse a clearly independent and selfless way of living,
which, yes, Ingersoll did do,
but who would also
B) espouse such a way of living by *tying* *that* *to*
a *clearly* *autonomous* and *independent* espousal of
atheism, which, no, Ingersoll did not--quite--do.
After all, Ingersoll's espousal of atheism (courageous
and ethically framed as it clearly was) nevertheless
emerged out of a context/school where atheism had
already been mooted previously--a context/school of
which Ingersoll was fully aware, and of which he largely
approved. Perfectly humanitarian figures like Jeremy
Bentham, Matthew Turner, and so on, had already, by
the time Ingersoll came along, promulgated the notion
that the cosmos did not need a deity to account for its
existence. Thus, Ingersoll, however courageously,
was seconding ideas that were already "in the air."
To make this distinction clearer, I should cite what
I already wrote of Ingersoll in a previous posting
now officially included in this thread:
"By way of clarification, I'm not referring here to figures (impeccably
upright
individuals like Ingersoll, Lucretius, Russell, and so on) who may have
coined certain impeccable ethical precepts/concepts pretty much on their
own, while doing so within the context of approving the essential
skepticism of others they may have admired (Lucretius admiring Epicurus,
for example)."
As I hope I've now made clear, my words cited in the previous
paragraph show that, instead, I'm interested in an espouser of
impeccable ethical precepts/concepts *who* *will* *also* be seen
*not* approvingly citing others to be admired, but, rather, mooting
the concept of atheism as a construct explicitly forwarded as entirely
the writer's *own*.
One may argue that the certainty of utter independence can be
elusive. However, if an espouser--even erroneously--sincerely
believes that s/he is enunciating atheism without any *known*
precedent, the mere courage of that perception, and the fact
that such a writer/promulgator will conquer loneliness and
fear in gallantly presenting such an idea as a brave and
*autonomous* one (whether accurately so or not) anyway,
would only enhance the probity and boldness of *any*
self-generated *ethic* that might emerge alongside the
(believed,-erroneously,-to-be-autonomous) atheism.
*That* kind of personage/figure would be the kind of
atheist I would be particularly interested in studying.
My feeling is that, in six thousand years of human history,
there just has to be at least one such known figure, surely.
Ingersoll was too culturally aware of the brave predecessors
within his own culture to qualify as such a figure.
Thoughtfully,
G Riggs, agnostic
Arthur Samuels
> Arthur Samuels <arth...@qwest.net> wrote:
> > child gets from this culture, but without the Invisible Sky Daddy.
Maybe on
> > the first Mars colony (but I doubt it).
>
> surface.
I concur with that, hence the "I doubt it". I see no evidence that humans
in general are outgrowing religion.
- Arthur
Dave
>
> read over the Christimas period:
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=111520
>
More foolishness. Maybe Anderson should stop pretending that he isn't
a Christian. He says;
"Early last century, G K Chesterton said that a man who does not
believe in God will believe in something worse. That turned out to be
the 20th century's most accurate prophecy – and a summary of its
blood-stained history. Marxism, Nazism, Maoism: the destructive power
of these secular religions far exceeded the worst crimes of the
Christian era. "
So another idiot who ignores the Christian roots of Nazism.
Eric Pepke
> B) espouse such a way of living by *tying* *that* *to*
> a *clearly* *autonomous* and *independent* espousal of
> atheism, which, no, Ingersoll did not--quite--do.
OK, I've read back to your previous postings, and now I understand
what you are asking for.
You are taking the claim that Jesus somehow introduced a system of
ethics that had nothing whatsoever to do with other previous and
contemporary thought, which claim of course is completely false
and idiotic, and asking for a similar claim of an atheist figure.
So, I remain uncertain as to whether you want a claim about an
atheist that is similarly impressive or a claim that is similarly
idiotic.
I must admit that, not being a Christian, I am somewhat retarded in
my ability to produce idiocy that is not satirical.
