Fear of Atheism

[Cypress]

Sure, there is generally a predominant religion in any country and it's likely that people learn things from that religion. That does not mean that religion is the only basis for morality or ethics.

By the way, Christianity generally sucks at morality anyway.

I disagree about being able to live life one way or another. You could live your life as a nihilist if you wanted to.

We obviously get truth and knowlege from a lot of sources.

You didn't get your morality from the atheist philosophers Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, or the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins. There is a 99.99999 percent chance you've never read them.

You have adopted the fundamental Christian tenets that every human life has innate value, that all humans are entitled to dignity, and universal love and brotherhood is an ideal to strive for.

You certainly didn't get your ethos from the Assyrian and Mayan empires or classical Greece. They were largely based on a 'might makes right' ethos.

You have chosen to live your life as if the ethos of the New Testament were objectively true. You haven't chosen to live life as if blind, pitiless physical materialism were true. Which is fine, lots of people who aren't practicing Christians do that.


Nothing I've written is remotely controversial.

Lots of people believe in absolute right and wrong, good vs. evil, objective morality.

The most famous atheist intellectuals of the 20th century faced up to the fact there is no meaning or objective morality in a universe of only blind physical forces. Each individual has to create their own reality and ethos.
^^ When I say that, I am only repeating what famous atheists have said themselves.

Last, there's nothing remotely controversial in stating that the Judeo-Christian tradition provides the the prevailing foundation for the history of Western ethics, even when we strip them out of the religious context.

 

[ZenMode]

We obviously get truth and knowlege from a lot of sources.

You didn't get your morality from the atheist philosophers Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, or the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins. There is a 99.99999 percent chance you've never read them.

I agree.

You have adopted the fundamental Christian tenets that every human life has innate value, that all humans are entitled to dignity, and universal love and brotherhood is an ideal to strive for.

Sure.

You certainly didn't get your ethos from the Assyrian and Mayan empires or classical Greece. They were largely based on a 'might makes right' ethos.

Correct.

You have chosen to live your life as if the ethos of the New Testament were objectively true.

Yes. Like many kids I was brainwashed by nonsense at an early age.

You haven't chosen to live life as if blind, pitiless physical materialism were true. Which is fine, lots of people who aren't practicing Christians do that.

Sure, but my point isn't that religion can't be a source of morality. My point is that science can be a source of morality. A source of objective morality.

Nothing I've written is remotely controversial.

Correct. It's a safe bet that most people my age, who were born in the United States, are going to be influenced by Christianity.

Lots of people believe in absolute right and wrong, good vs. evil, objective morality.

Normally based on whichever sky wizard they were born into, but yes they do. In reality, religious morality is subjective morality, people just treat it as objective because they believe that their creator of the universe has woven morality into the fabric of reality.

The most famous atheist intellectuals of the 20th century faced up to the fact there is no meaning or objective morality in a universe of only blind physical forces. Each individual has to create their own reality and ethos.

Things change. In the 20th century, I never would have foreseen the ability to surf the internet on a handheld device.

^^ When I say that, I am only repeating what famous atheists have said themselves.

Again, things change. Christianity changed. Early Christians realize that they could not live by the ridiculous rules of the Old testament and adjusted accordingly.

Last, there's nothing remotely controversial in stating that the Judeo-Christian tradition provides the the prevailing foundation for the history of Western ethics, even when we strip them out of the religious context.

Yep. The fact that what you're saying is true doesn't mean that what I'm saying is false.

 

[Cypress]

I agree.

Sure.

Correct.

Yes. Like many kids I was brainwashed by nonsense at an early age.

Sure, but my point isn't that religion can't be a source of morality. My point is that science can be a source of morality. A source of objective morality.

Correct. It's a safe bet that most people my age, who were born in the United States, are going to be influenced by Christianity.