Paul Filseth
> "John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Not asking for much, are you? The only person who could qualify
> > would be a baby abandoned at birth and brought up by wild animals.
> > How can anybody have "no mentor or influence of any kind"?
>
> Since, with respect, this thread started out by left-handedly claiming
> (in the link cited in the initial posting) that the *ethical*
> formulations/precepts/constructs coming from Jesus were somehow
> unique to Jesus (i.e., somehow free of any "mentor or influence of
So your explanation as to how somebody can have no mentor or
influence of any ethical kind is that somebody somewhere said this
was the case with Jesus?
> I would accept the notion that "Love your enemies" sprang full
> blown from Jesus' own highly individual concept of what it was
> to be a decent human being, without the influence of any
> apparent mentor.
Why? What makes you think Jesus didn't evolve it, or maybe even
repeat it, from somebody else? Do you think if the Son of God, the
best and wisest man who ever lived, the founder of everything righteous
and pure in our way of life, actually got the idea during late night
drinking sessions listening to his father's apprentice's brother-in-law
grousing over and over about how all the fighting and revenge was just
making life stink for everybody, and how much nicer Judea would be if
only people would make a bit of effort to get along with each other,
then the authors of the Holy Bible would have been careful to mention
this minor historical detail?
--
Paul Filseth Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only
To email, delete the x. proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
Elizabeth Hubbell
"Paul Filseth" <pg...@lsil.com> wrote in message
news:2002010202...@lsil.com...
> G Riggs <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Not asking for much, are you? The only person who could qualify
> > > would be a baby abandoned at birth and brought up by wild animals.
> > > How can anybody have "no mentor or influence of any kind"?
> >
> > Since, with respect, this thread started out by left-handedly claiming
> > (in the link cited in the initial posting) that the *ethical*
> > formulations/precepts/constructs coming from Jesus were somehow
> > unique to Jesus (i.e., somehow free of any "mentor or influence of
> > any kind"), <snip>
>
> So your explanation as to how somebody can have no mentor or
> influence of any ethical kind is that somebody somewhere said this
> was the case with Jesus?
I was positing it as a possibility within the parameters framed by this
particular discussion so far. Whether or not those parameters are or are
not ludicrous is still up for discussion, IMO. I neither subscribe to nor
reject those parameters -- for now. I merely find the general drift of such
a discussion intriguing.
Positing that certain individuals, whether Jesus or someone else, could
occasionally develop ethical precepts without any apparent mentor is one
supposition. It's a supposition that, in my view, had already been hinted
at left-handedly in the article already cited at
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=111520
I do not endorse such a hint, nor do I reject it out of hand. It's just
that it's too thought-provoking for reasonably intelligent discussionists
like those at this forum not to weigh in some fashion, whether pro or con.
> > I would accept the notion that "Love your enemies" sprang full
> > blown from Jesus' own highly individual concept of what it was
> > to be a decent human being, without the influence of any
> > apparent mentor.
>
> Why? What makes you think Jesus didn't evolve it, or maybe even
> repeat it, from somebody else?
I am not necessarily convinced that Jesus didn't adopt it from other sources
or influences. It's simply that when it comes to looking at the historical
record for any trend-setting ethicist, all we have is the paper trail in the
end. A healthy wariness re that paper trail is perfectly fine, but my
question related to the initial article's suggestion that there might be
written precepts well worth our while to adopt. Consequently, I was curious
as to whether there might not be written precepts from a pioneeringly
*secular* source instead (unlike the theistic Jesus), a secular source that
might also be just as originally and peer-buckingly courageous in
pioneeringly ethical precepts as well. There is a paper trail of roughly
five or six thousand years out there, fragmentary as much of it may be. Can
anyone come up with a doubly pioneering secularist/skeptic and ethicist
whose written remarks could be said to parallel the written record (reliable
or not) for a theistic figure like Jesus.