Normally based on whichever sky wizard they were born into, but yes they do. In reality, religious morality is subjective morality, people just treat it as objective because they believe that their creator of the universe has woven morality into the fabric of reality.

Things change. In the 20th century, I never would have foreseen the ability to surf the internet on a handheld device.

Again, things change. Christianity changed. Early Christians realize that they could not live by the ridiculous rules of the Old testament and adjusted accordingly.

Yep. The fact that what you're saying is true doesn't mean that what I'm saying is false.

Okay, I think we just have modestly different perspectives on a lot of things.

My biggest disagreement with you is that science is a source of morality.

Nothing about the scientific experimental method, or a universe of only consisting of blind, pitiless physical forces points me towards any kind of objective moral truth or ultimate meaning.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Okay, I think we just have modestly different perspectives on a lot of things.

My biggest disagreement with you is that science is a source of morality.

Nothing about the scientific experimental method, or a universe of only consisting of blind, pitiless physical forces points me towards any kind of objective moral truth or ultimate meaning.

I don't understand.
If the perception of a moral order evolves into the human brain,
that's a purely physical manifestation.

Why do so many people have a similar code?
In billions of earth-like planets probably existing in an infinite universe,
some of them will randomly have a lot of common moral code perceptions.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's a simple fact that nobody in Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, the Mayan or Assyrian Empire was the least bit uncomfortable with slavery, infanticide, human sacrifice; it is a historical fact. It's not a reflection on my values.

It is a fact that very few people in Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, the Mayan or Assyrian Empire was the least bit uncomfortable with slavery, infanticide, human sacrifice. I seriously doubt it was everyone...with no dissenters.

I'm saying it is presumptuous and preposterous for us to look in the rear view mirror and claim that if we had lived three thousand years ago we would have been against slavery and infanticide.

Mostly I agree with that guess.

I'm not going to accept that kind of patting ourselves on the back.

Amen.

The claim being made by strict secular materialists is that the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, the Five Vows of Jaimism, the Eightfold path are just 'common sense' all humans naturally are inclined towards.

Since they are based on survival (individual and communal)...I suspect they are closer to what we think of as "common sense" than anything else...including your "based on Christianity."

That's total baloney, and the most cursory look at history shows a 'might makes right' ethos is what prevails among humans.

You seem more sure of that than I think you should be. There have been very old skeletons found that showed serious breaks in bones that healed, which indicates that even in pre-historic societies, people looked after each other. Could have been a lot more of that going on than you think.

Not the ethos that we naturally are peaceful and cooperative with neighbors, strangers, even rivals.

As I said, I agree with you on so much, I am disappointed that I disagree with you so strongly on this.

 

[gmark77]

Too long to read.

But the reality interesting thing here is people who deny that objective morality exists suddenly becoming 'morally outraged' at the Jewish Old Testament.

My point was that I think there's a core in people that drives toward a moral decision based on our "theory of mind".

We recognize in others that which we wouldn't want for ourselves, so we act to avoid doing that.

It's pretty simple and explains why things like the "Golden Rule" predate the Bible and aren't just limited to one society but almost all societies.

 

[ZenMode]

Okay, I think we just have modestly different perspectives on a lot of things.

My biggest disagreement with you is that science is a source of morality.

I think science can be an objective source for morality.

Nothing about the scientific experimental method, or a universe of only consisting of blind, pitiless physical forces points me towards any kind of objective moral truth or ultimate meaning.

I'm not sure what you mean by blind physical forces, but it's only for a difference in neutrons, electrons, etc that morality is relevant to humans and not to rocks.

 

[gmark77]

I don't understand.
If the perception of a moral order evolves into the human brain,
that's a purely physical manifestation.

Why do so many people have a similar code?

I agree with you on this one. It's why the "Golden Rule" isn't just limited to one society but seems to track with all societies in some form or another. Certainly many societies independently derived it.