The most recent scholarship has highlighted specific remarks of Jesus's in
Luke (and, in more tampered form, in Matthew) that appear to stem from a
lost Gospel (referred to as "Quelle" [source] or Q) that concentrated on J's
philosophy more than on specific incidents or biographical/doctrinal
details. If this lost Gospel was indeed earlier than any that have
survived, it may possibly be significant that these sayings appear to
include "Love your enemies". Wherever Jesus may have picked up such an
idea, it was probably not from his immediate peers at the time since the
Mosaic law never specifically went this far in its own ethical code. Hence,
Jesus's presumed courage in promulgating such a notion himself. He
frequently, in the Q remarks, mentions others who have espoused this or
that. Consequently, the absence of any cited authority for "Love your
enemies" may be important.
> Do you think if the Son of God, the
> best and wisest man who ever lived, the founder of everything righteous
> and pure in our way of life,
With respect, I might say that there are three or four who might qualify as
the best and wisest, Jesus being possibly the most significant, but not the
only such figure. Buddha, Confucius and Socrates were also amazingly
courageous, probing and altruistic, IMO. Together, they give a pretty good
case for humanity being capable of some pretty remarkable benevolence when
it really puts its mind to it<G>.
> actually got the idea during late night
> drinking sessions listening to his father's apprentice's brother-in-law
> grousing over and over about how all the fighting and revenge was just
> making life stink for everybody, and how much nicer Judea would be if
> only people would make a bit of effort to get along with each other,
> then the authors of the Holy Bible would have been careful to mention
> this minor historical detail?
Possibly not. But since my question related to the written record
(specifically stripped of later Gospel accretions), and also to strictly the
written record for any equally pioneering skeptic/ethicists as well, your
question becomes moot.
Thoughtfully,
G Riggs, agnostic
Elizabeth Hubbell
> "Elizabeth Hubbell" <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<pq1Y7.77$856.5...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>...
> > B) espouse such a way of living by *tying* *that* *to*
> > a *clearly* *autonomous* and *independent* espousal of
> > atheism, which, no, Ingersoll did not--quite--do.
>
> OK, I've read back to your previous postings, and now I understand
> what you are asking for.
>
> You are taking the claim that Jesus somehow introduced a system of
> ethics that had nothing whatsoever to do with other previous and
> contemporary thought, which claim of course is completely false
> and idiotic,
Clearly, much that is in Jesus's *reported* philosophy is not
without precedent.
However, we know there was no precedent -- at least in the
rabbinical tradition that Jesus inherited at the time -- for,
specifically, the remark, "Love your enemies".
Naturally, we can never be entirely certain that Jesus developed
that entirely on his own. But since I should have made it clear
that I am specifically interested in the written record, it
seems -- possibly -- important that when we strip later Gospel
strata (courtesy of the most recent scholarship) from the
written materials, we are still left with *apparently* genuinely
early verses preserved here and there in Luke, reflecting
Jesus's philosophy in his own remarks, without the
biographical/doctrinal aspects traditionally surrounding him.
The apparently earliest stratum reflected in these remarks
apparently includes "Love your enemies". What's intriguing
is that there are plenty of references to prophetic authorities
even in these earliest verses, but still no reference to any
precedent or authorities for "Love your enemies". That
could perhaps be significant. So far, scholarship has not
uncovered any earlier espousal of that specific precept.
> and asking for a similar claim of an atheist figure.
Yup<G>.
In doing so, I'm merely interested in the written
record -- for now. That doesn't mean that discussion
of the validity of such a claim is somehow out of
bounds. By no means. But a written record is at
least useful for a more concrete discussion pro or
con. I still feel it stands to reason that humanity's
written record of 5/6 thousand years (so far) surely
has at least one preserved skeptic who flouted all
precedent in *both* enunciating (or claiming to
enunciate) an altogether original ethical creed
*and* in enunciating (or claiming to enunciate) an
altogether original skepticism to go along with
her/his original ethics as well. I freely admit I am
not the kind of scholar to know the answer to that
question. But perhaps one can hope that there is
such a scholar here at this forum. That's why the
question still seems worth asking here, IMO.
> So, I remain uncertain as to whether you want a claim about an
> atheist that is similarly impressive or a claim that is similarly
> idiotic.
Both;-) -- please?<G>
> I must admit that, not being a Christian, I am somewhat retarded in
> my ability to produce idiocy that is not satirical.
Do you gauge agnostics as being less "retarded" in that
regard?<G>
Thoughtfully,
G Riggs, agnostic
Jay
>
> Please, I'm sincerely interested. ...
Perhaps, but I suspect that the questions are rhetorical, but I
haven't a clue as to what your point might be. At least we seem to
agree that there is no uniquely Christian ethic -- it's a good start.
Elizabeth Hubbell
And, emphatically, a point on which we can both agree, yes.
Definitely, my questions are not rhetorical. I happen to
have an avid interest in any comprehensive perspective
that's out there concerning the full range of innovators
throughout history who developed pioneering ethical
concepts. I may not be the kind of high-powered scholar
who can just snap her/his fingers and obtain whatever
fragmentary facts are still available from the
six-thousand-year paper trail left by humanity's civilizations.
But that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to apply in whatever
candid way I can to whatever resources these newsgroups
and other Internet venues can provide.
It might be a fruitful project (although the
scholarly/academic/anthropological/scientific resources needed for it would
be mammoth) to ascertain the degree to which altogether pioneering codes of
caring, and of mutual benefit, throughout the past six or seven millennia,
have evolved within a context of similarly pioneering and new (for their
time) religions/theistic beliefs versus the degree to which altogether
pioneering codes of caring, and of mutual benefit, throughout the past
six or seven millennia, have evolved within a context of similarly
pioneering and new (for their time) atheistic beliefs.
As essentially an agnostic myself, I would honestly not feel particularly
affronted by the uncovering of any general historical trend either one way
or the other. Rather, I would be genuinely intrigued as to the sheer
variety of ways in which this altruistic civilizing instinct has played
itself out through the ages. Above all, my overriding curiosity would
center on those breakthroughs that emerged from a single clearly
identifiable individual who was self-evidently bucking her/his own
peers at great peril to her/himself in formulating certain boldly
new and compassionate precepts in the first place.
Thoughtfully,
G Riggs, agnostic
Paul Filseth
> Positing that certain individuals, whether Jesus or someone else,
> could occasionally develop ethical precepts without any apparent
> I do not endorse such a hint, nor do I reject it out of hand. It's
> just that it's too thought-provoking for reasonably intelligent
> discussionists like those at this forum not to weigh in some fashion,
> whether pro or con.
The key word is "apparent". It's easy to have no apparent
mentor -- all you need is a missing paper trail. What several of us
reject out of hand is the idea that it's at all likely that there was
no (unapparent) mentor in such cases. Lack of mentors may be thought
provoking, but lack of a paper trail isn't very -- it's too common.
We're not champing at the bit because we judge the latter explanation
more likely.
> > Do you think if the Son of God, the best and wisest man who ever
> > lived, the founder of everything righteous and pure in our way of
> > life,
>
> With respect, I might say that there are three or four who might
> qualify as the best and wisest, Jesus being possibly the most
> significant, but not the only such figure. Buddha, Confucius and
> Socrates were also amazingly courageous, probing and altruistic, IMO.
In case it wasn't clear, that was not my own evaluation, but a
description of how Jesus is perceived by his followers. My intent was
to draw attention to the fact that our sole source of information about
him isn't necessarily unbiased on the subject of his originality.
> But since my question related to the written record (specifically
> stripped of later Gospel accretions), and also to strictly the
> written record for any equally pioneering skeptic/ethicists as well,
> your question becomes moot.
Okay, so what you're asking for is a godless "trend-setting
ethicist" who was into altruism and has no paper trail to speak of.