And I also feel that all people DO carry an in-born moral compass. I don't know if we have any way to know this, but I sense that it is a VERY RARE person who would be ok with cold-blooded murder in the absence of being told that it is wrong per the Ten Commandments.

It is hard for me to imagine that there was EVER a society in which what we would call rampant "evil" was the order of the day for the average person on the average day. That would be a society that very quickly extinquished itself.

 

[Cypress]

It is a fact that very few people in Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, the Mayan or Assyrian Empire was the least bit uncomfortable with slavery, infanticide, human sacrifice. I seriously doubt it was everyone...with no dissenters.

We have extensive writing, documents, inscriptions, treatises from Classical Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asssyria, Maya culture. There is no indication that anyone was really questioning the morality of slavery, infanticide, and/or human sacrifice.

War booty was a basic expectation of the warrior ethos of Greece and Assyria. It must have sucked to be a slave. But to be a slave owner was very advantageous - especially if you look at it from the Darwinian survival of the fittest perspective.

It must have sucked to be a sacrificial victim. But the Mayan or Canaanite culture as a whole considered adult or child ritual sacrifice a religious obligation.

Since they are based on survival (individual and communal)...I suspect they are closer to what we think of as "common sense" than anything else...including your "based on Christianity."

You seem more sure of that than I think you should be. There have been very old skeletons found that showed serious breaks in bones that healed, which indicates that even in pre-historic societies, people looked after each other. Could have been a lot more of that going on than you think.

That's not the ethos Jesus was teaching.

Even elephants, wolves, and prairie dogs render assistance to family members or cooperate with the pack for mutually advantageous benefit.

That is easily explained by principles of Darwinian evolution.

What Jesus taught was a radical kind of universal love in which compassion and self-sacrifice would be extended beyond the family to even strangers and rivals. That was based on the radical concept that all humans, everywhere, have innate value because they are created in the image of God.

As I said, I agree with you on so much, I am disappointed that I disagree with you so strongly on this.

I honestly don't think I have written anything controversial.

Lots of people believe in a concept of absolute right and wrong. And even the moral relativists who say they don't, live their lives as if objective morality exists. It's not a controversial position to take.

It's widely acknowledged that monotheism and Christianity in particular formed a basis for western ethics. This is not a controversial statement.

Nothing I have said about secular materialists or atheists is not something they haven't said about themselves. The preeminent atheists Nietzche, Camus, Sartre all were willing to face the fact that objective moral truth, meaning, and purpose would not exist in a universe consisting solely of blind physical forces - and that the atheist would have to create their own meaning and moral ethos.

 

[gmark77]

The idea that infanticide is common among those of "lesser morals" is actually quite an old idea. We can even find the accusation in the Old Testament. The Israelites used the accusation against the Canaanites whom they accused of sacrificing their children to Molech. It's almost a by-word for why that society was evil.

It's kind of an interesting parallel to what we see in this thread. The "hallmark" of advanced moral thought is that we shun "infanticide" and all other manner of evil. It is a classic means of "dehumanizing" the other by suggesting they lack even basic human morality. Given that it would be necessary for the Israelites to undertake some degree of dehumanizing of their enemies in order to attack them with the ferocity we read about in Joshua.

But I have little doubt other societies DID sacrifice their children to a god, but as I guessed earlier, probably as an acquiescence that they value their children very highly. I always assume the idea that other societies lack morality like we enjoy is part and parcel of how humans normally function.

 

[gmark77]

What Jesus taught was a radical kind of universal love in which compassion and self-sacrifice would be extended beyond the family to even strangers and rivals. That was based on the radical concept that all humans, everywhere, have innate value because they are created in the image of God.

Absolutely! It's arguable that Jesus' teachings can't even be undertaken by humans. It is the rare person who could "resist not evil" but "turn the other cheek" when attacked.

Following Jesus has to be the absolute hardest thing any human being can do. Which is probably why so few do it well.