I think I've got your man: Lao-Tzu.
Elizabeth Hubbell
> G Riggs <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > With respect, I might say that there are three or four who might
> > qualify as the best and wisest, Jesus being possibly the most
> > significant, but not the only such figure. Buddha, Confucius and
> > Socrates were also amazingly courageous, probing and altruistic, IMO.
>
> In case it wasn't clear, that was not my own evaluation, but a
> description of how Jesus is perceived by his followers. My intent was
> to draw attention to the fact that our sole source of information about
> him isn't necessarily unbiased on the subject of his originality.
Actually, Josephus's account (clearly not the account of a believer) still
seems to suggest the presence of a figure of a certain ethical probity. I
recognize that some scholars feel Josephus may have been tampered with, but
he is still suggestive, IMO. The account in the Mishnah (Yeshua[?]) is less
flattering, but there's still a hint of a figure with some real guts(?).
Neither of these is as airtight a witness as one might ideally prefer, true;
but they don't come off as biased advocates either.
> Okay, so what you're asking for is a godless "trend-setting
> ethicist" who was into altruism and has no paper trail to speak of.
> I think I've got your man: Lao-Tzu.
A strong candidate--and thank you.
I concede some ignorance of Lao-tzu up until roughly ten or so years ago. I
started reading him with precisely the assumption you have implied here. He
is an intriguing figure for precisely that reason, IMHO. However, Chapter
25 of Lao-tzu's Tao-te-King gave me pause then and gives me pause now. It
doesn't seem to read like the profession of a "godless 'trend-setting
ethicist'", albeit a reasonably caring one. I open it up to the readership
here as to whether or not this seems like the profession of a consistent
skeptic. I don't, frankly, have the scholarly background to know whether or
not there has been much ink spilled by recent scholars already regarding
this passage:
"Chapter 25
"1. There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before
Heaven and Earth. How still it was and formless, standing alone, and
undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being
exhausted)! It may be regarded as the Mother of all things.
"2. I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Tao (the
Way or Course). Making an effort (further) to give it a name I call it The
Great.
"3. Great, it passes on (in constant flow). Passing on, it becomes remote.
Having become remote, it returns. Therefore the Tao is great; Heaven is
great; Earth is great; and the (sage) king is also great. In the universe
there are four that are great, and the (sage) king is one of them.
"4. Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven;
Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its being what it
is."
Tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks. Does that strike anyone here as a
non-atheistic expression of belief in a Supra-universal First Cause or not?
FWIW, it still does strike me personally as a profession of such belief.
Consequently, I feel one would need to search further than Lao-tzu for "a
godless 'trend-setting ethicist' who was into altruism and has no paper
trail to speak of". I still feel fairly sure, incidentally, that such a
figure can be easily found somewhere in the pages of history, and going
after figures like Lao-tzu at least shows we're on the same wave-length.
Again, thank you.
Thoughts?
Cordially,
G Riggs, agnostic
Elizabeth Hubbell
> > qualify as the best and wisest, Jesus being possibly the most
> > significant, but not the only such figure. Buddha, Confucius and
> > Socrates were also amazingly courageous, probing and altruistic, IMO.
>
> In case it wasn't clear, that was not my own evaluation, but a
> description of how Jesus is perceived by his followers. My intent was
> to draw attention to the fact that our sole source of information about
> him isn't necessarily unbiased on the subject of his originality.
Actually, Josephus's account (clearly not the account of a believer) still
seems to suggest the presence of a figure of a certain ethical originality.
I recognize that some scholars feel Josephus may have been
tampered with, but he is still suggestive, IMO. The account in the
Mishnah (Yeshua[?]) is less flattering, but there's still a hint of a figure
with some real guts(?). Neither of these is as airtight a witness as one
might ideally prefer, true; but they don't come off as biased advocates
either.
> Okay, so what you're asking for is a godless "trend-setting
> ethicist" who was into altruism and has no paper trail to speak of.
> I think I've got your man: Lao-Tzu.
"Chapter 25
Consequently, I feel one would need to search further than Lao-tzu for "a
godless 'trend-setting ethicist' who was into altruism and has no paper
Brian Holtz
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=111520 :
[a painting of Christ] gives the viewer an overarching sense of
the divine. That does not relate to some mere tribal deity:
one-eyed Wotan, or Zeus in disguise, fearing Hera's wrath after
his latest philandering expedition. This is the power and the
glory of universal monotheism; the Creator who so loved the world
that he made himself incarnate in a virgin [..]
Anderson is mistaken that the Christian god El/Yahweh is not a "mere tribal
deity". The gospels' claims for Jesus' divinity rely squarely on (and vouch
for) the Old Testament, a patchwork of folklore, legends and myths about a
tribe whose patriarch Abraham turned to monolatry (not monotheism) because
of his fertility problems. In Mesopotamia the patriarchs worshipped "other
gods" (Josh 24:2) whose actual existence the Old Testament makes no
apparent effort to deny and even seems to acknowledge (Deut 4:7). Only
after their arrival in Canaan did this tribe adopt the local supreme deity
El. El of Genesis is a deity (apparently among many) who can fear (3:22)
humans becoming "like one of us, knowing good and evil [and] liv[ing]
forever". El of Genesis is a deity who can fear (11:6) that a
stone-and-mortar building project (the Tower of Babel) can reach to the
heavens. El of Genesis is indeed a deity who adopts a "disguise": to
wrestle with Jacob (32:24ff). And El of Genesis "so loved the world" that
he drowned every man, woman, and child (except for Noah's family). As for
Christ, he affirmed "the law and the prophets" of Old Testament down to
"the smallest letter" and "the least stroke of a pen" (Mat 5:18).
Chesterton said that a man who does not believe in God will
believe in something worse.
Chesterton was patently wrong.
Marxism, Nazism, Maoism: the destructive power of these secular
religions far exceeded the worst crimes of the Christian era.
These ideologies were not religions, because they were not based on faith
or mysticism and did not involve worship of or reverence for a deity. As
measured in humans killed (and perhaps even in percentage of humanity
killed), Christian rule indeed was better, but probably only because it
lacked the technological means to use industrialized mass murder in its
various inquisitions and crusades. However, as measured in the centuries by
which humanity's progress was retarded, Christianity has been about an
order of magnitude worse. And of course, Christianity cannot compare to
secular free-market democracy as a force for good in human history.
"Original Sin'' is still the clearest account of the human
condition, [..]. Genesis II and III provides the best – and
briefest – explanation for all this. As long as Adam and Eve were
God's pets, they lived in simple, nude harmony with nature. Then
they became human.They discovered knowledge, good and evil, shame
and sex. As humans, they were also condemned to mortality [..]
"Original Sin" is just a particularly insidious version of what Michael
Shermer calls the Beautiful People myth: "Long, long ago, in a century far,
far away, there lived beautiful people coexisting with nature in balanced
ecoharmony, taking only what they needed. Women and men lived in
egalitarian accord and there were no wars and few conflicts."
This myth is now well-known to be false. One 1996 study by U. of Michigan
ecologist Bobbie Low of 186 hunting-fishing-gathering societies "showed
that their use of the environment is driven by ecological constraints and
not by attitudes (such as sacred prohibitions), and that their relatively
low environmental impact is the result of low population density,
inefficient technology, and the lack of profitable markets, not from
conscious efforts at conservation." It is now well-known that primitive
humans arriving in Polynesia and North America inflicted numerous
extinctions on local megafauna that had not evolved any fear of
weapon-wielding bipeds.
A 1996 book by U. of Illinois anthropologiist Lawrence Keeley "demonstrates
that prehistoric war was, relative to population densities and fighting
technologies, at least as frequent (as measured in years at war vs. peace),
as deadly (as measured by % of conflict deaths), and as ruthless (as
measured by killing and maiming of noncombatant women and children)".