Nothing I have said about secular materialists or atheists is not something they haven't said about themselves. The preeminent atheists Nietzche, Camus, Sartre all were willing to face the fact that objective moral truth, meaning, and purpose would not exist in a universe consisting solely of blind physical forces, and that the atheist would have to created their own meaning and moral ethos.

I think the general thought is that not just atheists created their own meaning. Religion, arguably, is the exact same thing. People making up meaning for themselves. It certainly explains why there are as many religions as there are "meanings" to be imagined.

 

[Cypress]

I don't understand.
If the perception of a moral order evolves into the human brain,
that's a purely physical manifestation.

That tells us nothing about why humans uniquely seem to perceive a moral law that often directly contradicts the 'survival of the fittest' natural law we see in Darwinian evolution. Whether it was caused by DNA or subatomic quantum fluctuations in the brain is just describing a process. It doesn't provide explanatory power as to why this happened.

Why do so many people have a similar code?

I don't think they do. I think you would be shocked at the moral values of the Assyrians, the Cannanites, the Greeks of antiquity.

The pivot point in moral values seems to have originated around the known world about the same time in the late first millennium BCE, sometimes called the Axial Age transition.

In billions of earth-like planets probably existing in an infinite universe,
some of them will randomly have a lot of common moral code perceptions.

I don't see any evidence of an infinite universe, or other sentient life forms, and until we have evidence I don't think it is productive to speculate.

 

[Cypress]

My point was that I think there's a core in people that drives toward a moral decision based on our "theory of mind".

We recognize in others that which we wouldn't want for ourselves, so we act to avoid doing that.

It's pretty simple and explains why things like the "Golden Rule" predate the Bible and aren't just limited to one society but almost all societies.

I don't know what you specifically mean by a theory of mind, and how that has explanatory power.

 

[Ross Dolan]

We have extensive writing, documents, inscriptions, treatises from Classical Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asssyria, Maya culture. There is no indication that anyone was really questioning the morality of slavery, infanticide, and/or human sacrifice.

If you want to think that because "There is no indication that anyone was really questioning the morality of slavery, infanticide, and/or human sacrifice" in the extensive writing, documents etc. of Classical Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. cultures"...that means that IT WAS UNIVERSAL...WITH NO ONE DISSENTING...you are free to do so. I would hope that you can see how seriously that clashes with your later assertion that you have written nothing controversial.

War booty was a basic expectation of the warrior ethos of Greece and Assyria. It must have sucked to be a slave. But to be a slave owner was very advantageous - especially if you look at it from the Darwinian survival of the fittest perspective.

It must have sucked to be a sacrificial victim. But the Mayan or Canaanite culture as a whole considered adult or child ritual sacrifice a religious obligation.

Both true, but so what?

That's not the ethos Jesus was teaching.

What Jesus was teaching, Cypress, is expressed most succinctly in Matthew 5:17ff, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true."

Read "the Law" of which Jesus spoke...of which he said he was not changing in any way...not the smallest letter of it...not even the smallest part of a letter. You will find it mostly in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. THAT IS WHAT JESUS WAS TEACHING. Make no mistake about it.

Even elephants, wolves, and prairie dogs render assistance to family members or cooperate with the pack for mutually advantageous benefit.

Yes, they do. And none that we know of are students of, or influenced significantly, by the teachings of Christianity. They come by this "benefit" (this morality) by dint of common sense.

That is easily explained by principles of Darwinian evolution.

Very little...VERY LITTLE...of what is being discussed here is "easily" explained by anything or anyone.

What Jesus taught was a radical kind of universal love in which compassion and self-sacrifice would be extended beyond the family to even strangers and rivals. That was based on the radical concept that all humans, everywhere, have innate value because they are created in the image of God.

What did Jesus specifically say about slavery? What did Jesus specifically say about abortion, which is now considered a tpe of infanticide by many Christians?

Allow me to quote EVERYTHING he specifically said about that those two things:




Now, with that out of the way, let's move on.