Genesis 2-3 gives a ridiculous explanation of the origin of women. It also
describes the petty jealousy of a god (or gods) fearful that man too might
have godly immortality and knowledge of good and evil. It is ludicrous to
say that Genesis 2-3 is a "best explanation" for and "clearest account" of
the "human condition".
Such a deeply felt and enduring human need as religion must have
an outlet. To repress it would be dangerous and futile; it would
merely find other means of expression.
Such a simple-minded hydraulic theory of man's internal humours is as false
for religion as it is for war, oppression of women, ethnic conflict, and
dominance hierarchies. None of these things are inevitable, and all can be
abandoned without "repressing" anything.
Any dispassionate observer of social conditions in the advanced
West would find it hard to conclude that we were suffering from
an excess of morals, ethics and a sense of duty.
It is laughable to suggest that the advanced West suffers from anything
like the deficits of morals and ethics that in pre-secular times led to
* subjugation of women;
* oppression of ethnic minorities;
* persecution of religious minorities;
* exploitation of children;
* insecurity against tyranny and foreign conquest;
* insecurity against famine and disease;
* suppression of free speech; and
* extinction-level hunting of megafauna.
The advanced West is without question the most moral, prosperous, free, and
secure society that Homo sapiens has ever created.
The breakdown of the social and sexual constraints associated
with the Christian ethic has been responsible for burgeoning
social problems, and indeed social disintegration. The family,
the heart of Christian social teaching, was also the basis of
social order.
The family was the basis of human social order long before Christianity,
and will remain so long after Christianity. The enlighted modern social
policies that have eliminated the above-mentioned evils have indeed
resulted in two unforeseen (and relatively smaller) problems that Robinson
no doubt equates with "social disintegration": a) the shirking of paternal
financial responsibility, and b) the encouragement of single motherhood
among the poor. These problems are now well-understood and are in the
process of being fixed.
The consequences of the collapse of the family can be seen in our
prisons and our mental hospitals.
Now is a much better time for mental patients than any time in the past.
The only problem with our prisons is that they are full of people whose
only crime was to engage with consenting adults in commerce that Christians
(and the Taliban, etc.) consider an illegal vice.
If God does not exist, and could not have taught men how to live,
the doctrines which men invented for God are profound expressions
of the human race's collective and historic wisdom.
The doctrines men invented for God are hardly "wise". El of Genesis
promotes or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice,
repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women,
slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39], and mass murder. In the
gospels Jesus affirms the Old Testament and promises sinners not a thousand
years' torture, nor a million or a billion, but an eternity of excruciating
torture by fire [Mt 18:8]. It is implausible that the Creator of the
universe would promote such primitive and sadistic policies.
It may be easier for human beings to live peaceably if the basic
struggles for food, clothing and shelter necessarily consume most
of their energies than in an advanced society, where such basic
needs can be taken for granted. [..] Men have more leisure than
ever to devote to the basic questions which they have always
asked, such as what is the meaning of life, and whether life can
really have meaning if it is circumscribed by death. [..]
Irrespective of whether Christianity is true or not, it would
make for greater social stability if a significantly higher
proportion of the population attempted to answer those questions
in a Christian context.
Here we see Anderson's true message: he cannot trust the unwashed masses to
share his knowledge that God and the afterlife do not exist, and instead
seeks to stupify the masses with the opiate of religious superstition.
Without answers to such enquiries, prosperity can never bring
happiness nor widespread harmony.
For enduring happiness and harmony, those enquiries require *valid*
answers, and not just any answer that temporarily pacifies the rabble
Anderson so evidently fears. His fears are misplaced. Humans, if given
freedom of conscience and commerce, will naturally cooperate for mutual
benefit, creating meaning and value even in a universe that declines to
prefabricate them.
--
Brian Holtz
http://humanknowledge.net