I honestly don't think I have written anything controversial.

I accept that without reservation. I am totally accepting of your assertion that you "honestly don't think" you have written anything controversial. In fact, I accept the implied assertion that you DO THINK that you have not written anything controversial...a subtly different rendition.

Lots of people believe in a concept of absolute right and wrong. And even the moral relativists who say they don't, live their lives as if objective morality exists. It's not a controversial position to take.

The "live their lives as it" stuff would require me to write a book long thesis about the kind of nonsense theists think appropriate to charge against agnostic and atheist types. I'll pass...although I disagree with it as simplistic.

It's widely acknowledged that monotheism and Christianity in particular formed a basis for western ethics. This is not a controversial statement.

But it does not address the morality or basis for ethics elsewhere. I have no idea of why anyone supposes "monotheism" makes more sense than polytheism...other than that is what they have been taught.

The statement is, as you say, not controversial. But then again, neither is the statement, "What is...IS." It is tiring and trite.

Nothing I have said about secular materialists or atheists is not something they haven't said about themselves. The preeminent atheists Nietzche, Camus, Sartre all were willing to face the fact that objective moral truth, meaning, and purpose would not exist in a universe consisting solely of blind physical forces - and that the atheist would have to create their own meaning and moral ethos.

Meh.

 

[gmark77]

I don't know what you specifically mean by a theory of mind, and how that has explanatory power.

Theory of mind is that aspect of humans that allows us to realize others have a mind like we do.

Theory of mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cypress]

Theory of mind is that aspect of humans that allows us to realize others have a mind like we do.

Theory of mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But that's what I mean. It's just the generic title of a category of academic discipline. It doesn't have any specific explanatory power for what this thread was discussing in the past few days.

 

[Cypress]

If you want to think that because "There is no indication that anyone was really questioning the morality of slavery, infanticide, and/or human sacrifice" in the extensive writing, documents etc. of Classical Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. cultures"...that means that IT WAS UNIVERSAL...WITH NO ONE DISSENTING...you are free to do so. I would hope that you can see how seriously that clashes with your later assertion that you have written nothing controversial.


Both true, but so what?


What Jesus was teaching, Cypress, is expressed most succinctly in Matthew 5:17ff, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true."

Read "the Law" of which Jesus spoke...of which he said he was not changing in any way...not the smallest letter of it...not even the smallest part of a letter. You will find it mostly in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. THAT IS WHAT JESUS WAS TEACHING. Make no mistake about it.


Yes, they do. And none that we know of are students of, or influenced significantly, by the teachings of Christianity. They come by this "benefit" (this morality) by dint of common sense.


Very little...VERY LITTLE...of what is being discussed here is "easily" explained by anything or anyone.



What did Jesus specifically say about slavery? What did Jesus specifically say about abortion, which is now considered a tpe of infanticide by many Christians?

Allow me to quote EVERYTHING he specifically said about that those two things:




Now, with that out of the way, let's move on.


I accept that without reservation. I am totally accepting of your assertion that you "honestly don't think" you have written anything controversial. In fact, I accept the implied assertion that you DO THINK that you have not written anything controversial...a subtly different rendition.


The "live their lives as it" stuff would require me to write a book long thesis about the kind of nonsense theists think appropriate to charge against agnostic and atheist types. I'll pass...although I disagree with it as simplistic.



But it does not address the morality or basis for ethics elsewhere. I have no idea of why anyone supposes "monotheism" makes more sense than polytheism...other than that is what they have been taught.

The statement is, as you say, not controversial. But then again, neither is the statement, "What is...IS." It is tiring and trite.

Meh.

You can't take that quote of Jesus in isolation and ignore the rest of the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the New Testament.

Jesus made a distinction, both in his action and words, that it is the moral law of Torah that really counts. The Mosaic civil laws in the Torah that applied to ritual cleanliness, food, animal sacrifice do not apply to Christians, and haven't for two thousand years.


But please feel free to specifically explain why it is radical, controversial, and possibly offensive that:

I believe there is absolute right and wrong;
That I believe Western monotheism was an important foundation for Western ethics;
And for me citing and repeating what the most famous atheist intellectuals of the 20th century said about themselves.


Even the mainstream and uncontroversial Encyclopedia Britannica states that Christian ethics was an important and influential pivot point in the history of Western ethics.

Is Encyclopedia Britannica also being controversial and radical?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/christian-ethics-vs-roman-values.182319/#post-4881385

 

[Ross Dolan]

You can't take that quote of Jesus in isolation and ignore the rest of the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the New Testament.

Jesus made a distinction, both in his action and words, that it is the moral law of Torah that really counts. The Mosaic civil laws in the Torah that applied to ritual cleanliness, food, animal sacrifice do not apply to Christians, and haven't for two thousand years.

Of course, I can. You probably mean I shouldn't...and I agree. I shouldn't.

But the quote attributed to Jesus was so specific...how can anything else he said change it. Or, if you are saying that Jesus was lying, say it outright...and we can deal with that.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true."

Earth certainly has not "passed away." (I do not know about Heaven.) What SPECIFICALLY did Jesus say in that sermon should counteract the passage I quoted. Let's discuss it.

But please feel free to specifically explain why it is radical, controversial, and possibly offensive that:

I believe there is absolute right and wrong;

Nothing whatever. BUT IT MAY BE WRONG.

Do you understand that it may be wrong?

I think there is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong. BUT I ACCEPT WITHOUT QUESTION THAT I MAY BE WRONG.

So I ask again: Do you understand that you may be wrong about that?

That I believe Western monotheism was an important foundation for Western ethics;

Nothing wrong with that at all. I also think that Western monotheism was an important foundation for western ethics and morals.

I find that to be unfortunate. We MIGHT be better off if we had used the foundations used by eastern cultures.

You don't, I suppose?

And for me citing and repeating what the most famous atheist intellectuals of the 20th century said about themselves.

Nothing wrong with that. But consider you might also cite and repeat what Donald Trump says about himself and his "accomplishments."

Said another way: Take it all with a grain or two of salt.

Even the mainstream and uncontroversial Encyclopedia Britannica states that Christian ethics was an important and influential pivot point in the history of Western ethics.

No one here is suggesting otherwise.

Of course it did. Please read what I said above about it possibly being unfortunate that it is so.

Is Encyclopedia Britannica also being controversial and radical?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/christian-ethics-vs-roman-values.182319/#post-4881385

Well...if you mean do I accept it as absolute truth...no I do not. It may indicate the opinions of the editorial staff of the EB, but if they agree with what you are writing here...I disagree with them.

Is there something wrong with that?

 

[Cypress]

Of course, I can. You probably mean I shouldn't...and I agree. I shouldn't.

But the quote attributed to Jesus was so specific...how can anything else he said change it. Or, if you are saying that Jesus was lying, say it outright...and we can deal with that.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true."

Earth certainly has not "passed away." (I do not know about Heaven.) What SPECIFICALLY did Jesus say in that sermon should counteract the passage I quoted. Let's discuss it.


Nothing whatever. BUT IT MAY BE WRONG.

Do you understand that it may be wrong?

I think there is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong. BUT I ACCEPT WITHOUT QUESTION THAT I MAY BE WRONG.

So I ask again: Do you understand that you may be wrong about that?


Nothing wrong with that at all. I also think that Western monotheism was an important foundation for western ethics and morals.

I find that to be unfortunate. We MIGHT be better off if we had used the foundations used by eastern cultures.

You don't, I suppose?



Nothing wrong with that. But consider you might also cite and repeat what Donald Trump says about himself and his "accomplishments."

Said another way: Take it all with a grain or two of salt.


No one here is suggesting otherwise.

Of course it did. Please read what I said above about it possibly being unfortunate that it is so.

Well...if you mean do I accept it as absolute truth...no I do not. It may indicate the opinions of the editorial staff of the EB, but if they agree with what you are writing here...I disagree with them.

Is there something wrong with that?

That's the danger of taking one quote of Jesus, and ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

The Pharisees were constantly complaining about Jesus. Why? Because he wouldn't follow or teach the minutiae of the Mosaic civil and ritual law. Any fair reading of the gospels make it clear his ministry was focused on the moral law of the Torah, not the minutiae of ritual civil laws.

The story of the evolution of Western ethics in a very real sense has been about adding footnotes to the Sermon on the Mount.

Since we don't live in East Asia, I've never seen the point in wishing we grew up in a Eastern traditions. I used to be atheist, and I used to assume that Eastern traditions might possibly be superior to 'barbaric Christians".

I don't see Hindu or Buddhist cultures as necessarily more peaceful and cultured than western societies. The caste system never appealed to me, and China, Japan, and India have been rocked by thousands of years of violence at least as much as Europe. For every instance of witch burning in the West, you can point to equally barbaric practices in the East.

Lastly, I don't think we would recognize the West or the rest of the world without a tradition of Western monotheism. Experimental science, philosophy, and logic are unique to the west, and to a significant degree are related to the monotheistic tradition of the west. The Christian universities were eager to learn and apply the logic of the Greeks, and Western natural philosophers went looking for, and expected to find natural laws in nature because they assumed there was a rational law-giver underlying the universe.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That's the danger of taking one quote of Jesus, and ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

Is there? That one quote stands on its own, Cypress. It was emphatic. Either he meant that completely...or he lied.

You decide which you suppose it to be.

The Pharisees were constantly complaining about Jesus. Why? Because he wouldn't follow or teach the minutiae of the Mosaic civil and ritual law. Any fair reading of the gospels make it clear his ministry was focused on the moral law of the Torah, not the minutiae of ritual civil laws.

Either he meant what was quoted there in Matthew...or he lied.

It was too emphatic to be something else.

You decide which you suppose it to be.

The story of the evolution of Western ethics in a very real sense has been about adding footnotes to the Sermon on the Mount.

That is a bromide. Save it for a tee shirt or a bumper sticker.

Since we don't live in East Asia, I've never seen the point in wishing we grew up in a Eastern traditions. I used to be atheist, and I used to assume that Eastern traditions might possibly be superior to 'barbaric Christians".

Asians do grow up in Asia...and suppose their methods of determining culture and morals are fine. Whether you or I do or do not is neither here nor there in this context.

I don't see Hindu or Buddhist cultures as necessarily more peaceful and cultured than western societies.

Neither do I. But they arrived at their morals and culture without the kind of impact Christianity has had on us. That was my point.

The caste system never appealed to me, and China, Japan, and India have been rocked by thousands of years of violence at least as much as Europe. For every instance of witch burning in the West, you can point to equally barbaric practices in the East.

Correct. But your point?

Lastly, I don't think we would recognize the West or the rest of the world without a tradition of Western monotheism. Experimental science, philosophy, and logic are unique to the west, and to a significant degree are related to the monotheistic tradition of the west. The Christian universities were eager to learn and apply the logic of the Greeks, and Western natural philosophers went looking for, and expected to find natural laws in nature because they assumed there was a rational law-giver underlying the universe.

The notion that monotheism is superior in some way to polytheism or atheism makes no sense to me. A chief god among many lesser gods works as rationally as a single god.

In any case, people who blindly guess there is a god or gods with a "law-giver" reward/punishment clause...is in no way superior to atheism and its idea that animals (including humans when we came along) are clearly able to see what is advantageous to proscribe or encourage.

As a person with agnostic sensibilities...I have no idea of which is the reality. To insist it is one or the other just seems to me to be arguing about whether a decision essentially made by a coin toss...is correct.